The CBE Scroll

Comment by Chelsea

January 2, 2007 @ 12:03 pm

I wrote this post before a commentor pointed out the following distinction to me:

“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.”

In the post above, “subordinationism” and “subordinationist” refers to the view that there is an eternal immutable structure of submission and authority between the Son and the Father within the Trinity. It does not refer to the historically heretical view that the Son is subordinate in essence to the Father.

Comment by PamBG

January 2, 2007 @ 3:30 pm

I’m only a (shock! horror!) minister and not a professional theologian, so this will be my last comment.

I do not believe this philosophical category of “functionally subordinate, not ontologically subordinate”. I’m suspicious that it’s a made-up category to justify the complementarian view and now—God help us (a cry from the heart and not a curse)—the concept is being applied to the Trinity.

To suggest that the Son is eternally functionally subordinate to the Father seems to misunderstand the concept of “persons” of the Trinity. Has anyone advocating this theology explained what it is that theologically prevents us from using this concept in a eugenics manner? Why should less intelligent people not be functionally subordinate to more intelligent people, as an example?

I’m suspicious that “functional subordination” is a smoke screen for ontological subordination. You get all the benefits of ontological subordination but you don’t have to explain why some women are given the gifts of leadership that bear good fruit.

Comment by Lori

January 3, 2007 @ 11:10 am

From the original post:

Instead, the subordinationist view seems like an attempt to revise the doctrine of God in order to cling to old models of assumed rather than earned authority.

From Pam:

I’m suspicious that it’s a made-up category to justify the complementarian view…

I agree with the above statements. As I explained in my previous post, I was raised to believe in male headship, male-only pastors, etc. Yet not once in all my years did I hear anyone say that anything in the nature of the Trinity justified these beliefs. So it seems to me rather suspicious that, after years of having groups like CBE point out the errors of complementary thinking, we now have a doctrine never before advocated by the church saying that the Trinity itself justifies it. While interpretations of the Bible or existing doctrine may certainly evolve over time, I think it’s dangerous when we treat religion like science and suddenly start making amazing new discoveries that other people never dreamed of.

Has anyone advocating this theology explained what it is that theologically prevents us from using this concept in a eugenics manner?

Right now I’m reading Philip Yancy’s book Soul Survivor, and he has an entire chapter where he explains how, back in the 1960’s, his church taught that black people were inferior based on the Bible. He talks about how one Sunday his pastor got up and said God had created black people to fill the subordinate roles of servant, waiter in a restaurant, etc. and that to do so He created them with certain physical characteristics. It is no great stretch to say that since Jesus is subordinate, and therefore women are supposed to be subordinate, that other groups should be subordinate, as well.

When you examine the doctrine of “functional subordinationism,” though, you see that it actually opens up a can of worms. In headship teaching, if a woman tries to step outside of her role, then she is going against God’s Word and presumably, open to His judgement. I don’t mean to be blasphemous, but does the same hold true for Jesus? I mean, does He have a choice over filling His role or not? Can He step out of His role? To form an exact analogy with women’s subordination, you would have to say that Jesus has no choice over the role He plays, just as women have no choice as to being born female. Does that sound right when we’re talking about the God of the Universe? And to say that any person or group of people–whether it’s Jesus, or women, or black
people–have no choice as to what role they play in life is to logically imply subordination.

Comment by Ron Smith

January 3, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

I believe there is a worldwide and orchestrated attack against the Trinity. I believe this is from both inside and outside the church. I have observed that egalitarians [as the above comment states] are usually the first to jump to the defense of historic orthodox Trinitarian theology. I started a blog over a year ago addressing this issue of Trinitarian theology. If you are interested, I have placed over 200 posts and articles on the site about this topic. The blog address is: http://www.discusstheology.com
Ron Smith [by the way, these issues are related].

Comment by Francine

January 4, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

Re: comment #3: “In headship teaching, if a woman tries to step outside of her role, then she is going against God’s Word and presumably, open to His judgement.” That is one area (out of many) I can say the headship teaching is wrong. I’ve studied the women in the Bible for ten years now. One of the things I’ve noticed with the women in the Bible is that they did step out of their roles and God did not past judgement on them but praised and rewarded them. Ladies, he wants us to step out of our man made roles and serve him. He wants us to be mighty women of valor.

