Wade Burleson Falsely Accuses Southern Baptists of Semi-Arianism

For six months or so, Enid, Oklahoma pastor, Wade Burleson set blogging aside to focus on other more pressing issues. Those who have kept up with the posts Burleson has published for approximately the past two years, have surely noted that he does not avoid controversy.

To the contrary, he faces it head on, so to speak.

Even more, there are some who sense that when no real controversy exists, Rev. Burleson heads to his laboratory, mixes a secret formula and pumps it into the water supply of the SBC. I do not know if that is true; I do know that it appears to be so at times.

Most recently, Burleson wrote three articles chastising the SBC for its sub-Christian leanings. One concerned behavior and the other two belief. Burleson accused the SBC of acting like a "cult" even if they were not one. As for belief, twice he cited the "Arian" direction toward which some SBC theologians--especially Drs. Al Mohler, Russell Moore and Paige Patterson--were pushing the SBC, charging them with "heretical teachings."

The way I understand Burleson, he believes that "the doctrine of eternal subordination" is heresy since The Council of Nicaea condemned it as such. He writes: "...eternal subordination of the Trinity is heresy according to the Nicaen counsel" [sic].

And, according to Burleson, there is apparently a "growing semi-Arianism in the SBC", especially among those theologians that are affiliated with The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a theological think tank of diverse evangelical theologians committed to a decidedly complementarian view of gender revealed in biblical revelation.   Again Burleson laments:

"The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person. The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father as a basis for their hierarchal view that the female is to be subordinate to the male"

I questioned Burleson, asking him to name the SBC theologians who were propagating this alleged "peculiar" view which has "more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person" and to cite the sources. The best he could offer was Wayne Grudem--a non-Southern Baptist theologian--after which Mr. Burleson went stone cold silent.

More importantly, at least to me, is Burleson's charge of "heretical teaching" hurled toward these eminent, accomplished professors based upon Burleson's one line of proof--The Council of Nicaea. For me, not only is this odd, it is tragically ridiculous on its face.

While I am sure most Southern Baptists would have little, if any, reserve in the affirmations The Nicene Creed asserts, the Southern Baptist Convention does not recognize The Nicene Creed as a confession of our faith. The only confession we possess is The Baptist Faith and Message, which professors agree to teach "in accordance with" and "not contrary to." We definitively do not have any requirement that says professors are to teach in accordance with and not contrary to The Nicene Creed.

Nonetheless, even supposing we did have such a stipulation, Burleson convolutes what many evangelical theologians mean by "eternal subordination of the Son" and specifically what The Council of Nicaea rejected--Arianism. While the views of the Alexandrian bishop, Arius, were refused after vigorous debate (but only thoroughly and definitively condemned in later councils), what modern evangelicals mean by "subordination" is not even close to what Arius advocated. His view is captured in the popular theological bumper sticker--"there was a time when he [that is Jesus, the second person of the trinity] was not." Perhaps the closest modern day Arians are Jehovah's Witnesses.

To be fair, Burleson is not so dreadfully careless as to equate the alleged "subordination" views of SBC theologians with the views of Arius proper, charging them with denying the full deity of Jesus Christ as did the Arians, against which The Council of Nicaea contended. Instead Burleson softens the charge by labeling their view as "Semi-Arianism." The difficulty Burleson faces, however, is painfully obvious to anyone who reads at the most elementary level about "Semi-Arianism."

First, Semi-Arianism was not in any way the concern of the first council of Nicaea. Indeed, Semi-Arianism arose from the debates of the council itself, being spearheaded by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. From The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. to The Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., up to eighty intervening councils took place, many of which were sympathetic with Eusebius's Semi-Arianism.

Secondly, Semi-Arianism as employed by Burleson is not the Semi-Arianism of the fourth century. Historic Semi-Arianism held by Eusebius and others attempted to be a "half-way" view between Arius and Orthodoxy. For them, while the Second Person of the Trinity was unlike any other created being, thus making him unique and even worthy of worship, nevertheless he was not of the same substance of the Father either, since, for them, God cannot share that essence with any other entity. Instead, he was of like--not same but similar--substance with the Father. Though the Medieval church was reluctant in fully rejecting this view, they finally did.

