What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate
Subordination has been and still is a controversial subject within the church. The concept has been vigorously debated in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity since the fourth century. Certain New Testament texts have made it part of discussions of right relations between men and women. In recent years these two matters have been dramatically brought together. Indeed, today the doctrine of the Trinity is being used to support opposing views of the right relationship between men and women in the church. At the center of the debate is the question of whether or not the orthodox view of the trinitarian relations teach the eternal subordination of the Son of God. In this book Kevin Giles masterfully traces the historic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity from the patristic age to our own times to help resolve this important question. But he does not stop there. Giles goes on to provide an illuminating investigation of a closely related question--whether or not women, even in terms of function or role, were created to be permanently subordinated to men. By surveying the church's traditional interpretation of texts relating to the status of women and inquiring into the proper use of the doctrine of the Trinity, Giles lays out his position in this current debate.
282 pages, Paperback
First published July 10, 2002
4 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 7, 2024
When I first encountered Giles I noticed he was a pastor and was a bit worried that he wouldn’t have the academic chops to tackle this subject. Yet after reading his bio more fully and engaging with his work I have come to love his clarity and concision as well as his liberal use of footnotes.
Giles works intelligently and passionately in what can often be a tedious topic. Giles defends classical trinitarianism against subordinationism in all its forms. He also discusses how this trinitarian heresy is wielded to make claims about the role of women in family and church life.
I appreciated Giles’ clear academic voice and copious footnotes. I also liked how he valued both careful exegetical work, and the historic theological discussions of the church.
Giles defends the classical trinitarian view held by the western church pretty much since Nicea. I do wish I had a better grasp on those debates so as to better critique or endorse his scholarship.
I whole heartedly recommend this work by Giles and I plan on reading more of him in the future.
Giles works intelligently and passionately in what can often be a tedious topic. Giles defends classical trinitarianism against subordinationism in all its forms. He also discusses how this trinitarian heresy is wielded to make claims about the role of women in family and church life.
I appreciated Giles’ clear academic voice and copious footnotes. I also liked how he valued both careful exegetical work, and the historic theological discussions of the church.
Giles defends the classical trinitarian view held by the western church pretty much since Nicea. I do wish I had a better grasp on those debates so as to better critique or endorse his scholarship.
I whole heartedly recommend this work by Giles and I plan on reading more of him in the future.
May 14, 2012
Kevin Giles nobly intended within The Trinity and Subordinationism (T&S) to address a complex theological and cultural issue, namely: “what freedom and responsibilities do women have in a culture that has rejected patriarchalism?” He readily admitted that there were presuppositions guiding both sides of the evangelical man-woman debate, which he referred to as “hierarchical-complementarians” and “egalitarian-complementarians.” Both sides of the dispute have attempted to articulate a biblical response to the social revolution of women’s liberation: “What must be concluded is that, along with egalitarian-complementarians, hierarchical-complementarians have begun interpreting the Bible in a new way because a new cultural context has changed how they understand biblical teaching.” (T&S, p. 167) The problem is that both sides of the dispute believe they have been faithful to the fundamental teachings of Scripture on men and women.
Consistent with his own support of the egalitarian-complementarian position, Giles concluded that hierarchical-complementarians had produced an “interpretative grid” that was predicated on presuppositions not found in the Bible. They were said to have used the language and ideology of “male hegemony” to select and interpret Biblical texts in order to integrate the material into a theological position which ultimately provided “a way of presenting the case for the permanent subordination of women that sounds acceptable to modern ears.” (T&S, pp. 170, 188)
But Giles himself was guilty of using an extra-biblical interpretative grid that ignored contrary information. Benjamin Phillips, a hierarchical-complementarian, referred to this interpretative grid as the egalitarian ontological axiom: “eternal functional subordination entails eternal ontological subordinationism.” I’ll look at examples from Giles’s discussion of Athanasius and Augustine to illustrate how this influenced his discussion.
