Michael Bird and Dustin R. Smith advertise the latest book by Charles Lee Irons, Danny Andre Dixon, and Dustin R. Smith, The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). Smith also pointed my attention to a multi-page review of the book here and the Trinities podcast has interviews with Irons, Dixon, and Smith. The positions represented by each author is Trinitarianism (God is three persons as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one essence), Arianism (Jesus is the highest created being and the agent through whom God created the cosmos), and Socianism (Jesus did not pre-exist the Virgin Birth and was the human Messiah exalted by God). In my view, there are New Testament texts that can be cited in support of all three views, but I accept by faith the direction that theology moved from the canon and church traditions to the ecumenical creeds.
I was also alerted by Scot McKnight’s blog on the following four posts by Lucy Peppiatt on how some interpreters read in a hierarchy in the relations between God, Christ, men, and women in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:21-33. There is room to debate how she has rendered the Greek word kephale (often translated as “head”) or whether one can impute all the developed trinitarian thinking back into the intentions of the writer of these letters. However, I think her posts work as exercises in canonical criticism and systematic theology and that, further, her point is that the thinking about the Trinity is not just abstract theologizing without real world implications. I like her point that a possibly deficient view of the Trinity (i.e. the eternal subordination of the Son) has been misused by some theologians to perpetuate social inequality in the subordination of women to men. I absolutely believe that Christian biblical scholars must teach students how to interpret scriptural writings ethically and oppose patriarchy as a terrible system that unfairly privileges one half of humanity at the expense of the other half.