The CBE Scroll

Comment by PamBG

December 28, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

Goodness! Even having grown up in a male-headship denomination, I’ve never heard of “subordinationism”. I’m not a professional theologian, but this seems heretical to me from the point of view of traditional (and I’m talking largely catholic) Trinitarian theology. I wonder if any more theologically learned individuals have a point of view?

Comment by Chelsea

December 28, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

Hello PamBG.

For one theologians reaction to this view, see Philip Cary’s article in the 20th anniversary issue of Priscilla Papers: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/cary_new_evangelical_subord.pdf.

Most of the theologians I’ve talked to about this view have a hard time taking it seriously. However heretical it may seem, theologians need to start taking it seriously because support for it is growing. One of the leading subordinationists was just elected as president of the Evangelical Theological Society. The systematic theology of another leading subordinationist is used as a textbook by many evangelical colleges and seminaries. The Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church has also embraced subordinationism.

Comment by codepoke

December 28, 2006 @ 7:17 pm

Ware stated that names ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ “refer not to some ad hoc arrangement for the incarnation but to an eternal relationship in which the Father is the eternal Father of the Son, and the Son is the eternal Son of the Father

I am an egalitarian, and an egalitarian trinitarian, but I don’t see the confessional problem with this statement of Ware’s. I might imagine that he went beyond it to prove his point, but this statement seems exactly correct. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. He is also co-equal with the Father, except during the time of His humiliation here on earth, but I don’t think I would attack this point.

Your other points, though … :-)

He does not specify that one group should follow the Father’s model of authority and another group should follow Christ’s model of submission.

Excellent.

Thank you for a great post, and presumably series. God speed.

Comment by Chelsea

December 29, 2006 @ 9:51 am

Hi codepoke.

You’re right that there is nothing confessionally wrong with Ware’s statement about the eternal Father and Son. Thanks for correcting me here.

The problem is that subordinationists suggest that unless this confession means there is an inherent and eternal hierarchical relationship between the Father and Son, then it must be ad hoc or meaningless.

More later.

Comment by Brian Andrews

December 29, 2006 @ 9:52 am

#3 He is also co-equal with the Father, except during the time of His humiliation here on earth,

I’m not sure what you mean by “humiliation,” but I don’t see in Scripture any time when Jesus was not equal with the Father. He was certainly equal with the Father during the incarnation, as John 5:18 and Phil. 2:6 so clearly state.

Comment by codepoke

December 29, 2006 @ 11:33 am

Brain siezing. Must remember. What does one do when someone “agrees” with a comment on a blog?

Thank you. :-)

… then it must be ad hoc …

The same kind of confusion arises around the “inheritance” that is ours in Christ. We don’t wait for God to die in order to inherit spiritual blesssings in Christ, but when we try to understand spiritual things from human examples it may seem that way.

It is highly improbably that a human son would share equal authority with his father, so we paint a false the conclusion back onto the co-eternal Godhead.

I look forward to your series. Thanks again!

Comment by codepoke

December 30, 2006 @ 9:45 am

Yes, Brian, I agree that the Son was co-equal with the Father during His time here, but that was a time of submission for Him. There was a hierarchical relationship between the Son and Father for those ~30 years.

Heb 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Implying both that the Son had never experienced submission before, and that He did not suffer by choice but by obedience.

Phil 2:6-8
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Forgive the KJV. Still, Jesus “became” obedient. It was not His natural state, and yet it was a state He took on willingly, humbly. And we are to follow in His footsteps toward each other. Though we are equal to each other in every way, we are to relinquish that equality, and choose obedience to each other.

Implying that women must choose obedience (it is not just their natural part in life) and that men should submit to Christians, not just to other men.

Sorry I missed your comment earlier. I’m blaming it on moderation. :-)

Comment by PamBG

December 31, 2006 @ 10:33 am

The Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church has also embraced subordinationism.

Believe it or not, they and their theology are the reason I left the Church of England. (I was in a congregation that followed their line of thinking and simply could not deal with it any more.) I am actually quite alarmed about the re-writing of the Christian faith that they and other hyper-conservative Christians are doing. It frustrates me to no end that they seem to be getting away with a wholesale revision of Christian theology whilst calling it “mainstream” - one group here in the UK even co-opting the term “Anglican Mainstream”. It’s not just their male-headship stance that alarms me either (I refuse to use the term “complementarian”).

All of which is to say that I take it very seriously indeed. It’s just that I honestly didn’t know that these arguments were being put forward.

For me, the root theological problem here is the idea that God institutes a power-over command and control hierarchy.

Comment by Lori

January 2, 2007 @ 4:53 am

Goodness! Even having grown up in a male-headship denomination, I’ve never heard of “subordinationism”. I’m not a professional theologian, but this seems heretical to me from the point of view of traditional (and I’m talking largely catholic) Trinitarian theology. I wonder if any more theologically learned individuals have a point of view?

That’s pretty much my story, too. I grew up in a complementary denomination, but they certainly never preached this doctrine. I was always taught that the Father and the Son were equal within the Trinity for all eternity. Anything else was considered heretical. The first time I heard about this doctrine of subordinationism was a few months ago on another egalitarian forum.

Kevin Giles addresses this issue in an excellent free article on CBE’s website– Basically, he demonstrates that this doctrine has, indeed, been considered heretical by the Church for most of its history, and that many of the early church fathers explicitly condemned it. Giles has even expanded his argument into a full-length book, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is available in CBE’s bookstore.

Comment by Chelsea

January 2, 2007 @ 11:40 am

If we want to be serious about doing theology, then I think we need to use terms accurately. “Subordinationism” is a technical, historical term which has been used *historically* to represent the belief that the Son is inferior in being and essence to the Father. Standard texts on theology explain this very thing, including Wayne Grudem’s.

“Subordinationism,” was condemned as a heresy in the early church - and rightfully so. However, those who advocate the eternal, functional subordination of the Son to the Father (i.e. CBMW) do not hold to “subordinationism.

Thanks for this distinction between historical subordinationism, which has been condemned as heretical, and the view of those who hold to the eternal immutable submission of the Son and authority of the Father. Unlike historical subordinationism, the current view of subordination is limited to the eternal relations between members of the Trinity, and does not extend to the essence of the divine persons (though traditional Trinitarians believe this is a logical contradiction). I will refer to this view as “structural subordinationism” in order to distinguish it from the historical heresy of essential subordinationism.

Those who argue for the eternal, functional subordination of the Son to the Father believe that the Son *voluntarily* gave up some of his divine prerogatives in order to incarnate himself for the redemption of humanity. They also believe that after Jesus’ death and resurrection, God restored these prerogatives back to his Son (Phil. 2:9-11; Matt. 28:18). So to say that we hold that “the Son necessarily [emptied himself of divine authority] for all eternity” is simply wrong.

Structural subordinationists believe that the Son’s submission is eternal and immutable. It never has been otherwise and it never will be. This is by definition a necessary vs. accidental attribute of the Son’s relation to the Father.

But Ware’s point in his essay (did you read the whole thing?) is that the terms “Father” and “Son” should not be viewed as being arbitrary to the persons of the Godhead.

For example, why is the Father the Father? Why is the Son the Son? Did they choose who would be the Son and who would be the Father and who would be the Holy Spirit? Or does the name “Father” and “Son” and “Holy Spirit” actually reflect something inherent and eternal and distinct in each member of the Trinity?

This post only highlighted two meanings that Christians have historically found in the Son’s submission to the Father in the incarnation. There are many more meanings that don’t require an eternal immutable structure of authority and submission within the Trinity. Another key example is that the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ support Christ’s divinity by emphasizing Jesus’ likeness to God. Interpreting these terms as evidence of a subordinate relationship actually undermine Christ’s divinity.

Even with all the historical meanings that have been found in these terms, some Christian theologians known as “nominalists” (i.e. the medieval scholastics Duns Scotus and William of Ockham) have taken a more apophatic view of the doctrine of God in order to preserve God’s absolute freedom from conforming to human speculation. They argued that any member of the Trinity could have chosen to become incarnate.

Even if the nominalist position that the Son’s incarnation was arbitrary were the only alternative (and I’ve listed several other historical meanings that are much more prevalent), this would still be preferable to the conclusion that there is an eternal immutable hierarchical structure within the Trinity. Given the fact that there are so many perfectly viable and orthodox meanings for the terms ‘Son’ and ‘Father’ in reference to members of the Trinity, why propose one that at best undermines and at worst contradicts their essential equality?

Thanks again for your comments.

Comment by Lori

January 3, 2007 @ 11:56 am

I’m just a minister-in-training (gasp! shock!), so y’all will have to bear with me. I’m still wrapping my head around all this theology. :)

Structural subordinationists believe that the Son’s submission is eternal and immutable. It never has been otherwise and it never will be.

So let me make sure I get this. According to SS, the “separate role” that Jesus fulfills in the Trinity is not voluntary? He doesn’t have any choice over His role, just like women don’t have any choice when it comes to being born women?

Those who argue for the eternal, functional subordination of the Son to the Father believe that the Son *voluntarily* gave up some of his divine prerogatives in order to incarnate himself for the redemption of humanity. They also believe that after Jesus’ death and resurrection, God restored these prerogatives back to his Son (Phil. 2:9-11; Matt. 28:18).

So, if Jesus has divine prerogatives, then how is He subordinate? My thesaurus defines “subordinate” as “inferior, lesser, lower.” How does that describe Jesus in relation to God? And if Jesus is not subordinate, but merely serveing in a separate role, then how does having no choice about what role He fills make Him equal to the Father? And if Jesus does have a choice, if He can change His role, then how does that compare to women, who have no choice?

Or does the name “Father” and “Son” and “Holy Spirit” actually reflect something inherent and eternal and distinct in each member of the Trinity?

Growing up, I heard a variation on this. God was represented as the powerful Father, Jesus as the loving Savior, and the Holy Spirit as the invisible comforter. In other words, they each had somewhat diffferent functions. However, nobody ever taught me that there was any subordination in the Trinity–and I was a raised in a patriarchal denomination.

Comment by Lori

January 3, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

Pam said in #9:

Believe it or not, they and their theology are the reason I left the Church of England. (I was in a congregation that followed their line of thinking and simply could not deal with it any more.) I am actually quite alarmed about the re-writing of the Christian faith that they and other hyper-conservative Christians are doing. It frustrates me to no end that they seem to be getting away with a wholesale revision of Christian theology whilst calling it “mainstream” - one group here in the UK even co-opting the term “Anglican Mainstream”. It’s not just their male-headship stance that alarms me either (I refuse to use the term “complementarian”).

Wow. I live in Great Britain, but I had no idea the C of E was endorsing this. I know that the ordination of women has caused great controversy in their ranks, and it saddens me that they’re retreating from their position of freedom for women. I read in a newspaper the other day that the C of E is basically dying, while the fastest growing denomination in Britain is Pentecostalism. I wonder if the treatment of women has anything to do with this? I mean modern secular has rejected the idea of the subordination of women, so a person coming to church from a non-church background is hardly likely to embrace the idea. I only mention this because according to studies the traditional churches in America are also declining, while house churches (which for the most part don’t embrace hierarchy) are rapidly expanding.

Comment by LJR

January 3, 2007 @ 12:59 pm

I’m also one who never heard of subordinationism as a modern teaching until after I became a believer in Biblical equality. I grew up in a church which simply taught that men were in charge and women had to deal or else. There was never any effort that I noticed to manipulate the Trinity into a hierarchy until I got to college (which, I realize now, was the year of the formation of CBMW).

To be brutally honest, I consider the point of view I grew up in to be much more consistent than the modern “complementarian” view. As much as I dislike traditionalism, I have to give some sort of credit where it’s due. There was no pretending that men and women were really equal and our differences were just “roles”. There was no double-talk about equality of being and inequality of function. There was no admitting that women could have certain abilities, but then had to deny them or only use them under strict limits. There was no messing with the Trinity to justify men’s power over women. Women were the underclass, but at least the historical teachings on the Trinity were safe.

I know that modern “complementarianism” tries to be a kinder and gentler version of hierarchy, but it makes no real difference for women *and* it messes with the Trinity. I’ll stick with Biblical equality. It’s consistent, truly better for women and men alike, and it doesn’t do anything bad to the Trinity.

Comment by Chelsea

January 3, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

To be fair, it should be noted that structural subordinationists believe their understanding of the Trinity is not new, but reflects what the church has always believed about the relationship between the Son and the Father. Their interpretation of early church writings and creeds has been challenged by classical theologians (including some complementarians).

Also, though the logic may seem contradictory, structural subordinationists also seem to believe that the Son’s subordinate relation to the Father is both voluntary and eternal/immutable/inherent.

Comment by Lori

January 4, 2007 @ 9:18 am

To be fair, it should be noted that structural subordinationists believe their understanding of the Trinity is not new, but reflects what the church has always believed about the relationship between the Son and the Father.

This is what’s confusing me. Where is the evidence for this? I mean, is there any historical church writing (before the 21st century, I mean) that says, “God has one role, Jesus has another, and this should be embraced as true doctrine”? Has there been anybody besides modern headship believers who advocated this view? I mean, in Kevin Giles’ article, he clearly shows that the church has rejected subordinationism, yet those who claim to believe in SS say that they don’t believe in what has already been rejected by the church. So where are the voices that have advocated SS?

Also, though the logic may seem contradictory, structural subordinationists also seem to believe that the Son’s subordinate relation to the Father is both voluntary and eternal/immutable/inherent.

My dictionary says that “immutable” means “not subject or susceptible to change”. Does that mean that something immutable cannot change or will not change? Either way, it only opens up more problems for those who believe in SS.

If you say that the role of Jesus is immutable, and that therefore He cannot change it, then you are saying that the God who made the universe and who can raise people from the dead is incapable of changing something about Himself. Do we really want to put those kinds of limits on God?

If you say that the role of Jesus and His subordination is voluntary, and that He will not change it, then how does that apply to the subordination of women? According to headship teaching, women have no choice. The very fact that they are born women, a fact over which they have no control, means that they are subordinate to men. So how in the world does this compare to a God who voluntarily chose to come to earth as one of us, and who continues to voluntarily subordinate Himself throughout eternity?

Comment by Lori

January 4, 2007 @ 9:33 am

LJR in #14:

To be brutally honest, I consider the point of view I grew up in to be much more consistent than the modern “complementarian” view. As much as I dislike traditionalism, I have to give some sort of credit where it’s due. There was no pretending that men and women were really equal and our differences were just “roles”. There was no double-talk about equality of being and inequality of function. There was no admitting that women could have certain abilities, but then had to deny them or only use them under strict limits. There was no messing with the Trinity to justify men’s power over women. Women were the underclass, but at least the historical teachings on the Trinity were safe.

I had to laugh when I read this, LJR, because I agree with you. When I was growing up there was no attempt to discuss gender roles in any sort of deep theological debate–it was just common sense! Men were bigger and stronger, and had historically gone out to work to provide for the family, so of course men should continue to do that while the weaker women stayed home with the kids. I mean, who could argue that women are generally better at raising kids? So clearly they should stay home. I can honestly say that I never heard any attempts to justify these gender roles from the creation account in Genesis until after I came to believe in biblical equality, too.

Like you, LJR, I actually find the beliefs of my childhood to be a lot more credible. There was no theological double talk, just what appeared to be plain common sense.

Comment by Andrew

January 8, 2007 @ 4:31 pm

Hi Lori,

I think you will find some answers to your questions regarding theological precedent for relational subordination here:

http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity

Comment by Lori

January 11, 2007 @ 7:13 am

Thank you, Andrew, for that link. I enjoyed browsing the site. However, I must confess that I found the egalitarian arguments put forth by Giles much more convincing. I also noticed that it was Giles, and not the complementary writers, who quoted the early church fathers. That, of course, goes back to my original point: where is the historical evidence for structural subordinationism? From what I have read so far, it appears to be a 20th century “interpretation” created to justify hierarchy in gender roles.

Comment by Andrew

January 25, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

Hi Lori,

I think you are half-right. The issue is a modern one in the sense that it encompasses a social vision of the triune Persons as acting willing loving “People”. It is *somewhat* anachronistic to look to the Nicene Fathers for either condemnation or support of the eternal relational subordinationist position.

However the idea that everything (including divine action) begins with the Father is fully orthodox. If social trinitarianism is right (and it must be at least partly right or there can be no love within the godhead) then it is not illogical to parse the order we have just described into a relational subordination.

Various Father’s do come close to this move. Basil is one and Hilary of Poitiers is another. Did you notice how Dr Giles never addresses Hilary? That’s unfortunate because he comes very close to stating the ERS position exactly as I have just described it. For example:

Their nature is such, that the several action of Each implies the conjoint action of Both, and Their joint activity a several activity of Each. Conceive the Son acting, and the Father acting through Him. He acts not of Himself, for we have to explain how the Father abides in Him. He acts in His own Person, for in accordance with His birth as the Son, He does Himself what is pleasing. His acting not of Himself would prove Him weak, were it not the case that He so acts that what He does is pleasing to the Father. But He would not be in the unity of the divine nature, if the deeds which He does, and wherein He pleases, were not His own, and He were merely prompted to action by the Father abiding in Him. The Father then in abiding in Him, teaches Him, and the Son in acting, acts not of Himself; while, on the other hand, the Son, though not acting of Himself, acts Himself, for what He does is pleasing. Thus is the unity of Their nature retained in Their action, for the One, though He acts Himself, does not act of Himself, while the Other, Who has abstained from action, is yet active.

Even Augustine draws connections between the subordination of the human Jesus and the begottenness of Son. Look at this passage:

“For the Father is greater than I;”(1) and, “The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God;”(2) and, “Then shall He Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him;”(3) and, “I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God,”(4) together with some others of like tenor. Now all these have had a place given them, [certainly] not with the object of signifying an inequality of nature and substance;·But these statements have had a place given them, partly with a view to that administration of His assumption of human nature (administrationem suscepti hominis), in accordance with which it is said that “He emptied Himself:” not that that Wisdom was changed, since it is absolutely unchangeable; but that it was His will to make Himself known in such humble fashion to men. Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Father that which He is, - thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (eidem Patri aequalis aut par est), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one. (De Fide et Symbolo 9.18)

Am I closer to convincing you that there is a real historical case here?

Comment by Dennis Brydon

February 23, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

Re: comment #19

Yes, there seems to be some kind of a relationship between complementarianism, subordinationism and the the teaching of Dr. Arius or Arianism.

I had been doing some research on the subjects of Binitarianism, Arianism and Trinitarianism about a year ago. When I accidently bumped into the CBMW web page on the internet while looking for an Egaltarian’s web page, I remembered that Wayne Grudem and John Piper were teaching that if the Father created Jesus and Jesus created the Holy Spirit that this pointed to some kind of subordination in the Godhead. This would show that if there is subordination in the Godhead then there must be sbordination between men and women, according to CBMW. I thought this to be very interesting because some of the Seventh Day Churches seemed to follow this pattern in their teachings of dualism and Arianism. Could it be that CBMW has been borrowing from Dr. Arius’s philosophy?

I e-mailed CBMW and asked if they were a Seventh Day Church because I could see that they seemed to have some kind of Arian teaching that usually applies to Seventh Day Church teachings. I found this to be very odd since I thought that CBMW was a Trinitarian First Day Church.

CBMW said that they would get back to me, but they never have and I am still waiting for their reply.

Den

Comment by Dennis Brydon

February 24, 2007 @ 5:37 am

Re:comment #13
Subordinationism does seem to be consistant with CBMW’s understanding of the Godhead. About a year ago I was looking for another Egalitarian’s web page. I was sent to the CBMW’s web page and read their comments about this particuar Egalitarian which was a real put down of that person’s understanding of equality.

At this time I had been researching Dr. Arius’ Arian philosophy which to me seemed consistant with the complementarian ideas of CBMW. Meaning that if the Father created Jesus, and Jesus Created the Holy Spirit then there must be a chain of command or subordination relationship in the Godhead. Therefore in someway this must also be true of the relationhip of men to women in the family and church.

I did ask CBMW if they were aware that their idea of Jesus being subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit being subordinate to the Father and Jesus might have been taken from Dr. Arius’ philosophy of Arianism.

CBMW said that they would contact me and give me their answer. I am still waiting for their reply.

Comment by Andrew

February 27, 2007 @ 9:06 pm

Hi Dennis,

Can you explain the “yes” at the beginning of your first post? Are you saying that there is a historical precedent and it is Arianism? If so then please go back and note where those quotes are coming from - arch opponents of Arianism and Eunomianism.