Kevin Giles thought that in Athanasius was “the most thorough repudiation of the idea that the Son is in any way eternally subordinate to the Father.” He used the phrase “a double account of the Savior” from Athanasius, Against the Arians 3.26.29, and indicated Athanasius used it to refer to a double account of the ministry of the Savior, one eternal and one temporal. “It taught, on the one hand, that the Son is eternally one in being and action with the Father and, on the other hand, that the Son gladly and willingly subordinated himself temporally for us and our salvation.” (T&S, pp. 3, 35 & 37; 40-41) But the eternal/temporal contrast of Giles seems to be read into the discussion. A more accurate rephrasing of the “double account” described here would be: the Son of the Father (being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom) who became the Son of man (human); in other words, a double account or reference to the two natures of Christ.
Giles suggested that Athanasius saw that “the reality of the incarnation” involved the voluntary and temporal (as opposed to eternal) subordination of the Son for our salvation. Yet there does not seem to be a discussion that could be understood as referring to temporal subordination in Against the Arians 3.26.29 or the surrounding sections (3.26.26-30). The Arian argument challenged by Athanasius here emphasized how the temporal limitations of the Son of man were evidence that He was not God. The Arians denied “the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes” which the Savior had by reason of “that flesh He bore.” But Athanasius responded by declaring that “He is inseparable from the Father. . . . He has the Father’s eternity.” (Schaff, P. [1997]. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. IV [409]. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. Against the Arians, 3.26.28) Athanasius challenged the Arians by asserting that the Word was the eternal Son of the Father who became the Son of man. So it does not seem likely that Athanasius would refer here to a temporal subordination of the Son; it was too close to the Arian position. While the voluntary sense of the Son’s becoming human is clear (He emptied or humbled Himself), the qualification of temporal has been inferred by Giles into what Athanasius actually said.
Giles also seems to attribute a quote to Athanasius in Against the Arians 3.25.10, that was actually a reference to the Arian understanding of oneness between the Father and the Son. The following is quoted from Against the Arians 3.25.10. The section attributed to Athanasius by Giles is in bold.
Building upon his argument against the “unseemingly and irrational” Arian notion that the oneness between the Father and the Son is the result of their oneness in will, Anthansius said: “the likeness and oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son.” Unless it is understood in this way, the Son will not be shown to have anything beyond that which was created. Nor will He be like the Father, but rather be like the Father’s doctrines. “Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence.” So if the Son is merely like the Father in respect to the Father’s doctrines and teaching, “then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image.” Rather, the Son will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father.
Giles also categorically denied that Augustine ever said that the Father commanded and the Son obeyed: “Augustine never depicts the Father as commanding and the Son obeying.” (T&S, p. 47)
Beginning in book two, chapter five, section 7 of On the Trinity, Augustine discussed how some individuals wrongly argued that the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent; and then concluded that: “the Father is greater than the Son.” Augustine demonstrated that he who is sent is not less then the one who sends. As he developed his argument, Augustine suggested that perhaps his meaning would be more plainly unfolded if he asked in what manner God sent His Son. Augustine then said, the incarnate Son was sent by both the eternal (invisible) Father and the eternal (invisible) Son.
The eternal Father and the eternal Son together sent the incarnate Son. And yet this mutual sending can be understood as the eternal Father commanding the eternal Son. Rhetorically Augustine asked who would be impious enough to claim that the Father had commanded or sent the eternal Son without the Son’s willing participation in the sending?
Read The Trinity & Subordinationism with caution. The interpretative grid of the egalitarian ontological axiom— eternal functional subordination entails eternal ontological subordinationism—seems active in Giles’ presentation and discussion of his evidence.
Consistent with his own support of the egalitarian-complementarian position, Giles concluded that hierarchical-complementarians had produced an “interpretative grid” that was predicated on presuppositions not found in the Bible. They were said to have used the language and ideology of “male hegemony” to select and interpret Biblical texts in order to integrate the material into a theological position which ultimately provided “a way of presenting the case for the permanent subordination of women that sounds acceptable to modern ears.” (T&S, pp. 170, 188)
But Giles himself was guilty of using an extra-biblical interpretative grid that ignored contrary information. Benjamin Phillips, a hierarchical-complementarian, referred to this interpretative grid as the egalitarian ontological axiom: “eternal functional subordination entails eternal ontological subordinationism.” I’ll look at examples from Giles’s discussion of Athanasius and Augustine to illustrate how this influenced his discussion.