For Burleson, however, Semi-Arianism has to do with what he believes to be an illegitimate analogy between the "eternal subordination of the Son to the Father" and the "eternal subordination of the female to male." This incredibly confusing assertion must be torture for historians of theology to consider.

Thirdly, Burleson continues to suggest that contemporary Southern Baptist theologians are peddling a "new," "odd," "bazaar," "novel," peculiar," doctrine which he outright charges as "heretical teaching."   This "new" teaching, Burleson calls "the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father."  Incidentally, Burleson, even after dubbing this "new" teaching as both "heretical" and "unorthodox" strangely asserts we should, in the name of Christian love, accept them in fellowship: 

"I do believe that we should accept our brothers (and a few sisters) in Christ who are arguing for "eternal subordination," and we should always treat them with Christian love and respect, but we should never be shy to challenge their unorthodox views of the Trinity." (emphasis mine)

Since when is it "love and respect" to tolerate either unorthodoxy or heresy?  If one's view of God's being is unorthodox and/or heretical, how is it that fellowship with them in the faith could ever be a reality on any genuine level?

That aside, in the comment thread, I mentioned the fine distinction theologians typically make in referring to subordination: "...theologians distinguish between subordination of essence and subordination of function. While the former has been thoroughly rejected by orthodoxy through the centuries, the latter has not."

By that is simply meant that although Christ was one in essence with the Father and has been so for all eternity--that is, there never was a time when He was not--there is a theological thread in the NT which clearly teaches that Jesus was subordinate in duty, in following the Father's will, in obedience, even to the death of the Cross. Hence, His "office" was subordinate.

To this, Burleson casually but confidently replied: ' "functional" subordination is a nice way of saying subordinate in essence. There is no subordination in the Trinity.' 

Personally, I thought this outright dismissal of the careful thinking of evangelical theologians to be a pint shy of unteachable, simplistic ignorance. Either Burleson is unaware of what has been argued by theologians concerning the eternal relations within the Trinity, is aware of it but refuses to engage it, or was aware of it but simply forgot its rich history, even among Southern Baptist theologians.

Either way--aside from the genuine sincerity which Burleson no doubt possesses in holding his view--his reckless charge of "heretical teaching" toward evangelicals in general and Southern Baptists in particular for teaching a sophisticated and biblically nuanced "subordination of the Son to the Father" is incredibly irresponsible at best but sadly an outright, slanderous and baseless, false accusation at worst. His readers ought to hold him accountable.

That said, I thought I would assemble a few of the many quotes from theologians of the past and present that could be marshaled in defense of a subordination of function while retaining a non-subordination of essence (being). Consider the following quotes:

• A. A. Hodge: "In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and operation..."

• William G.T. Shedd: "While there is this absolute equality among the Divine persons in respect to the grade of being to which they belong, and all are alike infinite and uncreated in nature and essence, there is at the same time a kind of subordination among them. It is trinitarian, or filial subordination; that is, subordination in respect to order and relationship... The trinitarian subordination of person, not of essence, must not be confounded with the Arian and Semi-Arian subordination, which is a subordination of essence as well as of person.

• James P. Boyce: "But there is also a subordination of office or rank still more plainly taught. By virtue of this, the Father sends the Son, and the Father and Son send the Spirit. This could exist between persons in all respects equal to each other, both in nature and relation. In God, however, it is probable that the official subordination is based upon that of the personal relations. It corresponds exactly with the relations of the persons, from which has probably resulted their official subordination in works without, and especially in the work of redemption. The order of this subordination is plainly apparent from the scriptural names and statements about the relations.The Father is unquestionably first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. This is their rank, as well because of the mode of subsistence, as of its order. Hence they are commonly spoken of in this order, as the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity.