Again you have a point of course, both Arians and Nicene Christianity secure the unity of God by means of the monarché (single source) of the Father. The unbridgeable difference however is that the orthodox declare that the Son:
- eternally
- naturally (not by will)
- necessarily (the Father cannot exist without the Son)
- fully

…shares in everything that the Father is and does such that they together constitute a single essence, whereas Arianism devolves the Father’s causal priority through the Son as if he were simply an agent (like an angel or king).

What this means for this discussion (and this is the important part) is that for Arians the unity between Father and Son is *solely* one of relational subordination (the Son is special because he represents the Father) while in orthodoxy the bond is natural (they share a nature/essence) and MAY concomitantly also be conceived in terms of agency (see the quotes above again).

Comment by Dennis Brydon

March 18, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

Hi Andrew,

By saying “yes” I meant that there could be a chance of some historical Arianism involved. At least there is a “wiff of a sneaky suspicion” that some would carry this subordination idea over to the Trinity to keep women subordinate.

I belonged to a 7th day Church that changed from the Semi-Arianism type of Dualism to the Trinity. However, that Church has not been ready to give up the subordination of women.I think some of the former doctrines ideas of that Church found new hope in CBMW ideas. I think it is all about male control which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Comment by Andrew

March 21, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

Hi Dennis,

I’m sure there’s a tendency for that kind of justification to happen. I have certainly seen some peculiar linkages made between church structure and the Trinity too!

But I also believe the dynamic works the other way too - people who with egalitarian views in human (and especially gender) relations seem sometimes appalled by the order found in the orthodox rendition of the Trinity. For example it is fairly common in modern western works (both popular and academic) for writers to wave away the doctrine of divine begetting as if this were just a silly residue of pre-Nicene confusion which we can now dispense with. Some openly reject the Nicene “God from God, Light from Light” (Has anyone ever heard that phrase in a sermon?).

But this IS orthodoxy. This IS the way the church understands Christian monotheism. And I think that if we look at 1Cor 8:6 and John 5:19ff (where the implicit contrast in both cases is with polytheism) then we see that this is how Jesus understands it too.

This by itself does NOT give us the kind of eternal relational subordination championed by CBMW etc but it gives us something potentially consistent with it.

But this is not about (or should not be) about the Father “controlling” the Son (or men “controlling” women). The authority if it exists is an ontologically (or tropologically if you want to be picky) rooted pattern which is actively honoured by the Persons and gives shape to the way they honour each other. The Son does and says all that the Father gives him; the Father arranges all of salvation history for his Son’s glory and praise “so that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father who sent him”.

Comment by elize

September 1, 2007 @ 11:40 pm

Hi! I’m new here, but I think I’ll stick around. I find the neo-patriarchal explanation fascinating -but a bit dubious. If I understand it correctly, Christ, a male, is eternally subordinate to another male (the Father) because of his eternal “role” as “son of God”. This “role” of submission is specifically applicable to the way women are to submit to men in marriage.
Question: are they then suggesting that there’s a homosexual & incestuous relationship in the Trinity? (I ask this b/c the subordination theology is most often used by these patriarchalists to describe the marriage relationship, and the marriage relationship in turn is used as an example of how all relationships in the church should function).

Also, if women are called (according to patriarchalists) to follow the example of a Male (Christ, who preached & held authority as part of his earthly ministry), how can patriarchalists contend “no, that’s a male thing, you cannot do that”? Moreover, where does it say in the Bible that men must follow the example of the Father & women the example of Christ?
Not to mention this predicament: if in the eternal Trinity one male is eternally subject to the other, how are men going to figure out which men on earth should be subject to other men?

Comment by Mary

September 1, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

Interesting, Elize. That’s the kind of logical confusion inherent in the “eternal subordination” shell game. It’s also interesting when you think that the patriarchy bunch touts “wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord” as binding on all women to all men (or all wives to husbands, depending on who’s spinning it), then they try to prop up this out-of-context snippet with “the Son is subordinate to the Father” and make a whole (heretical) doctrine out of it.

Then there’s the interesting non-answer you’re likely to get from them when you observe that the Church–all the males and all the females–is the Bride of Christ.

What a mess these folks get themselves into when they raise gender differences (and especially their opinion of the primacy of the male) to the level of doctrine. I see too many signs of it being the source of actual idolatry for some of them.