Kevin Giles thought that in Athanasius was “the most thorough repudiation of the idea that the Son is in any way eternally subordinate to the Father.” He used the phrase “a double account of the Savior” from Athanasius, Against the Arians 3.26.29, and indicated Athanasius used it to refer to a double account of the ministry of the Savior, one eternal and one temporal. “It taught, on the one hand, that the Son is eternally one in being and action with the Father and, on the other hand, that the Son gladly and willingly subordinated himself temporally for us and our salvation.” (T&S, pp. 3, 35 & 37; 40-41) But the eternal/temporal contrast of Giles seems to be read into the discussion. A more accurate rephrasing of the “double account” described here would be: the Son of the Father (being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom) who became the Son of man (human); in other words, a double account or reference to the two natures of Christ.
Giles suggested that Athanasius saw that “the reality of the incarnation” involved the voluntary and temporal (as opposed to eternal) subordination of the Son for our salvation. Yet there does not seem to be a discussion that could be understood as referring to temporal subordination in Against the Arians 3.26.29 or the surrounding sections (3.26.26-30). The Arian argument challenged by Athanasius here emphasized how the temporal limitations of the Son of man were evidence that He was not God. The Arians denied “the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes” which the Savior had by reason of “that flesh He bore.” But Athanasius responded by declaring that “He is inseparable from the Father. . . . He has the Father’s eternity.” (Schaff, P. [1997]. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. IV [409]. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. Against the Arians, 3.26.28) Athanasius challenged the Arians by asserting that the Word was the eternal Son of the Father who became the Son of man. So it does not seem likely that Athanasius would refer here to a temporal subordination of the Son; it was too close to the Arian position. While the voluntary sense of the Son’s becoming human is clear (He emptied or humbled Himself), the qualification of temporal has been inferred by Giles into what Athanasius actually said.
Giles also seems to attribute a quote to Athanasius in Against the Arians 3.25.10, that was actually a reference to the Arian understanding of oneness between the Father and the Son. The following is quoted from Against the Arians 3.25.10. The section attributed to Athanasius by Giles is in bold.
For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father’s teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this. Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? For if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father it follows forthwith that the Angels too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God’s Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. (Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. IV (399). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. Against the Arians 3.25.10)
Building upon his argument against the “unseemingly and irrational” Arian notion that the oneness between the Father and the Son is the result of their oneness in will, Anthansius said: “the likeness and oneness must be referred to the very Essence of the Son.” Unless it is understood in this way, the Son will not be shown to have anything beyond that which was created. Nor will He be like the Father, but rather be like the Father’s doctrines. “Paul taught like the Saviour, yet was not like Him in essence.” So if the Son is merely like the Father in respect to the Father’s doctrines and teaching, “then the Father according to them will be Father in name only, and the Son will not be an exact Image.” Rather, the Son will be seen to have no propriety at all or likeness of the Father.
Giles also categorically denied that Augustine ever said that the Father commanded and the Son obeyed: “Augustine never depicts the Father as commanding and the Son obeying.” (T&S, p. 47)
Beginning in book two, chapter five, section 7 of On the Trinity, Augustine discussed how some individuals wrongly argued that the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent; and then concluded that: “the Father is greater than the Son.” Augustine demonstrated that he who is sent is not less then the one who sends. As he developed his argument, Augustine suggested that perhaps his meaning would be more plainly unfolded if he asked in what manner God sent His Son. Augustine then said, the incarnate Son was sent by both the eternal (invisible) Father and the eternal (invisible) Son.
He commanded that He should come, and He, complying with the commandment, came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? But whichever of these it was, certainly it was done by a word, and the Word of God is the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, since the Father sent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Father and His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and the Son, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For who would embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to have uttered a word in time, in order that the eternal Son might thereby be sent and might appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? (Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III, On the Trinity, 2.9. (41). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.)
