Ed: This 1997 article came to my inbox via Francis Gardom's mail list, from "Fr Kim" - a circuitous route, and I'm not entirely sure why it was sent out now (though I have my suspicions). I hope you'll find it as interesting as I did.
November 1992 was a critical time for the Church of England. It was then that the General Synod voted in favour of women becoming priests/presbyters. Before the November vote, a preliminary discussion and vote was taken at the July synod. The Evangelical Group in General Synod (EGGS) arranged a debate and discussion about the whole issue. Everyone knew that it would be the evangelical vote that would cause the measure to succeed or fail, so the debate was important.
I was asked to be one of the speakers along with Colin Craston, a senior evangelical clergyman who is in favour of women priests. The debate had been carefully planned; we exchanged papers several months before and were meant to react to the final papers we each produced. It was set up to be as productive as possible and to minimise misunderstanding between us.
However, on the Monday of the week of the debate Canon Craston pulled out, stating that he had to be at a meeting of the synod Standing Committee, and without any consultation, he substituted for himself an able and popular laywoman theologian, Christina Baxter, the Dean of St. John's College, Nottingham. I respect and like Christina, but it was a clever debating substitution! Then Canon Craston arrived just after the debate started! We had a full, frank and irenic exchange of views that I hope and believe was helpful and instructive.
Both positions were fully and fairly represented. What surprised me were several factors: Read more
No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
Monday, 28 January 2008
Bishop Benn: How egalitarian tactics swayed Evangelicals in the Church of England debate on women's ordination
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
(Chelmsford)
Yes, I thought the doctrine of the Trinity was unassailable among evangelicals, until Bishop Benn and his apparent friends at CBMW (where his article appears) invented rather recently the doctrine of functional subordination in the Trinity, in other words functional Arianism, and started to claim that this heresy is established orthodoxy.
Peter, I think the kind of thing Wallace had in mind was John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." This is surely what he means by a "functional subordination" consisting of a son's delight to do his father's will.
Secondly, I note Wallace Benn's comment, "I asked if I had understood them clearly, that is, that they believed that the Father submitted to the Son, the Father to the Spirit, the Son to the Spirit, etc. They said I had understood them correctly. I then asked them for one piece of biblical evidence to substantiate this view. There was silence and none was forthcoming." Now's your chance.
Thirdly, I doubt, even if Wallace was wrong, that this excused booing of a brother by brothers and sisters - does it?
Well, John, John 6:38 can certainly be read in a subordinationist way, but that way has been judged heretical. Instead the historical orthodoxy is that "the will of him who sent me" is the single joint divine will of the three persons of the Trinity. So this is the Son submitting himself to this single joint will, as do the other two persons of the Trinity.
I don't excuse booing of Christians by Christians. I also don't excuse the far worse tactics, documented misrepresentations of the truth, used by prominent members of CBMW. You can find some such documentation at Better Bibles Blog and more recently at Suzanne's Bookshelf.
Once again, I would emphasise what Wallace wrote, and what I believe: that there is a functional subordination within the economic Trinity, and that it works one way and not another.
Moreover, I do think we need to be careful about denying the virtue of submission within the Godhead, otherwise we make a Christian virtue something which God cannot share. The question Wallace raised was whether this is mutual submission - of Father to Spirit and Son, etc - or ontological (Son to Father, but not vice-versa). On that, opinions differ, however, as to 'heresy', could I commend to you the essay by Craig Keener, an 'egalitarian' on women's roles, Is subordination within the Trinity really heresy? A study of John 5:18 in context? I think his conclusion is apposite:
"Regardless of one's view of gender roles, one can make a case for the Son's subordination to the Father, probably even in some sense for his eternal subordination.
Nevertheless, labels like "heresy" and "tampering with the Trinity" are inappropriate for either side of this debate, and are best reserved for sects that genuinely subvert biblical Christology such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. If the Son's subordination to the Father teaches us nothing else, may we learn from it to value the Father's honor and submit to his will. And if the Son's unity with the Father teaches us nothing else, may we learn from it how our unity with one another is essential to honoring him (John 17:21-23)."
"the historical orthodoxy is that "the will of him who sent me" is the single joint divine will of the three persons of the Trinity. So this is the Son submitting himself to this single joint will, as do the other two persons of the Trinity".
