« Celebrating turning points in women’s ordination (PCUSA) | Main | 'Watershed' as China's rulers embrace religion: Anglican leader »

Oct 24, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Did you hear what ended up happening to this author? They actually had her article rewritten and then released the 2nd editiong of this book. Unfortunately I still have the 1st edition.

Michael Kruse

No. I hadn't heard about this. What changed?


I'm interested too...

On this topic, one of the primary tenants of Biblical Patriarchy is that God is male.


Wait, I just checked it and I think it's been revised. I've got the old one printed out so I'll have to check to be sure about that, but now it reads, "God *reveals* Himself as..." instead of, "God is masculine." (Wow. Honestly, I'm impressed. Good improvement. That's nice to see).

Bryan L

Google her name and you'll see. I hate repeating or even posting links about negative stuff like that (even if I kind of already brought it up.)

Michael Kruse

So what are you saying here Bryan? That a lesbian affair and attempted murder should somehow tarnish her reputation? :)

Seriously, for those unaware (as I was) she was convicted last year of attempted murder with a crowbar on a pastor. She was having a lesbian affair with his wife. How horribly tragic.

While not the strongest article in the book, I thought her essay was sound. It has been my experience that many people engage themselves in study of things they personally struggle with. It just goes to show that head knowledge about something isn't sufficient for transformation. It appears she had a dark struggle in her life and lost.

From what I can tell, even though IVP initially pulled the book and then reissued it, still containing the article. Since they didn't pull the article and it seems sound teaching to me I think I'll go ahead and leave this up.

Michael Kruse

I am curious, Molly. Did your tradition teach that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father? Was it ever taught in just that way?

Bryan L

At first I didn't know you were joking. Those smiley faces are hard to catch sometimes.

I think they did pull the article and replaced it with an article by R. K. McGregor Wright. The search feature on Amazon doesn't show this but the table of contents listed on IVP's site does show this.

I'll be honest I think if the articles is well argued then it can stand on it's own

I can see why it was pulled though because I know that many would discredit it based on what she did or try to draw the link between her lifestyle and the theological position she's advocating (as many have already done unfortunately).


Michael Kruse

"At first I didn't know you were joking."

Oops! Sorry about that. Sometimes my humor is little too subtle for this form of communication.

"I think they did pull the article and replaced it with an article by R. K. McGregor Wright."

Hmmm... I agree with IVP's reasoning. I may have to run down a copy of the 2nd edition and at least get Wright in here.

I'll have to dwell some more on whether to leave this out there as is. Anyone else with thoughts about it?

will spotts

Since you asked for opinions . . .

I'd leave it. I believe the piece can stand on its own -- it raises a number of interesting points. In the realm of ideas, I don't find discrediting a person's character should have any weight -- the ideas would still remain to be answered.

Obviously, solely on matters of fact, a person's credibility could be challenged by other issues in their life that might suggest bias, but this essay is the equivalent of "open source". Anyone can follow the argument, its reasons, and its sources for him or herself.

Besides, if I were take into account the lifestyles of writers I'd be obliged to jettison much of Psalms (penned by an adulterer and murderer), whatever Moses wrote (again a murderer), the writings of Paul (persecuter of Christians). And if one argues that these examples repented of their sins, one would still be obliged to discount Luther (for writing one of the most vitriolic anti-Semitic pamphlets ever penned by a religious leader) and Calvin (for his treatment of Annabaptists).

Michael Kruse

Thanks Will. Good thoughts. I lean toward leaving it for the reasons you mention. Being reminded of such human frailty and sin causes me to reflect on my own life and the "dark side" I all to frequently try to run from.

will spotts

I'll second you on that last point . . . applied to me, and not to you, of course . . .

Bryan L

yeah I think leaving it is fine. Although I would be interested at the differences in the articles and how they each approched arguing their cases.
It is a crazy story though isn't it? Not something you hear everyday.


On your earlier question, yes, I was (and am) taught that there is eternal heirarchy in the Trinity. I've never been taught otherwise, and that includes my entire church life experience as well as Bible College and our current ministerial work.

Honestly, it is somewhat hard for me to wrap my mind around it NOT being so, but the chapter in the book being discussed regarding that issue (can't remember the chapter #, my book is upstairs) was VERY helpful at explaining how this is a new viewpoint in church history (if they are presenting the truth about the history of views on the Trinity, of course--I want to say they are, but I haven't done my own research into this area, so I'm not quite willing to put my full trust in one chapter, you know? lol), and why one might feel that eternal subordination is problematic.

By the time I was done with the chapter, I felt almost convinced. I read portions of it to my husband, because my mind was so blown by the thoughts, and he completely disagreed. So...that didn't help me much. :lol: I'm the only person I know in real life to even question this, you know?

So...I am just not sure, myself. It's a lot to think about, study through, etc. I'm fully willing to say I've been taught wrongly, have believed wrongly. But this is sort of a BIG issue, you know? I intend to put a lot of thought and research of my own into it before stating a position.

Michael Kruse

Thanks Molly. My reason for asking is that as near as I can tell, the only time since the Reformation that the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father was taught by anyone of stature was in the US during the early 1800s by pro-slavery theologians like Charles Hodge at Princeton. He taught that men and women were unequal in function AND being. Same for slaves and masters. B.B. Warfield followed Hodge at Princeton and disavowed Hodges subordination theology.

The next emergence of it I have seen (in print anyway) is with the new patrichary movement in the 1970s with this twist of "equal in being, unequal in function." I am trying to determine if the whole idea just went dormant for 100 years only to be revived by Grudem, Piper, et al, or was their some "below the radar" community that morphed into this between the 1870s and the 1970s past century. If you have been taught this all your life that confirms that it at least goes back that far. :)

Again, I think you are wise to take your time and wrestle with these issues. Basing a life altering theological change one chapter does seem a bit rash. :) But that chapter is coming up again soon. Maybe there will be some discussion then.

Michael Kruse

It is an odd story indeed but I have had some more personal contact with this sort of thing.

You may have seen a story in the news this year about a couple named Mark Manglesdorf and Melinda Raisch. In 1982, she was married but having an affair with Mark. They decided to stage a burglary and murder her husband so she wouldn't have to get a divorce! Her husband was beaten to death with a baseball bat by an alleged thief. The story was always suspicious and no one was ever caught. Cold case work a couple of years ago brought it to the point where they confessed and were convicted although no one truly knows who did what.

Well, the point is that yours truly served in campus government together with Mark and we share a page in the college yearbook for the Who's Who section. Mark was the winsome golden boy on campus. You just don't know what dark issues people wrestle with.


Well, I was born in 1975 , so it doesn't go back THAT far... lol...

It is interesting, the history of it all! I appreciate hearing your views on it...this is all so new to me...literally a HUGE shift in thinking.

I feel like I've been sucked in so many times, believing what I was told instead of researching it out for myself and hearing from a *variety of sources* on the subject matter...that I'm hesitant to jump into any new major changes in thinking right now, without careful examination.

So far, though, I have to admit that the egalitarian claims on the nature of the Trinity do have an excellent case... Reading those quotes from Calvin and Augustine? WOW! How do Grudem and Piper feel about departing from Calvin on such a major issue, I wonder?

Re. the shift in Trinity comprehension, it seems kind of like Dispensationalism...the way I was taught, it was as if the church had *always* believed things that way. I didn't know there was any other way, to be honest, until AFTER Bible College (a preterist friend challenged me, and in the process of working through the Scriptures for the sole purpose of proving him wrong, lol, I found myself holding onto shreds of a once firm Dispy view).

Michael Kruse

"...I found myself holding onto shreds of a once firm Dispy view."


I never held a Dispy view but I have been left there holding the shreds on some other things. It is very character building, don't you think? :)

I wrote a long book review this summer about a book by Kevin Giles called Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. If you are interested in the trinity question, then you might be interested in this book and his earlier book “The Trinity and Subordinationism.” (I have a link to that book at the linked review as well.) One of the things I highlight in the book review is the peculiar use of phrases that subordinationism uses to talk about theological categories. Take the historical phrase the “ordered trinity.” Every time Grudem sees this phrase in historical works he says, “See. Hierarchy in the Trinity.” But the historic understanding of “order” in ordered trinity is something more akin to me looking at my messy flower bed and saying “I need to bring some order to this mess” or when we see something that usually looks familiar looking strange, we say “Something seems out of order here.” Hierarchy is one type of order but it is not the only type, so the context has to be looked at. Giles shows in case after case, theologian after theologian, that Grudem and friends have misread hierarchical order into “order,” sometimes in cases where in the very next sentence the theologian goes out of his way to explain his not talking about hierarchy. Giles books are excellent but don’t expect to whiz through them.

Fact is, that from not long after the Reformation until about forty years ago the doctrine of the Trinity has been sorely neglected.


Thanks for the book recommendation. I was wondering WHERE to go with my questions...That book sound perfect!

Michael Kruse

You are welcome, Molly. The issues are so complex and it takes a little work to plow through but it is well worth it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out