The eternal Father and the eternal Son together sent the incarnate Son. And yet this mutual sending can be understood as the eternal Father commanding the eternal Son. Rhetorically Augustine asked who would be impious enough to claim that the Father had commanded or sent the eternal Son without the Son’s willing participation in the sending?
Read The Trinity & Subordinationism with caution. The interpretative grid of the egalitarian ontological axiom— eternal functional subordination entails eternal ontological subordinationism—seems active in Giles’ presentation and discussion of his evidence.
August 9, 2014
Това е втората книга на Кевин Джилс (и първият автор), на която давам пълна петица. Jesus and the father развива темата за субординацията в Троицата по-подробно, след като е взела под внимание някои възражения и е рафинирала аргументите си. По този начин докато разглеждаме тясно въпроса тя е по-добра. The trinity and subordinationism обаче извежда въпроса на една по-широка основа. От една страна тя търси причините за самото възникване на спора. Според автора те не са свързани с едно чисто егзегетическо разглеждане и формулиране на абстрактно богословие, а в основата си представляват търсене на богословско основание за защита на комплиментарната позиция по отношение на жените (нещо, което според мен е несъмнено). Д-р Джилс изхожда от това и оттук нататък, след първата част, неговата аргументация поема по път по-различен от очакваното. Това, което той прави е да търси херменевтическите принципи стоящи зад подобни богословски конструкции добавяйки към въпроса за Троицата и проблемите за робството и подчинението на жените в семейството и църквата. Именно тук аз намирам основната сила на изложението, заради което давам 5 звезди.
Джилс отбелязва няколко неща, които намирам за много важни: (1) Разрешаването на даден богословски спор често не може да се случи единствено чрез цитиране на отделни стихове и пасажи и тяхната внимателна егзегетика. Всъщност според него това би трябвало да е видно от арианския спор през 4 век, който е пряко свързан със субординацията в на Сина. Според Атансий и Августин преди да се насочим към отделителен пасажи ние трябва да разберем основния "тон" на цялото Писание. (2) Нашият прочит на библията в никакъв случай и никога не е чисто неутрален. Всеки човек идва до текста носейки свои определени предубеждения, които му служат като един вид "лещи" или "очила" през които той вижда значението на това, което чете. (3) По този начин не е странно, че различните исторически периоди, които бележат промяна на парадигмата в цялостното отношение към някои въпроси може да окаже влияние върху начина, по който ние четем библията. Така например общественото отношение към робството исторически е оказало огромно влияние върху начина, по който християните четат свързаните с него библейски пасажи. В древността, когато то е било виждано от всички не само като естествена, а дори като необходима институция християните са намирали повече от достатъчност доводи да го защитават докато в съвремието радикално променят своите заключения четейки същите тези стихове. Това не означава, че нашето богословие е изцяло определяно от културата, но да се отрича, че културата оказва влияние върху него е наивно. (4) Съществува голяма опасност социалните конструкции, които изграждаме и защитаваме на основата на библията да се ок��жат просто оправдание на нашите властови интереси и разбиране за съответното време (робството, подчинението на жените, формата на държавно управление, достъп на определени групи хора до образование и участие в управлението или апартейда в ЮАР). (5) Богословските конструкции никога не могат да бъдат чисто теоретични и трябва винаги да са свързани с реалните проблеми от живота. Нещо повече те не могат да бъдат изграждани единствено със събиране и подреждане на библейски материал по даден въпрос понеже библията често не говори директно за някои съвременни въпроси (наркотици, евтаназия и т.н.). (6) Трябва да бъдем внимателни когато се опитваме да извлечем "принципите" стоящи зад определени обществени конструкции отразени в библията. Например когато настояват, че дори да не можем да защитаваме робството днес то принципа на подчинение зад него може да се приложи към отношенията между работодастел-работник това води със себе си някои значителни опасности от изопачение на тези отношения. (7) Богословската традиция е важен източник на богословие, но в същото време тя не е безгрешна. И т.н.
В някои отношения Джилс не е напълно ясен (или аз не успявам да го разбера достатъчно добре), така че не мога да кажа, че безрезервно подкрепям всичко написано от него (виж краткото разглеждане на М. Ериксън в Who's tampering with the Trinity). Все пак аз намирам неговата херменевтическа ориентираност към спора за изключително ценна и мъдра.
