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.

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?

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”.

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.

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).

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.

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

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?