Comment by PamBG

January 6, 2007 @ 4:02 am

Lori said: As I explained in my previous post, I was raised to believe in male headship, male-only pastors, etc. Yet not once in all my years did I hear anyone say that anything in the nature of the Trinity justified these beliefs. So it seems to me rather suspicious that, after years of having groups like CBE point out the errors of complementary thinking, we now have a doctrine never before advocated by the church saying that the Trinity itself justifies it.

Somewhere on the web – and I’m afraid I can’t remember where – a male minister pointed out that the whole concept of functional subordination as applied to women was a concept that appeared during the 1980s. I grew up under male headship during the 1960s and 1970s and studied theology (at a reputable mainstream university) in the late 1970s. This timing would explain why I’d not heard of the concept until very recently (having been – thankfully – totally outside male headship denominations for many years). I knew the concept was being applied to women but didn’t know it was being applied to the Trinity.

The old-style male-headship I grew up under did argue that evidence of women’s ontological subordination was our inability to be effective leaders, our inability to make decisions and our lack of responsibility. But this was in a time when the secular world openly said many of the same things and where I even heard such things at work. As the secular world changed and the evidence pointed to the fact that women do make effective leaders, the concept of permanent functional subordination seems to have arisen within the section of the church bent on being power-based and keeping the power in male hands.

Now we just seem to have the argument “God obviously said you are to function in a subordinate manner and who are you to challenge God?” It’s another “mathematical” way to do theology “Given that God said X (and this “given” is beyond contradiction), then you must do Y”. I know that male headship people get upset at the comparisons, but it is exactly like racism: “God doesn’t give the gift of leadership to XYZ people; if evidence shows God did, then XYZ people are simply commanded by God not to exercise them.”

Comment by Rachel

January 9, 2007 @ 11:04 pm

Good thoughts, guys. I’ve been thinking about this issue quite a bit myself, and here is my question: It’s commonly taught that the gender-based chain of command is necessary to maintain harmony in the church and family. Conflict necessitates the safeguard. So, if there is subordination in the Trinity, does that also mean that there can disharmony in the Trinity? If there wasn’t a chain of command, would they constantly be bickering amongst themselves and eventually separate in a bitter and ugly divorce? And if they can disagree, then which Person is in error and lacks the attribute of omniscience, since they can’t all be right?

Uff da. I hate to think of where this could lead. I think we would all like to be known as egalitarians even if it only meant that we stood up against this quasi-heresy and called it for what it was. Are there any complementarians that are questioning this doctrine?

Comment by Lori

January 11, 2007 @ 6:51 am

Rachel, that’s a very good insight. I’ve read several magazine articles which interviewed headship couples, and one of the reasons they always gave for their beliefs was, “Well, somebody has to make the final decision if we disagree.” After reading these stories, you would think that marriage was supposed to be modeled after the military chain-of-command, or that of a large corporation. So taking that model and imposing it on the Trinity is quite fascinating. If any member of the Trinity disagrees, who makes the final decision? Would it be the Father, since the Son is subordinate? And where does the Holy Spirit fit into all of this? In fact, is the Spirit subordinate also, or is He equal to the Father? In this entire discussion I have yet to hear any mention of the Spirit.

Pam in #6:

Now we just seem to have the argument “God obviously said you are to function in a subordinate manner and who are you to challenge God?” It’s another “mathematical” way to do theology “Given that God said X (and this “given” is beyond contradiction), then you must do Y”. I know that male headship people get upset at the comparisons, but it is exactly like racism: “God doesn’t give the gift of leadership to XYZ people; if evidence shows God did, then XYZ people are simply commanded by God not to exercise them.”

