She Ministers Grace to Others (Both Within and Without the Body of Christ)
This is the final installment of this series, satirically titled the Ideal Christian Woman. We've tried to break down the stereotypes of Christian women and replace them with the things that Scripture teaches should characterize us all. First and foremost, the Ideal Christian Woman must be honest about her sin. Women who put on pretty faces and fake their way through the Christian life are of no value to the church. Confession and repentance are key to our growth in Christ. Secondly, we must deal with this sin in light of the gospel. We never graduate past a need to meditate on and avail ourselves of the benefits of the gospel. If we're honest about our sin and find our identity in Christ through the gospel, we are equipped to reflect the character of God as He originally intended. In particular, women were created in God's image as Helpers suitable to the needs of their male counterparts. It is a high and worthy calling to reflect the image of God in our lives by supporting, defending, and comforting those in our care as an ezer, or strong helper.

In Her Body and Life, She Seeks to Reflect the Image of God
We've established that the Ideal Christian Woman is honest about her sin and finds her identity in Jesus Christ. She understands that His punishment on the cross bought her peace, healing, and restoration, and she meditates regularly on the benefits His death has purchased for her. As the prophet Isaiah said, "By His wounds, we are healed." Christ's death on the cross and the forgiveness and cleansing we have through Him enable us on to part 3 of this series: we restore and reflect the image of God in our body and life.

Her Identity and Security Are Found in Christ
In part 1 of this series, we discussed the need for women to confess their sin and be honest about their struggles. Instead, the norm in most churches is that the majority of us wear plastic smiles each Sunday, hoping that no one will notice what's really going on in our hearts. But what do we do with this sin we confess? How does repentance take place? And how can we possibly forgive those who have committed heinous acts against us? In a word, the gospel.

I have had several women recently come to me concerned that they don't match the stereotype of the Ideal Christian Woman. That got me to think--what is that stereotype? When I hear others discuss the "Christian Woman" at our church, I think I know what they are talking about. I'm not going to describe her here, because I don't want to hurt any woman who may fit that stereotype. But I do want to shoot down the main myth I hear about the stereotypical Christian woman.

The present paper will evaluate "Subordinationism in the Godhead, A Re-emerging Heresy," a transcript of a lecture given by Gilbert Bilezikian at the National Conference of Christians for Biblical Equality at Wheaton College in August, 1993, and distributed by the same group. Dr. Bilezikian was assigned the title (p. 17).

According to the lecture, it was St. Augustine who provided "a definitive statement on the Trinity" in the fifth century (p. 2), putting an end to Subordinationist tendencies found in some earlier patristic writings (pp. 2-4). As Dr. Bilezikian sees the matter, the "historical Biblical trinitarian doctrine that has been defined in the creeds and defended by the church" was the affirmation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal, interdependent, and one in substance; their identity of essence, he stresses, precludes "any form of hierarchy, order or ranking" (p. 5) and establishes "the functional equality of the persons of the Trinity" (p. 9). All statements in scripture that seem to place the Son under the Father refer to the Son's temporary, incarnate state of humiliation, which he assumed voluntarily in order to redeem the world (pp. 6-9). The idea that the Son's obedience was appropriate to his position within the Divine Triad raises, in Dr. Bilezikian's view, the specter of "some coercion or obligation by reason of superior force or authority" (p. 6), by which he would have been "dragged to his death against his will--kicking and screaming" (p. 8), and entails projecting on heaven our "pathetic dysfunctional human hierarchies" (p. 20). It may be inferred that Dr. Bilezikian thinks any trinitarian doctrine that specifies an hierarchy, order, or ranking among the Divine Persons, to be a "pagan infiltration" into Christianity, a "weird procession of three divinities lined up by order of seniority" (p. 6), indeed, a form of Subordinationism.

Introduction
To someone not conversant with contemporary theological writings, it may come as something of a surprise to learn that the historic doctrine of the Trinity is undergoing considerable scrutiny, reassessment, reformulation, and/or defense.¹ To many, this doctrine, perhaps as much or more than any other, seems so abstract and unrelated to life that they might wonder just why the interest. What is here that would warrant and elicit such concentrated attention? What is at stake in this doctrine that would provoke such interest and concern?

