Updates on the Trinity and Complementarian Theology
Kevin Giles has been writing for the past 20 years about how some Complementarians have been rewriting the doctrine of the Trinity.
It seems finally the gravity of this problem is sinking in.
Scot McKnight has discussed Kevin's latest book here.
An excerpt for your interest:
Last year Christianity Today did a fairly cutting expose of the motivations and limitations of Grudem's reworking of the Trinity. Again I quote:
"First, while the proponents of homoian complementarianism, as Bird calls it, might argue that their views are consistent with historic Christianity, most scholars and theologians haven't expressed their belief in the Trinity like that and many experts in the field are pretty scathing about it. So it is, to that extent, a new way of talking about this doctrine that is, as Goligher says, open to serious criticism. We should be very slow to accept theological novelties.
Second, the Trinity is one thing and complementarianism is another. While some proponents of the new thinking might deny that they're linked in essence, in practice homoian complementarians have a social agenda. We should be very suspicious of any theology that rewrites millennia of tradition to serve the priorities of the moment.
Third, homoian complementarians are part of a very influential movement in modern theology and churchmanship. It's socially right-wing, deeply conservative and neo-Calvinist, with deep pockets, charismatic and successful figureheads and granite certainties. That doesn't make it right.
Is this way of thinking about the Trinity heresy, or can it sit, however uneasily, alongside a more traditional understanding? This is a discussion that will play out over years, if not decades. But in the meantime, if people really feel they must be complementarians, they would be wise not to ground their views on such a very contentious re-interpretation of the Trinity."
As I noted here, some reasons to be Complementarian are worse than others. Reworking Trinitarian theology is a BAD reason.
It seems finally the gravity of this problem is sinking in.
Scot McKnight has discussed Kevin's latest book here.
An excerpt for your interest:
"Kevin Giles, who all along has been calling out Grudem and
Ware and others, both was the first to call them out and now has written a
small engaging account called The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrineof the Trinity. He has issued statement after statement but the authorities in
the complementarian movement denounced him, ignored him, and therefore silenced
him. But when the Reformed lights... came to his side,
defended him, and denounced the inadequate and wrong-headedness of Grudem and
Ware, the jig was up and suddenly Giles was no longer the bad guy. They will
still largely ignore him, but the truth is out."
Last year Christianity Today did a fairly cutting expose of the motivations and limitations of Grudem's reworking of the Trinity. Again I quote:
"First, while the proponents of homoian complementarianism, as Bird calls it, might argue that their views are consistent with historic Christianity, most scholars and theologians haven't expressed their belief in the Trinity like that and many experts in the field are pretty scathing about it. So it is, to that extent, a new way of talking about this doctrine that is, as Goligher says, open to serious criticism. We should be very slow to accept theological novelties.
Second, the Trinity is one thing and complementarianism is another. While some proponents of the new thinking might deny that they're linked in essence, in practice homoian complementarians have a social agenda. We should be very suspicious of any theology that rewrites millennia of tradition to serve the priorities of the moment.
Third, homoian complementarians are part of a very influential movement in modern theology and churchmanship. It's socially right-wing, deeply conservative and neo-Calvinist, with deep pockets, charismatic and successful figureheads and granite certainties. That doesn't make it right.
Is this way of thinking about the Trinity heresy, or can it sit, however uneasily, alongside a more traditional understanding? This is a discussion that will play out over years, if not decades. But in the meantime, if people really feel they must be complementarians, they would be wise not to ground their views on such a very contentious re-interpretation of the Trinity."
As I noted here, some reasons to be Complementarian are worse than others. Reworking Trinitarian theology is a BAD reason.
Comments