Review: The Son Who Learned Obedience (Butner)
This was absolutely fantastic; easily in my top 10 reads of the year. This book takes a very close look at the Trinitarian doctrine known as eternal functional subordination (or, by some, eternal relationships of submission and authority.) This position states that what differentiates Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not relationships of paternity, generation, and procession but relationships of authority and submission. This doctrine in particular focuses on the eternal submission of the Son to the Father, and arose out of the debates surrounding women in ministry. So argue the EFS proponents: just as men and women are equal in essence but differentiated by function, so the Father and the Son possess equally the divine essence but differ in their function and roles.
A personal note: when I first began reading Complementarians this position was taken as a given. I didn't think much about it until many years later when I began exploring the question of the Trinity's relation to sociality more generally.
Too often, the opponents of EFS have focused exclusively on the gender question or the fact that the EFS position is relatively recent in history and (possibly) out of accord with the creeds. Butner's book goes considerably further. First, he broadens his focus beyond the gender debates to the larger questions the EFS position raises. Secondly, he martials historic Trinitarian doctrine to explain why the EFS position is actually a problem--and the reasons are not always what one would expect.
The book is divided into five main chapters. Chapter 1 first lays out the basic positions of the two camps. Then it introduces an important but badly neglected idea about the Trinity: the doctrine of inseparable divine operations which states that the operations of Father, Son, and Spirit are inseparable and identical, not merely coordinated. The doctrine of inseparable operations was key to the early Christian attempt to explain the idea of each person of the Godhead fully sharing in the absolutely unique divine essence. Sacrificing this idea has potentially disastrous consequences since it suggest that Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate actors--making it very difficult to explain how they could be one essence.
Chapter 2 examines the question of Christ's will, and explains the doctrine of diathelitism. Diathelitism is the idea that Christ possessed two wills: one human and one divine. This doctrine developed out of a need to safeguard the fully human nature of Christ and the idea that Christ fulfilled in his humanity obligations that required a concrete human will. One idea that is not at all intuitive today that goes along with diathelitism is the idea that will is a property of a nature (what someone/thing is) and not the property of a person. Diathelitism rules out EFS because it makes will to be a personal property, leading once again to the problem of three wills in the Godhead and the separability of the divine operations.
Chapter 3 is perhaps the most interesting of the book, because it is not a critique that has been leveled by others. Chapter 3 argues that EFS fundamentally compromises the doctrine of the atonement. It does so in three ways: first, because it cannot coherently state that Christ fulfilled the law on behalf of humanity with a human will; second, because EFS requires the atonement be necessary on account of Christ's obligation to the Father from eternity past; and third, because EFS makes the atonement obligatory for Christ, Christ's sacrifice cannot properly serve as a gift on behalf of the rest of humanity.
Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of God, While it was not my favorite chapter, it is probably the most important chapter in the book because it decisively demonstrates that the EFS position is incompatible with key divine attributes such as simplicity, immutability, eternity, omnipotence and omniscience.
Finally, chapter 5 offers a brief but cogent exegetical dfense of the non-EFS position. It shows that none of the verses typically used to justify EFS necessitate such a position. I tend to think Butner did not emphasize nearly enough how these verses would almost certainly never have been taken this way if not for the debates over Feminism that lead to this position being formulated.
Overall, this book is extremely important in the contemporary Evangelical theological scene. Even more impressive is its clarity in explaining some difficult doctrines, and its irenic but firm refutation of a dearly-held position amongst many current Evangelicals. I recommend it without reservation.
I was provided a copy of this book by the author in exchange for an honest review.
A personal note: when I first began reading Complementarians this position was taken as a given. I didn't think much about it until many years later when I began exploring the question of the Trinity's relation to sociality more generally.
Too often, the opponents of EFS have focused exclusively on the gender question or the fact that the EFS position is relatively recent in history and (possibly) out of accord with the creeds. Butner's book goes considerably further. First, he broadens his focus beyond the gender debates to the larger questions the EFS position raises. Secondly, he martials historic Trinitarian doctrine to explain why the EFS position is actually a problem--and the reasons are not always what one would expect.
The book is divided into five main chapters. Chapter 1 first lays out the basic positions of the two camps. Then it introduces an important but badly neglected idea about the Trinity: the doctrine of inseparable divine operations which states that the operations of Father, Son, and Spirit are inseparable and identical, not merely coordinated. The doctrine of inseparable operations was key to the early Christian attempt to explain the idea of each person of the Godhead fully sharing in the absolutely unique divine essence. Sacrificing this idea has potentially disastrous consequences since it suggest that Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate actors--making it very difficult to explain how they could be one essence.
Chapter 2 examines the question of Christ's will, and explains the doctrine of diathelitism. Diathelitism is the idea that Christ possessed two wills: one human and one divine. This doctrine developed out of a need to safeguard the fully human nature of Christ and the idea that Christ fulfilled in his humanity obligations that required a concrete human will. One idea that is not at all intuitive today that goes along with diathelitism is the idea that will is a property of a nature (what someone/thing is) and not the property of a person. Diathelitism rules out EFS because it makes will to be a personal property, leading once again to the problem of three wills in the Godhead and the separability of the divine operations.
Chapter 3 is perhaps the most interesting of the book, because it is not a critique that has been leveled by others. Chapter 3 argues that EFS fundamentally compromises the doctrine of the atonement. It does so in three ways: first, because it cannot coherently state that Christ fulfilled the law on behalf of humanity with a human will; second, because EFS requires the atonement be necessary on account of Christ's obligation to the Father from eternity past; and third, because EFS makes the atonement obligatory for Christ, Christ's sacrifice cannot properly serve as a gift on behalf of the rest of humanity.
Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of God, While it was not my favorite chapter, it is probably the most important chapter in the book because it decisively demonstrates that the EFS position is incompatible with key divine attributes such as simplicity, immutability, eternity, omnipotence and omniscience.
Finally, chapter 5 offers a brief but cogent exegetical dfense of the non-EFS position. It shows that none of the verses typically used to justify EFS necessitate such a position. I tend to think Butner did not emphasize nearly enough how these verses would almost certainly never have been taken this way if not for the debates over Feminism that lead to this position being formulated.
Overall, this book is extremely important in the contemporary Evangelical theological scene. Even more impressive is its clarity in explaining some difficult doctrines, and its irenic but firm refutation of a dearly-held position amongst many current Evangelicals. I recommend it without reservation.
I was provided a copy of this book by the author in exchange for an honest review.
Comments
Post a Comment