Peter, could you give us some documentation for that? The languag in John's Gospel isn't of the joint will of the Trinity sending the Son, but of the Father sending the Son into the world (eg John 5:23, 36-37, 6:57, 10:36, 12:49). This seems to imply some sort of pre-incarnational submission of the Son to the Father, as Reformed Orthodoxy recognised when it spoke of a "covenant of redemption" between the persons of the Trinity before creation.
Stephen Walton
Marbury, Cheshire
Peter, I've heard (but not checked it out myself) that the 'doctrine' of functional subordination within the Trinity used to determine women's role within the church, originated in Moore College in response to the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. If this is correct, then the timescale alone should make it (i.e. the doctrine) suspect.
I've come across this article before and I don't really think it reflects hugely well on Bishop Benn. Bit of a wuss isn't he?
John, I agree that labels like "heresy" and "tampering with the Trinity" are inappropriate in this debate. But, although Bishop Benn avoids the "h" word his claim that certain evangelicals have "no distinctively Trinitarian doctrine" and his talk about "the erosion of fundamental doctrine" are effectively accusations of heresy. If he is prepared to agree with Keener's position that Christians should not be dogmatic one way or the other on this point, then so am I.
Stephen, I cannot argue this one from John's gospel because I agree that there is some tension here between John's gospel and orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. But the following passage from Wikipedia may help you, although its neutrality is disputed:
The ancient Nicene theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by Father, Son, and Spirit working together with one will. The three persons of the Trinity always work inseparable, for their work is always the work of the one god. Because of this unity of will, the Trinity cannot involve the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Eternal subordination can only exist if the Son’s will is at least conceivably different from the Father’s. But Nicene orthodoxy says it is not. The Son’s will cannot be different from the Father’s because it is the Father’s. They have but one will as they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. If there were relations of command and obedience between the Father and the Son, there would be no Trinity at all but rather three Gods.
The article continues by noting that Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers and Augustine rejected the idea of subordination within the economic Trinity.
mmm, the Apostle John is in tension with orthodoxy? wouldn't that be better put the other way? Maybe the orthodoxy you're refering to isn't so water tight.
Jesus and the Father's will being one isn't in dispute, in fact we are meant to be delevoping his mind too. Nor that Christ is in anyway inferior (other than the way it's put in the Athanasian Creed).But there is a fair bit in Hebrews and the gospels (not to mention Philippians) about Christ's obediance and submission. In fact he is the model to us in that respect.
I'm not accusing anyone of heresy, but clearly people are worried that some of us are erring towards 3 gods or some form of Arianism. But there is a danger of Modalism/Seballianism the other way. I'm not saying Peter or Fern are false teachers! But the risk is that where you're heading could be heard that way. I have Modalism lurking in Evangelical pews. I can see how it gets there.
As for the idea springing from Moore College in the 60s-70s, that predates Wallaces training doesn't it? Or at least his contact with Moore. It certainly is worth being sure rather than "I heard" because the person it was heard from won't exactly be neutral.
Darren Moore (Tranmere)
1. Accusations of heresy are out of place here. Complementarians who hold to the eternal functional subordination of the Son are not Arians. Arianism is essentially the belief that the Son is a created being: “there was a time when the Son was not”. No one is claiming this. Neither, as far as I’m aware, are any of the evangelical egalitarians claiming that there is no eternal distinction between the persons of the Trinity. So accusations of deliberate modalism are out. Heresy is, by definition, not simply being mistaken, but deliberately and knowingly holding to false teaching. The question is more what certain ideas about the Trinity might imply or logically lead to.
2. When dealing with the patristic material, we have to beware of anachronism. If we ask “did the Fathers, or did they not, believe in the eternal functional subordination (EFS) of the Son” we may simply be asking a question they never asked. Clearly the orthodox did not believe that the Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father. That was the opinion of Origen, later condemned, who believed that the Son was eternal, but “God” in a lesser, derivative sense. But nobody in the present debate believes this- certainly I’ve seen nothing from Moore or the CBMW that contends for it. The question is whether EFS is compatible with Nicene orthodoxy or not.
3. Peter’s admission that there is a “tension” between John and orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and that he wouldn’t argue this from John, is surely very significant, as it is an admission that on this matter the complementarians have scripture on their side! If we have a choice between scripture and tradition, then we must go with the former and modify orthodox doctrine accordingly, to allow for relations of command and obedience in the Trinity sub specie aeternitatis. If we have such a choice- which I don’t think we do. Surely it is better to ask first whether we have understood orthodox Trinitarian doctrine properly.