В крайна сметка, (макар разбира се да е пристрастно) моето усещане е, че д-р Джилс представя виждането си твърде убедително. Това, което той прави не е просто поредния егзегетичен сблъсък и анализ на стихове,а нещо много по-широко осмислено. Дори някой да не е съгласен с изводите, до които авторът достига самият модел и начин, по който той "прави" богословие има какво да ни каже. В това отношение (а мисля, че и в някои други) книгата би била полезна на (почти) всеки с интерес към тематиката.
Джилс отбелязва няколко неща, които намирам за много важни: (1) Разрешаването на даден богословски спор често не може да се случи единствено чрез цитиране на отделни стихове и пасажи и тяхната внимателна егзегетика. Всъщност според него това би трябвало да е видно от арианския спор през 4 век, който е пряко свързан със субординацията в на Сина. Според Атансий и Августин преди да се насочим към отделителен пасажи ние трябва да разберем основния "тон" на цялото Писание. (2) Нашият прочит на библията в никакъв случай и никога не е чисто неутрален. Всеки човек идва до текста носейки свои определени предубеждения, които му служат като един вид "лещи" или "очила" през които той вижда значението на това, което чете. (3) По този начин не е странно, че различните исторически периоди, които бележат промяна на парадигмата в цялостното отношение към някои въпроси може да окаже влияние върху начина, по който ние четем библията. Така например общественото отношение към робството исторически е оказало огромно влияние върху начина, по който християните четат свързаните с него библейски пасажи. В древността, когато то е било виждано от всички не само като естествена, а дори като необходима институция християните са намирали повече от достатъчност доводи да го защитават докато в съвремието радикално променят своите заключения четейки същите тези стихове. Това не означава, че нашето богословие е изцяло определяно от културата, но да се отрича, че културата оказва влияние върху него е наивно. (4) Съществува голяма опасност социалните конструкции, които изграждаме и защитаваме на основата на библията да се ок��жат просто оправдание на нашите властови интереси и разбиране за съответното време (робството, подчинението на жените, формата на държавно управление, достъп на определени групи хора до образование и участие в управлението или апартейда в ЮАР). (5) Богословските конструкции никога не могат да бъдат чисто теоретични и трябва винаги да са свързани с реалните проблеми от живота. Нещо повече те не могат да бъдат изграждани единствено със събиране и подреждане на библейски материал по даден въпрос понеже библията често не говори директно за някои съвременни въпроси (наркотици, евтаназия и т.н.). (6) Трябва да бъдем внимателни когато се опитваме да извлечем "принципите" стоящи зад определени обществени конструкции отразени в библията. Например когато настояват, че дори да не можем да защитаваме робството днес то принципа на подчинение зад него може да се приложи към отношенията между работодастел-работник това води със себе си някои значителни опасности от изопачение на тези отношения. (7) Богословската традиция е важен източник на богословие, но в същото време тя не е безгрешна. И т.н.
В някои отношения Джилс не е напълно ясен (или аз не успявам да го разбера достатъчно добре), така че не мога да кажа, че безрезервно подкрепям всичко написано от него (виж краткото разглеждане на М. Ериксън в Who's tampering with the Trinity). Все пак аз намирам неговата херменевтическа ориентираност към спора за изключително ценна и мъдра.
В крайна сметка, (макар разбира се да е пристрастно) моето усещане е, че д-р Джилс представя виждането си твърде убедително. Това, което той прави не е просто поредния егзегетичен сблъсък и анализ на стихове,а нещо много по-широко осмислено. Дори някой да не е съгласен с изводите, до които авторът достига самият модел и начин, по който той "прави" богословие има какво да ни каже. В това отношение (а мисля, че и в някои други) книгата би била полезна на (почти) всеки с интерес към тематиката.