• J. L. Dagg: "According to the covenant arrangement, the Son appeared in human nature, in the form of a servant; and, after obeying unto death, was exalted by the Father to supreme dominion. The Holy Spirit also is revealed as acting in a subordinate office, being sent by the Father and by the Son. The Father alone is not presented as acting in a subordinate office; but appears as sustaining the full authority of the Godhead, sending the Son, giving him a people to be redeemed, prescribing the terms, accepting the service, rewarding and glorifying the Son, and sending the Holy Spirit. In all this the Father appears as the representative of the Godhead, in its authority and majesty... . In this order of operation, inferiority of nature is not implied, in the subordination of office to which the Son and the Spirit voluntarily consent. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in each of the divine persons, and renders the fulfillment of the covenant infallibly sure, in all its stipulations."

• E. Y. Mullins: "In his incarnate life he [Christ] is sometimes represented as being subordinate to the Father. This is due to the human conditions and the life of obedience. It does not detract from the reality of his deity... . "We should keep clearly in mind the aim in any effort to express in words the doctrine of Christ’s person. It is to unify our impressions of Jesus as he stands forth in the New Testament and in Christian experience generally. This involves his preexistence, his deity, his sinlessness, his humanity with its humiliations and limitations of knowledge, his subordination, along with his equality with the Father."

• Millard J. Erickson: "The Trinity is eternal. There have always been three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and all of them have always been divine...The function of one member of the Trinity may for a time be subordinate to one or both of the other members, but that does not mean he is in any way inferior in essence.  Each of the three persons of the Trinity, has had, for a period of time, a particular function unique to himself...the Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father's will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are."

• Donald Bloesch: "Against the subordinationists the early church insisted that though the members of the Trinity have different functions they are equal and co-eternal. While there is a distribution of functions of the trinity in the activities of creation and redemption, there is no subordination of one over the other in the essential life within the Godhead. 

• John Frame: "But although the church has officially denied the ontological subordination of Arianism, it has affirmed economic subordinationism among the persons of the Trinity. That is, the Persons of the Trinity voluntarily subordinate themselves to one another in the roles they perform in respect to creation...To sum up then, biblical Trinitarianism denies ontological subordination, but affirms economic subordination of various kinds. 

• Norman Geisler: "[Subordinationism] asserts that the Son is subordinate in nature to the Father. Subordinationism is not to be confused with the orthodox belief that the Son (Christ) is functionally subordinate to (i.e., subject to) the Father, though essentially equal with Him" (all embolden mine for emphasis).  

As one can see, both historically and contemporarily, theologians from diverse backgrounds are anything but reluctant to speak in terms of subordination within the Trinitarian members--if and only if the subordination is that other than essence. Biblically-committed scholars never sacrifice the Godness of Jesus Christ in formulating their understanding of the Holy Trinity. 

Why, then, Wade Burleson charges Southern Baptist theologians with "heretical teaching" must be answered from an alternate agenda. And for that, I have not the slightest idea how to proceed. He needs to answer that himself.

Nevertheless, to charge SBC leadership--as does Wade Burleson--with dishonesty, heresy and acting like a cult is a big gun to shoot. Those bullets are deadly from my point of view. 

And, one who dares fire that pistol deserves himself the strictest accountability. Those who read Burleson are obligated as good Bereans to test his sources to see if those things are so.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Robin Foster]

Peter

As usual, thorough and accurate. I myself was also baffled by the accusations. While most can read what he said and realize the absurdity, the men who have been accused of heresy needed to be affirmed in their beliefs. Thanks!

[Dave Miller]

When I first read Wade's article, I was surprised. I had always been taught Eternal Subordination (or whatever the doctrine is called), and assumed it was standard, orthodox teaching. I was surprised at his assertion that this was something new and innovative.

I am glad that Wade wrote it, because it caused me to study something I had never researched.

After a lot of study, I have come to a simple conclusion - Wade is absolutely wrong on this one. This is not an innovation, it is the standard doctrine of Christian orthodoxy through time. It is biblical. And it is crucial.