4. If Peter is going to convince me, then I’ll need a better authority than a wikipedia article- I view wikipedia as form of light entertainment! Especially one as inaccurate and badly written as this one. The 5 paragraphs following the one Peter quotes give “evidence” for its assertions. They only quote one of the Cappadocians, Basil; the reference is to his “Letters”, supposedly on p32 of NPNF series 2, volume 8. In fact, this is another of Basil’s works “On the Spirit”, and doesn’t contain the quotation given- I’ve not been able to track it down, so I can’t check the context. The Augustine quote is from De Trinitate 2.15. My copy of this (in NPNF) doesn’t contain the quote: in Book 2, Chapter 15 Augustine asks the question of whether all, or one specifically, of the persons appeared to Moses at Sinai. Certainly he asserts the inseparable operation of the persons here, but says nothing about the issue under discussion. This is only evidence against EFS if one has already accepted the egalitarian position. No supporting references are given for the assertion that Augustine did not believe that one could speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying. The reference to Calvin on Philippians 2:5-11 (that he believed the Son’s obedience to be limited to the incarnation) is not to a primary source, but to secondary material that I don’t have access to: I suspect therefore that it is a deduction from Calvin, and not something he says directly. I can’t find any support in Calvin’s Philippians commentary that he believed the obedience to be limited to the incarnation: the nearest we get is on 2:7 (1st paragraph, p57, in the Baker (2005) edition), but this is about Christ’s self-emptying, not his overall obedience. The reference to Athanasius (to “Four Discourses Against the Arians” 3.29, NPNF Series 2 p409) is accurate, but says nothing about the issue under discussion: the “double account” of Christ in scripture that Athanasius refers to is that he was both God and man. It does not say (contra to the impression given by the article) that Christ’s subordination was limited to the incarnation; Athanasius may have thought this for all I know, but the article gives no supporting evidence. The piece quoted does however go on to speak of the Father speaking to the Son and giving him commands at creation (3.29, p410)!
The article is also highly misleading when it says that “some Evangelical theologians” have come to that the persons are economically unequal but ontologically equal “since the 1980s”, and then refers to George Knight’s 1977 book as if this was the first time it was mentioned. Charles Hodge writing in c.1872 says:
“On this subject the Nicene doctrine includes- 1. The subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority... The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation, implied in the scriptural facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, and that the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the Son through the Spirit” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Eerdmans, 1986, pp.460-461). Hodge refers to this form of subordination as being taught by Augustine and the Athanasian creed (ibid, p464).
To suggest that EFS is an invention of Moore or CBMW is ridiculous.
5. The argument from the unity of the will of God is an extremely weak one, as, carried to its logical conclusion, it would obliterate all distinctions between the persons- i.e modalism (but see point 1 above- I am not saying that egalitarians are modalist). This I think was Wallace Benn’s point. For instance the love of God is one: does that mean that we cannot say that the Son loves the Father in eternity, or that the Father loves the Son? If we are maintain the distinctions between the persons, then surely we have to say that there are actions (if that is the right word- I’m open to correction) of the Father (e.g begetting) that are not the actions of the Son, and so on. Given this, I can’t see what is wrong in speaking of the Father “commanding” the Son.
Trinitarian orthodoxy is that the “internal” relations of the Trinity are asymmetrical. This is because the Fathers were faced with the question of how to distinguish the persons of the Trinity and avoid modalism, if the persons were of one nature. The answer was that the persons are distinct in their personal relations- of begetting and spirating etc, or of love in Augustine. I don’t see any reason why commanding/obeying shouldn’t be one of those relations.
Nicene orthodoxy does indeed say that the external works of the Trinity are inseparable- but it also says that the persons of the Trinity are distinct in those acts. So for instance, the atonement was an act of the whole Trinity, but it was not the Father who died as a sacrifice, or the Son who accepted the sacrifice etc. There is indeed one will in God- and that one will is seen in the Father giving commands, and the Son willingly and voluntarily obeying them. The oneness of God’s will would only be called into question of we were to speak of the Son being coerced into obeying the Father. If Christ fully and freely wills to do what his Father commands him to do, I fail to see how the unity of God’s will is damaged.
