Bob K. Wright

As the discussion of subordinationism unfolds, I notice a curious fact. When the egalitarian offers a non-traditional interpretation of 1 Tim 2, the male-supremacist refers to Gen 3 which, it is claimed, reveals the same subordinationist view of men and women, which he claims is “the creation order.” When we turn to Gen 3, and offer a perfectly normal but non-traditional interpretation of, say, verse 16 as a prediction rather than a prescription, the traditionalist refers us to 1 Tim 2, where, he says, a subordinationaist teaching is found. Neither passages actually teach what the subordinationist claims they do, but one arbitrary traditional interpretation feeds off the other. They “prove” 1 Tim 2 by appeal to Gen 2-3, then prove their view of Gen 2-3 by appeal to 2 Tim 2.
The same thing happens with their claims about the Trinity. They appeal to a subordinationist view of the Trinity to prove the hierarchical view of men vs. women, then appeal to hierarchical views of men and women to prove that that’s how the Trinity works.
It should be obvious that these interpretational moves are arbitrary and circular. Merely providing a reasonable exegetical alternative understanding undermines the whole silly procedure. It’s like the JW’s claiming that “My Father is greater than I” disproves the doctrine of the Trinity. When we point out that this is Jesus referring to his subordinate relation as man in the incarnation, and that this is the economic Trinity unfolding in history, not the ontological Trinity in Eternity prior to creation, and is therefore an important part of the trinitarian doctrine, they turn to other passages and depend on their subordinationist theory because “My father is greater than I.” Huh?? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If we fry the chicken and boil the egg, the question remains. Most people will happily agree that the OT existed in Hebrew long before Paul wrote 1 Timothy, so it would seem that the story in Gen 2-3 should be the place to find male supremacy. But it’s just not there. The “creation order” they think is found in 1 Tim 2 turns out to be a misunderstanding of Gen 3:16 as a prescription instead of a mere prediction, and the animals were created before Adam, so “must” be superior to him, right?
If we need X to prove Y and Y to prove X, no proof of either is available, and we need to start again.
But starting again might lead to egalitarianism, and that’s too scary, so….
I think this is the reason why Bruce Ware can’t talk about the Trinity without appealing to the subordinationism of this view of women. He’s reasoning like a Jehovah’s Witness. Last time Evangelicals did that was with the rise of Socinian Arianism in New England in the 1700s. The result was the destruction of evangelicalism in hundreds of churches, Presbyterian , Congregationalist, Anglican and Baptist, and their replacement by Unitarianism. “Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history (read; Southern Baptist Seminary) are doomed to repeat them.”