He constantly fails to distinguish equality of essence from subordination of office (or role) as orthodoxy has always done.

It appears to me that Gilbert Bilizikian and other "evangelical feminists" (which, actually, Wade claims not to be) have reworked the doctrine of the trinity so that they can do away with the teaching of submission.

[Big Daddy Weave]

Peter,

As you know, the controversy over the suggestion that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God most recently went public back in 2006 at the annual meeting of ETS with Bruce Ware's paper presentation.

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to cite Millard Erickson "in defense of subordination of function" here in your blog post? After all, back in 2006, Erickson was one of the chief critics of Ware's thesis. It's kinda odd that you are citing a member of the egalitarian Christians for Biblical Equality in support of a position put forth by folks like Bruce Ware of the complementarian Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

I cited a number of theologians with whom I disagree. Most of them were 5 point Calvinists! Did you not note that?

My point was to demonstrate the rich discussion of the eternal relations within the Godhead from a decidedly evangelical point of view, not to leave out, of course, three distinguished and historic Southern Baptist theologues--Boyce, Dagg, and Mullins.

So, to assert my quote from Erickson as a possible "disingenuous" citation is, frankly, absurd. Besides, his view is found on pp.338-339, Vol. I of his Systematic Theology. An extended monograph is found in his subsequent work "God in Three Persons." Unless I misquoted him, what is the problem, BDW?

Moreover, while I do not know the circumstances surrounding his fuller critique of Ware, my guess is, it had more to do with what he perceived as non sequitar in employing the analogy of the Trinity specifically gender issues. As I say, I don't know that; just a guess.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Thanks for the imput. By the way. Are you scared yet? I am. Twice in a row you've logged on and we have agreed. :^)

Grace, my brother.

Robin,

Always a pleasure. Wade is a decent writer. Why he so unhesitatingly continues to put his theological foot in his mouth is strange.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Big Daddy Weave]

Peter,

My point dealt with Erickson and Erickson alone. I need not address the many other citations you provided in order to make a point about Millard Erickson! To suggest such is, um, absurd.

I have not read Erickson's volume. I do not own Erickson's volume. However, based on his strong disagreement with Bruce Ware at the 2006 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I would suggest that the quote you have provided in your blog post misrepresents his views. At that conference, Erickson argued that the eternal subordinationist view held by Ware undermines his affirmation of equality in essence. The practice of prooftexting often leads to the misrepresentation of a person's theology...

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

Let's see if I get this straight: you have not read Erickson's 3 volume set, standardizing his fundamental theological position. Nor do you own Erickson's volumes which standardizes Erickson's theological position, not to mention his monograph on the Trinity I mentioned.

Nonetheless, because you know of a paper Erickson presented, disagreeing with some part of Bruce Ware--whose cow I did not milk but whom you dragged into my barn and commenced to squeeze teats--my citation is, therefore, reduced to the "practice of prooftexting [which] often leads to the misrepresentation of a person's theology..."

I think that is simply stellar logic, BDW. I'm just goin to have to go to me a Law school and get me sum of dat dare book smarts :^)

Unless, you can show I skewed Erickson--and you'll have to read him to do that, I'm afraid--I do not think your point is well taken.

I do wish you a great afternoon, though. With that, I am...

Peter

[Big Daddy Weave]

Peter,

Are you capable of dialgoue without being an arrogant ass? Seriously. You find a way to personally insult every person that attempts to engage you on the substance of your argument.

[Bill]

Dave: So are you suggesting that the idea that the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father is in fact the real heresy, and that eternal subordination is the orthodox view?

[Dave Miller]

BDW and Peter,

I think, if you read Erickson closely, his statement will explain the difference. Erickson (and most of the evangelical feminists) admit that Jesus was subordinate to the Father during his earthly ministry. Erickson states that in the quote Peter mentioned above.

The more historical view has been that the subordination of office or role is eternal. The feminist/modern view is that the subordination ONLY took place during Jesus' earthly ministry, after he emptied himself (Philippians 2).