Furthermore, if the oneness of God’s will means that the Son cannot be said to obey the Father, doesn’t that mean that even sub specie incarnationis only the human nature of Christ can be said to obey the Father? Aren’t we left with a Nestorian Christ? Surely Christ’s obedience after the incarnation is the obedience of his one person?
6. At the heart of this argument seems to be the assumption by egalitarians that to speak of Christ’s functional subordination to the Father is automatically to speak of his ontological subordination. The latter is of course ruled out by Trinitarian orthodoxy- on this we all agree. But the egalitarians need to prove their point. If one person obeys the other, does this necessarily mean that they are less in being or value than another? When my daughter obeys her teacher (I’m told it does happen) does it mean that my daughter is less human or less valuable than her teacher? This assumption by egalitarians seems particularly obvious when they deal with the Fathers. Passages which deny that the Son is in someway “less” than the Father are quoted as denying EFS- denial of EFS is read into the Fathers.
The egalitarian vision seems to be one based on non-Christian ideas of value, worth, and power, where being and value are linked to how much power and status one has. How much more beautiful is the biblical vision- that the Son of God, equal to his Father in being, value, power and much more, chose to submit to and obey his Father- and his Father chose not to exploit that submission. How beautiful this is when it is reflected in human relationships- when a wife, equal to her husband in being and value, chooses to submit to him, and the husband chooses not to exploit that submission, but to honour and value her.
7. In addition to the article by Craig Keener mentioned by John, see Bruce Ware “Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son submit to his Father? in Grudem (Ed) Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway 2002), appendices 1 and 2 in Robert Letham The Holy Trinity (P&R, 2004), and Wayne Grudem Evangelical feminism and Biblical Truth (Apollos, 2004)pp 403-420. These deal with the patristic material, and show that EFS is compatible with the teaching of the Fathers.
8. I do agree that “subordination” may be an unfortunate term: it creates confusion with “(ontological) subordinationism” which is condemned by the Fathers. I’ve used the term above to avoid creating more confusion by introducing new terminology. Would it be more helpful though to speak of the eternal submission of the Son to the Father?
9. John, are Fern’s remarks on Wallace Benn the sort of thing that should be allowed on this blog? They amount to little more than personal abuse, and add nothing to the discussion.
Stephen Walton
Marbury, Cheshire
Steve,
Sorry if I accuesed anyone directly of heresy. What I meant was that some teaching is going to be picked up in a modalist way.
Any teaching of the Trinity has to hold the threeness and the oneness, but must do so in a Biblical way or, well re-read your post.
Obviously it's John's role to 'vet' postings. Fern's comment maybe a cheap shot, but at the end of the day I don't think it reflects badly on Wallace. I think it does on others.
Darren Moore
(Tranmere)
Stephen Walton, how much of 19th century writing which stressed subordination within the Trinity, was influenced by slavery and the need for its justification? I understand that Hodge, in his early life was a supporter, or, at least not an opponent of slavery - was he really free of all such influences in his theological writing?
The analogy with your daughter and her obedience to her teachers won't work I'm afraid. That particular command-and-control structure is one predicated on time and place; she'll grow up, leave school and when she does, her teacher loses the right to expect or enforce obedience. A woman, however, at least according to your views is, at one and the same time, both equal in being with a man but permanently subordinate to him because of that which is an essential part of her being, her femaleness. And, you know, I really don't think anyone can be permanently subordinated to another without being permanently inferior to them. The 'equal-but-different-role' was an argument advanced by the pro-slavery faction in the US just as 'equal-but-separate' was a cornerstone of apartheid South Africa.
As to Bishop Benn, what, exactly is he complaining of? That he was up against a more effective speaker than he was expecting? Isn't that how debates work? That he was booed? Bad manners for sure but not a crime. What are the dastardly 'egalitarian tactics' the headline of his article refer to? Is he claiming that the Synod vote would have gone his way if folk hadn't booed or shouted 'rubbish'? Maybe, just maybe, he lost the argument.
Fern, irregardless of the rest of your response to Stephen Walton, booing is a form of argument with which I am basically unfamiliar. It is also not a form of Christian behaviour I find commendable. Otherwise, to the rest of your contribution, I could simply respond, Boo! Boo!
Fern,
2 comments:
1st on Subordination. Just bringing up things we all find distasteful doesn't actually engage with the argument. There is a brilliant epilouge to "Pierced for our transgressions" on this sort of thing. It's just empty rhetoric.