February 5, 2015
This is an interesting book on the subject of subordinationism. Specifically, subordinationism as it relates to the Trinity, as well as to the subordination of women (which Giles argues is often derived and grounded in a subordinationist understanding of the Trinity). Giles appeals to patristic writers to support his belief in a unilateral rejection of permanent subordination of Jesus to the Father, mostly with Athanasius. Unfortunately, Giles is most certainly not a patristic scholar (nor does he claim to be) and those that are have long repudiated Giles position on them. In fact, as other reviews have demonstrated, Giles is at times overtly deceptive in his misquotation of patristic writings.
Despite these short comings, I enjoyed the issues Giles raised in his book. Are there in fact ontological implications in the relation between the subordination found in the immanent trinity to the ontological trinity? Is subordination an ontological distinctive? Should subordination within the trinity have implication for other social relationships, particularly between men and women?
What I didn't enjoy so much was the amount of time Giles allocated to his egalitarian views (more than 50% of the book). Particularly because his views are rooted in a sort of epistemic nihilism. Regarding social institutions (which Giles deems the relation between men and women), he believes cultural practices are the measure for a proper hermeneutic. Therefore, since modern culture (since the 1970s anyway) has re-evaluated the relationship between men and women, then we should too and thereby adopt these values (how one determines the rightness of cultural values is not explained) into our hermeneutical methodology. This is a slippery slope that Giles is quite obviously not prepared to deal with (his short appendix on homosexuality demonstrates this).
I rated the book three stars as I valued the issues raised and the problems and inconsistencies Giles does accurately point out that often manifest in the evangelical community on the issues raised. But given the shoddy reasoning and overtly deceptive use of patristic writers, I would caution any prospective reader to consider that before committing to this book.
Despite these short comings, I enjoyed the issues Giles raised in his book. Are there in fact ontological implications in the relation between the subordination found in the immanent trinity to the ontological trinity? Is subordination an ontological distinctive? Should subordination within the trinity have implication for other social relationships, particularly between men and women?
What I didn't enjoy so much was the amount of time Giles allocated to his egalitarian views (more than 50% of the book). Particularly because his views are rooted in a sort of epistemic nihilism. Regarding social institutions (which Giles deems the relation between men and women), he believes cultural practices are the measure for a proper hermeneutic. Therefore, since modern culture (since the 1970s anyway) has re-evaluated the relationship between men and women, then we should too and thereby adopt these values (how one determines the rightness of cultural values is not explained) into our hermeneutical methodology. This is a slippery slope that Giles is quite obviously not prepared to deal with (his short appendix on homosexuality demonstrates this).
I rated the book three stars as I valued the issues raised and the problems and inconsistencies Giles does accurately point out that often manifest in the evangelical community on the issues raised. But given the shoddy reasoning and overtly deceptive use of patristic writers, I would caution any prospective reader to consider that before committing to this book.
November 30, 2012
I really enjoyed this book... and while a lot of my conservative and reformed friends are "scandalized" by that, I would just point out who commends the book (esp Roger Nicole).
But as to the actual book itself... it is very well written. Giles is brilliant... He overstates his case on occasion, yet, the importance of the book lies in that it is a much needed corrective to the excesses in the conservative right of evangelicalism. Giles, is considered by many to be a liberal and an advocate of feminism... the latter being closer to a fair representation than the former, but still a bit of stretch.
What I will say, is that while I do not agree with the ordination of women, or other places that Giles takes his theological conclusions, I do believe that he is fairer and more honest with the historical and exegetical data than his critics are... and his ideas must be engaged.
A very important Trinitarian theologian indeed.
But as to the actual book itself... it is very well written. Giles is brilliant... He overstates his case on occasion, yet, the importance of the book lies in that it is a much needed corrective to the excesses in the conservative right of evangelicalism. Giles, is considered by many to be a liberal and an advocate of feminism... the latter being closer to a fair representation than the former, but still a bit of stretch.
What I will say, is that while I do not agree with the ordination of women, or other places that Giles takes his theological conclusions, I do believe that he is fairer and more honest with the historical and exegetical data than his critics are... and his ideas must be engaged.
A very important Trinitarian theologian indeed.
Want to read
July 16, 2007This has been on my to read for several years!
August 25, 2016
Informative!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews