116 FEMINIST VIEWS THAT UNDERMINE SCRIPTURE
parallel between the Trinity and marriage. Just as the Father and Son in
the Trinity are equal in deity and equal in importance but different in
roles, so the husband and wife in marriage are equal in human person-
hood and equal in importance but different in roles. This is based in part
on 1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.Here Paul says that just as in the Trinity the Father is the leader and has
authority over the Son, so in marriage the husband is the leader and has
authority over his wife.^3 The remarkable thing is that the parallel with
the Trinity proves that it is possible to have equality in being but differ-
ences in roles. This then disproves the evangelical feminist argument
that, “If you have different roles in marriage, then men and women are
not equal in value.” It also disproves the corresponding argument that,
“If men and women are equal in value, then you can’t have different
roles in marriage.” In response to those arguments, the doctrine of the
Trinity proves that you can have both equality and differences.
Evangelical feminists have responded to that argument by saying
that there have not been different roles in the Trinity for all eternity, but
that the Son’s subordination to the Father’s authority was only a volun-
tary submission for a limited time (his time on earth) and for a specific
purpose (his work of redemption). They have argued that there is no
eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity. I have
responded to that claim elsewhere with an abundance of Scriptural evi-
dences and testimonies from church history.^4
Giles disagrees with my position and the position of other comple-
mentarians. His book argues that there is no eternal submission of the
Son to the authority of the Father, no eternal leadership of the Father in
the Trinity, no eternal subordination of the Son to the authority of the
Father. But in making this argument, Giles decides not to appeal to
Scripture.
Giles has a reason for not appealing to Scripture: he does not think
(^3) See chapter 25 below for a discussion of the meaning of the word “head” in this verse.
(^4) See Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah,
2004), 405-443.