BUT more importantly it's only looking at one side. What is the model for the head? Answer, suffering and dying for the other person. My wife is very pro-'equal but different' as she feels she gets the best deal. I have to love her as Christ loved the Church (literally to death, also to the point of humilation aka John 13). The 1st have to be last in any form of Christian leadership. So leaders in Church, marriage or anything are servants and bottom of the pile. When that is modeled in Church and family, with the other parties (e.g. Heb 13:17) doing their bits right it's a beautiful thing to see and produces happiness all round.
2nd Re: Wallaces comments, I think it shows what I've experianced too. That people use underhand tactics. Christina would have had access to his talk, but not his to hers. That people weren't engageing with what he was saying but just name calling.
The PCC here voted back in 1990(ish) FOR ordination of women. But I found when I came here most of the PCC against (some very strongly). How did that happen? Old fashioned school playground bullying by a few who gave the impression of being a majority (and are in terms of air time), the others simply didn't want to fight.
If everytime some who puts an 'equal but different' case foward they aren't heard properly for booing and others on the fence hear that this person must also be pro-slavery - that isn't really an open honest debate. And let's be honest, I've never seen those tactics flow back the other way.
The other thing I've found is that the Egalitarian arguments don't all line up. Sharon James has a good appendix on this in her book "God's design for women". And most arguments just seem to be an excercise in kicking dust in the air. Rather than seeing how these Bible verse relate to each other and a bigger picture.
Darren Moore
(Tranmere)
Stephen, just seen your comment of 30th January. But I am not accepting that "the complementarians have scripture on their side". Rather I would say that different Scriptures say subtly different things on this matter. John's statement on its own might support the complementarian view, but when Scripture is interpreted against Scripture, as is normal in theology, the best interpretation is, in my opinion, the orthodox Trinitarian one. Maybe I should have made this clearer the first time.
I made it very clear that I was not presenting the Wikipedia article as authoritative, rather that it was a statement of one view which I knew was disputed. If you consider this article to be bad, I suggest you get involved in editing it to improve it.
If one person obeys the other, does this necessarily mean that they are less in being or value than another?
No, if the obedience is voluntary as was Jesus'. But if the obedience is forced and eternal, yes, for I agree with Fern that "I really don't think anyone can be permanently subordinated to another without being permanently inferior to them", and the apartheid analogy is a good one. In fact this doctrine of eternal subordination robs the biblical vision of Jesus' voluntary submission of its beauty and turns it into sordid slavery.
(Still in Chelmsford)
My apologies for not replying earlier: Plough Sunday and PCC kept me busy.
Fern:
Charles Hodge:
according to the IVP Dictionary of Christian Biography, Hodge believed that the system of slavery in America at the time was an evil that should be eliminated; but he also opposed the radical abolitionists (presumably it means people like John Brown- the one who’s body lies a’moulderin in the grave) who thought that all slavery was inherently evil, and called for moderation- again the background would be the growing hostility between North and South leading to the civil war- and called fro gradual emancipation. I see no indication that his views on slavery influenced his views on “subordination” within the Trinity- what would be your evidence for this? Also you mention “19th century writing which stressed subordination within the Trinity”. I take it that this means that you know of other people in the 19th century as well as Hodge who taught EFS- a little strange then that you said in an earlier post that EFS originated at Moore in the 1960s and 70s. It would be very helpful if you could tell us who else in the 19th century taught EFS.
With regard to the illustration of my daughter and her teacher, I don’t want to claim too much for it. The only purpose in using it was to show that if someone is subordinate in role, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are subordinate in value. I think that point still holds, even though the relationship in the illustration is a temporary one. Presumably we wouldn’t say that my daughter is inferior in value to her teacher whilst she is at school, or that Christ was inferior in value to his Father between his birth and the resurrection (I suppose a kenotic theory of the incarnation might imply that).
“A woman, however, at least according to your views is, at one and the same time, both equal in being with a man but permanently subordinate to him because of that which is an essential part of her being, her femaleness”. Actually, I don’t think that. I don’t for instance think that all women are subject to all men. Within marriage, I think their is headship of the husband over the wife, and in a church I think a teaching elder exercises authority over the congregation- all though “subordination” probably isn’t the best way to describe this. Note that both relationships occur in a covenantal context- the submission involved is based on covenant, not directly on ontology. This, I suspect may be true of the submission of the Son to the Father- which is why I suspect that the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption is an untapped resource here.
