118 FEMINIST VIEWS THAT UNDERMINE SCRIPTURE
Finally, it should be noted that Giles’s understanding of the historic
view of the church on the Trinity is deeply flawed. He continually blurs
the distinction between the heresy of subordinationism (the view that the
Son is a lesser being than the Father) and the orthodox view that the Son
has a subordinate role but is equal in his being (this he also calls subor-
dinationism, making the book simply a contribution to confusion on this
topic) (see his pages 16-17, 60-69).^10 He even equates modern comple-
mentarians with ancient Arians, who denied the deity of the Son (page
66). An extensive and insightful review of Giles’s book by Peter Schemm
also points out several significant inaccuracies in Giles’s reporting of the
views of others, so his book should be read with much caution.^11
In his claim that we cannot decide the doctrine of the Trinity and its
relationship to marriage from the Bible, but must make our decision
based on the historical positions of the church, Kevin Giles and those
who promote his book take a major step down the path toward
liberalism.
(^10) Giles continues this confusing use of terminology, and continues his inaccurate representa-
tion of the doctrine of the Trinity in church history, in “The Subordination of Christ and the
Subordination of Women,” in Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 334-352. For further
response to Giles, see chapter 27 below; and Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth,
405-429, especially 426-429.
(^11) Peter Schemm, “Kevin Giles’s The Trinity and Subordinationism: A Review Article,” Journal
for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/2 (Fall 2002): 67-78; for Giles’s inaccuracies, see
page 74 (also available online at http://www.cbmw.org)..) For further discussion of the historic view
of the church regarding the subordination of the Son to the Father (in role, not in being), see
chapter 27, below.