To many, what is at stake is simply this: the integrity and reality of the Christian faith itself. Donald Bloesch surprised many in the theological world with the publication in 1985 of his book entitled, The Battle for the Trinity.² He charged the feminist rejection of the Bible's own and traditional theology's predominantly masculine language for God as a rejection of the Trinity itself and, as such, the imposition of a different faith (i.e., not the Christian faith) onto those quarters of the church inclined to accept the feminist critique. And, such charges and concerns have continued unabated. Consider, for example, the sobering words of Duke University Professor of Systematic Theology, Geoffrey Wainwright:

The signs of our times are that, as in the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity occupies a pivotal position. While usually still considering themselves within the church, and in any case wanting to be loyal to their perception of truth, various thinkers and activists are seeking such revisions of the inherited doctrine of the Trinity that their success might in fact mean its abandonment, or at least such an alteration of its content, status, and function that the whole face of Christianity would be drastically changed. Once more the understanding, and perhaps the attainment, of salvation is at stake, or certainly the message of the church and the church's visible composition.³

For several decades, the feminist movement has had a clear impact on the church. Most mainline denominations have eschewed biblical authority and fidelity in favor of cultural accommodation, as they now are not only ordaining women to the ministry and embracing them as pastors of their churches, but they also are debating the legitimacy of homosexual ordination and even homosexual marital union.¹ Even among evangelicals the issue of the roles between men and women in the home and the church are hotly contested. But as some have been saying for years, the debates over the roles of men and women have never been solely about who is authorized to preach on Sunday morning. The debate has extended into areas such as the relationship between the members of the Godhead and the use of that relationship as a paradigm for how men and women might relate to one another. The discussion has extended into philosophies of Bible translation and how one might render the gender-related texts of the Bible in the "language of the people" without compromising the meaning of the original text. There is also debate regarding the language one should use when addressing God and whether or not God can be referred to as "mother." It is no surprise, then, to find that the use of feminine God-language has become popular in various circles.

LIBERAL/MODERATE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS

At a 2001 meeting/worship service of the Baptist Women in Ministry organization (an auxiliary group associated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship² ), participants were encouraged to sing hymns and songs to mother God. Not only this, but at the end of the service, worshippers were asked to participate in a responsive reading that expressed the inability to refer to God as father:

An evangelical feminist is one who has a high view of Scripture and believes the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions between the two. Their principles for interpreting Scripture differ markedly from those of the advocates of role differences for men and women. A comparison of evangelical feminists' principles with the grammatico-historical method of interpretation clarifies what and how great they deviate from traditional views of a woman's role in church and at home. The disputed principles include the issues of ad hoc documents, interpretive centers, the analogy of faith, slavery as a model for the role of women, culturally biased interpretation, cultural relativity, and patriarchal and sexist texts. An examination of these issues shows evangelical feminist hermeneutics to fall short of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation.

DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENCES

The significant changes for women in society that began about thirty years ago have not bypassed the church. The changes have meant a challenge to the Christian community to consider afresh the role of women in their relationship to men in the church and in the home. The instigators of this challenge call themselves "feminists."

"Feminist" is a broad term that includes several groups. "Secular feminists" are those who do not accept the Bible as authoritative.¹ "Religious feminists" are "individuals who do not identify with Christianity, but whose beliefs nevertheless include a religious worldview."² "Christian feminists" work from the standpoint of a commitment to the Christian faith but accept the authority of Scripture in only a limited way.³ A final classification of feminists includes those identified as "evangelical feminists." An evangelical feminist has a high view of Scripture and is "one who believes that the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions based on gender."⁴ The focus of this essay is on this last group.

Introduction

1. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was fully God.
2. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was fully human.
3. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a male human being.

All three of these statements are judged to be true in the orthodox tradition, and each is borne out by abundant biblical testimony. The first two of these are often stated together as necessarily true for the incarnation and substitutionary atonement to occur. Anselm's classic treatment, Cur Deus Homo, spells out why an atoning sacrifice would have required Jesus to be both divine and human - divine, to be of sufficient value to pay fully and finally for the sin of the world and satisfy the offence against the honor of God; human, to die as a fit substitute in our place. But, the question of whether Jesus had to be a male human being has seldom been discussed, until recently. Was his male gender a merely arbitrary feature of the incarnational design? Did the Father throw dice or draw straws in choosing to send the Messiah as a male human being? Or, was the male gender of Jesus essential to the reality of his incarnational identity and to the accomplishment of his incarnational mission? That is, did Jesus have to be male, or could our Savior have been a woman?