12: TRADITION TRUMPS SCRIPTURE 117that citing verses from the Bible can resolve theological questions in gen-
eral. He thinks that the Bible can be read in different ways, and even
though “given texts cannot mean just anything,” he says that “more
than one interpretation is possible.”^5
Giles even admits that it is possible to find evidence for the eternal
subordination of the Son in Scripture: “I concede immediately that the
New Testament can be read to teach that the Son is eternally subordi-
nated to the Father.”^6 But for him that is not decisive, because, as he tells
us at the outset, “This book is predicated on the view that the Bible can
often be read in more than one way, even on important matters.”^7
Giles’s fundamental approach should disturb evangelicals, for it
means that, in his system, appeals to Scripture can have no effect. He
can just reply, “Yes, the Bible can be read that way, but other readings
are possible.” And thus the voice of God’s Word is effectively silenced
in the church. (Giles’s argument in this respect is similar to the argument
considered in chapter 9, where evangelical feminists claimed that the
verses on women’s roles in the church were too difficult to decide.)
How then does Giles think we should determine which view is
right? The answer, he says, is found in church history: “In relation to the
doctrine of the Trinity my argument is that the tradition should prescribe
the correct reading.”^8 For Giles, then, the tradition of the church
becomes the supreme authority. His approach is similar to Roman
Catholicism but contradictory to the Reformation doctrine of sola
Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) and contrary to beliefs of evangelical
Protestants. In fact, I find it somewhat surprising that InterVarsity Press
would decide to publish this book. I am not surprised at this because of
the conclusion Giles holds (egalitarianism) but because of the underly-
ing view of authority on which he bases his argument (the superiority
of church tradition, not Scripture, because Scripture can be read in dif-
ferent ways).^9
(^5) Giles, Trinity and Subordinationism, 10.
(^6) Ibid., 25.
(^7) Ibid., 9.
(^8) Ibid. He argues that what he claims to be the traditional view of the Trinity was right and
should be followed, but the traditional view of male headship was wrong and should not be
followed, since on that matter no other reading was open to people in earlier centuries (9-10).
(^9) Though it was published by IVP in the United States, Giles’s book was not published by IVP-
UK, which is a separate company.