“I really don't think anyone can be permanently subordinated to another without being permanently inferior to them”.
Well that’s the issue at stake, isn’t it? What are your grounds for saying that? What arguments would you put forward to support it? Surely one of the things that gospel shows us is that submission, especially in a covenantal context, can be God-like. I take it that we are all agreed that Christ was subordinate to his Father between Bethlehem and Calvary. But where is the indication in scripture that this subordination will come to an end? To claim that the incarnation comes to an end, so Christ is no longer human, would be heresy. And 1 Corinthians 15:28 points us the opposite conclusion- that Christ is eternally subject to his Father. Someone might claim that Christ is eternally subject only because he is eternally human, but that would take us back to the question of whether only the human nature of Christ is subject to the Father- i.e to Nestorianism.
What would you have said if, regarding the Wycliffe affair, I’d said:
“I don't really think it reflects hugely well on Elaine Storkey. Bit of a wuss isn't she?”
Peter:
“But I am not accepting that "the complementarians have scripture on their side". Rather I would say that different Scriptures say subtly different things on this matter. John's statement on its own might support the complementarian view, but when Scripture is interpreted against Scripture, as is normal in theology, the best interpretation is, in my opinion, the orthodox Trinitarian one”.
Unfortunately, the orthodox Trinitarian view of the Trinity was predicated upon the belief that scripture does not say subtly different things, and cannot be interpreted against itself. Otherwise their would be no need to say that God is both one and three, or that Jesus is both God and man- we could simply have said that some passages say he is God, some man, and they are (not very) subtly different. Your argument undermines the very orthodox Trinitarianism you want to believe and defend.
And of course, those of us who are Anglicans are guided by Article XX, and will not “so expound one part of Scripture that it be repugnant to another”. That is normal in historic Anglican theology.
Regarding wikipedia, you haven’t answered my first question yet: you haven’t given us any evidence for saying that for historical orthodoxy “the will of him who sent me” is the will of the undivided Trinity, and so there can’t be relationships of command and obedience between Father and Son in eternity. I wanted more than a statement of the position- you’d already given a very good one. Good idea about editing the article: I might do that! I’ve never tried editing on wikipedia before- I’m not sure how to go about it.
“No, if the obedience is voluntary as was Jesus'. But if the obedience is forced and eternal, yes, for I agree with Fern”.
See reply to Fern above. But who is saying that Jesus’ obedience is not voluntary? I find it strange that you put “forced” and “eternal” together- permanence does not necessarily imply compulsion. Why can the Son not eternally and voluntarily submit to the Father? Again, here I think the idea of a Covenantal relationship between Father and Son might be helpful.
Stephen Walton, Marbury, Cheshire
The artcile by Wallace Benn is published in Grudem "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth".
Stephen Walton, Marbury, Cheshire
Stephen, I agree with you that I do not want to “so expound one part of Scripture that it be repugnant to another”. That is why I do not expound the passages you refer to in John in ways which are repugnant to the other passages in the same book which clearly state Jesus' deity and his oneness with the Father. But you seem to discount the latter passages in your attempt to make the former passages mean that Jesus is inferior, or at least eternally submitted, to the Father.
No one is saying that Jesus' submission was not voluntary. The issue here was the subordination of women which is not voluntary, according to complementarians. On this theory, when a woman chooses to be submissive this is not voluntary and beautiful but under threat of force and so sordid. And when this model is then used as an argument for eternal subordination in the Trinity, according to someone's consistent exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3, that is what robs Jesus' submission of its beauty and taints it as sordid.
Peter:
I wasn't discounting the passages that state Jesus' divinity and oneness with the Father- I was assuming them (always an unwise thing to do- sorry if I caused confusion). I take it we are all agreed on them. And I'm certainly not trying to say that Jesus is "inferior" to the Father- that is a complete distortion of what I said. It is only the case if we assume what you and Fern believe- that submission must imply inferiority. A belief that neither of you have yet produced any arguments for.
I don't quite follow your argument in the 2nd paragraph. In what way is the submission, say within marriage, depicted in complementarian theory "under threat of force"? No one is arguing for forced marriages- and no one is arguing that within a marriage a husband should use violence to enforce his will. That would be completely against all complementarian theory.
Stephen Walton, Marbury, Cheshire
Post a Comment