I have pretty much thought the same thing ever since I was introduced to equality teaching. As I said in my above post (#3), Philip Yancy discusses this issue at length. His pre-civil-rights pastor said outright that God had created black people to be subordinate to white people, and gave them certain physical characteristics to help them fill their role. This pastor even traced the subordination of black people to the book of Genesis–how Noah cursed his son Ham, and Ham supposedly was the father of the negro race. Decent people all agree that that is a terribly faulty reading of Genesis and no group of people should be discriminated against based on their race. Well, I don’t mean to be offensive, but how is that any different from saying that God created women to fill a subordinate role, based on their physical characteristics, and that to step out of that role is to go against God’s created order? In fact, in the introduction to his book This is My Story: Testimonies & Sermons of Black Women in Ministry (available from CBE’s bookstore), Cleophus J. LaRue talks about how as an African-American minister himself, he had always been against women ministers. After his “Damascus moment,” however, he realized that “I, who had certainly known my share of prejudice and discrimination, was covertly involved in the very kind of prejudice I had railed against throughout my ministry.”

Comment by Molly

January 14, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

I blogged about this myself recently, with lots of quotes. As a former complementarian, I took it for granted that permanent subordination within the Trinity was orthodox teaching. It really surprised me when I began doing a little digging…

The links are:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/complimentarian-grudem-and-historic-trinitarian-understanding-not-the-same-thing/

and part two:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/11/complimentarian-grudem-and-historic-trinitarian-understanding-not-the-same-thing/

The comments box was really good too, with more links there.

Comment by Molly

January 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

Whoops—wrong link for part two:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/grudemcbmw-and-the-trinity-part-two/

Comment by Lori

January 16, 2007 @ 6:23 am

I’ve really enjoyed reading the posts that you linked to above, Molly, and all the comments. It was so good that I’ve linked your post and this one here at The Scroll in my own blog. You’ve done such a good job of providing another deep theological perspective like Chelsea here at the Scroll, that I decided to take another tack. I’ve outlined some common sense implications of believing that Jesus is subordinate within the Trinity.

Comment by Kathryn

January 17, 2007 @ 12:46 am

Re: comment # 6: Like you PamBG, I too was inundated with negative messages about women leaders. When I was a child the “male-headship” patriarchy not only extended to church and home, it also extended to government and business, which leads me to wonder: How much of the attitude of the secular world was in fact shaped by the preaching that folks heard in their churches, going all the way back to the beginning of our country?

Comment by Dennis Brydon

February 24, 2007 @ 7:39 pm

Hello Everyone,

This is a very interesting subject that each person who has been called to be part of Jesus’ egalitarian work can reflect on in some way. We may be scattered but we are fixed on the truth and the subordination or complmentarian buck does stops here.

I remember years go when I first became a “Christian” in a church that taught dualism and Arianism. In this Church Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Jesus was not a divine person but a created person and messenger for the Father. The Holy Spirit was not even to be thought of as a person but an extention of the Father’s mind. One afternoon as I was reading Romans the eight chapter (I wonder how people that read this chapter on the Holy Spirit’s deity could say that Ruah is not a divine person)I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding me through this chapter. In verse 8:26 it states that the Holy Spirit has a mind of her own. Verse 27 also states that Jesus is searching the heart of a new Christian to see what the Holy Spirit has put in that persons mind.

Simple, easy to understand no problem here! Very interesting chapter in which all three dieties are mentioned. But when I asked my minister to explain how these verses worked I received the classic ,”Oh no,verses 26 - 27 are only talking about Jesus and the Father’s mind. Well, I never bought that story and I’m glad that the Holy Spirit would not let me fall into that trap. Years later I watched this church fall apart and whittle down to almost non-exsistence. That church suffered from an patriarchal hierarchical “crash program” that will occur from time to time when subordination or complimentarianism issues are taught.

When the equality of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are left out of a church, that church has no foundation and will not bare good fruit, Matthew 7:12 - 20.
The equality of men and women are reflected in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 4:1 -7.

I wonder how churches expect to receive the gifts of the Spirit when they try to leave out or marginalize the person of the Holy Spirit; or deny both the egalitarian deities of Jesus and the Spirit? Maybe Revelations 3:14 - 19, has the right answer for them. They could be really blind and naked spiritually and do not understand God’s teachings. correctly. God help them!

Comment by William Hicks

April 6, 2007 @ 9:49 pm

All of this is beside the point if the Trinity does not exist at all. There is no justification for believing in a trinity if our earliest sources in New Testament literature do not support it. In fact, the whole doctrine is an invention of the early church,and, after 2000 years still perverts Christian theology. Thank God, however that grace triumphs in spite of it.