However, the Scriptures would tend, in my opinion, to fall on the side of the Eternal Subordination of the Second person of the Trinity to the first.

And, yes, Peter. I plan to disagree with your next post, regardless.

[Dave Miller]

Bill, I saw your question after I posted above. I never used the word heresy. I am not sure that I would use it.

However, I am asserting that the Eternal Subordination of Christ has been the historic view of orthodox Christian theologies.

Whether denying the Eternal Subordination of Christ is a heresy, I am very reluctant to use that word. To me, a heretic denies doctrine essential to the faith.

So, I disagree (strongly) with Wade's view, but I would not call it heresy.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear BDW,

You're just a big ole meanie is what you are! I may just go to bed and cry myself to sleep.

I can't see at all how my words were arrogant but I can see how some might take your words as highly offensive. Thus, I'll have to think a bit if I'm going to leave your custom, little metaphor you created just for me.

Oh, by the way. I almost forgot. Your point still is not well taken unless you demonstrate how I skewed Erickson. Again, know you must read him to make the glue stick that I attributed to him something he does not embrace.

I hope you have a good evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byron]

I'm going to provide a link to an article I do not agree with on CBE International to illustrate a point. That link is available by clicking on my name in this comment if you are interested. The reason I mention this article is because it references certain Scriptural passages under the heading "Postscript: the difficult texts" which can be interpreted as opposing the author's view, and giving a defense accordingly.

I personally do not agree with the defense offered, but that is not the point. The point is, interpretations differ on this issue. I do not believe that those differences are automatically or necessarily heretical... "egalitarianism" just being plain "wrong" will do nicely... :)

BTW, it is a good article from an opposing viewpoint.

[Bill]

Dave: Fair enough. I lean toward Christ's earthly subordination but not His eternal subordination. Interesting that we both feel that the majority of verses lead to different conclusions. I would suggest that the doctrine is difficult enough that it isn't a slam dunk to suggest the eternal subordination of Christ is the basis for the earthly subordination of women.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks for the link and I hope folk read it. I could not agree more with you. Freedom to error must fit on a continuum, it seems to me, heresy being the worst possible extent. I do not at all think egals are heretics--not by a Georgia mile. I do, however, believe egals have limited involvement within our SBC since we formally embraced a complementarian understanding of gender in 2000.

It is that historic fact which frustrates me as much as anything about raising this issue perpetually. SBs have definitively spoken on this issue and they have said we are a complementarian fellowship.

In the face of such, to continue to cook the beans of "equality" for "egals" as Enid so often does, borders on scorching the pot and looks very much like the biblically divisive man about which Paul warned Timothy to reject.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Steve]

Many thanks Peter for some very good research. I agree with you 100% on this issue (not that you need or desire my endorsement, your work is endorsement enough).
Blessings.. (having returned from globetrotting)
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Your participation always welcome, my brother. It's amazing what even the slightest bit of digging will turn up as I know you very well understand.

Grace, always. With that, I am...

Peter

[Doug]

Peter,
I would give your opinion on this topic some weight - if I hadn't have read the entry from yesterday - A person who seriously thinks "Palin rocks" is surely not grasping reality!

[Byron]

Doug, it's not my blog, but I would recommend you keep unrelated topics separate and your comments on topic. Fault Peter if you will, but he keeps his comments on-topic and to the point. That's what I usually try to do (except now, and here, obviously).

[selahV]

Byron, you are such a smart fella! But since Peter brought up milking cows, I suppose it would be alright to suggest that Obama's been milking the Fannie Mae cow quite a bit till now, hmmmn? And speaking of milking...the pastor to the north of me seems always to be chewing cud from some piece of straw in the barnyard that has nothing to do with anything positive about our dear convention and her purpose to fulfill the Great Commission resurgence called for by our President Johnny Hunt. Oh well, we all have things we chew on that taste better to us than others. selahV

[Steve]

I read the interaction at Grace, Peter. Mr. B claims that you agree with his view. Can this be true that he thinks you agree with him on this issue?
Steve