The CBE Scroll

Comment by TL

May 2, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

Good article.

The problem is that the hierarchalists are not going to yield. What can they yield to? They’d have to yield to allowing women “some” liberties in teaching, preaching and serving. Women have already been yielding to their restrictions long enough.

It’s important that we don’t return the favor of the name calling or bad mouthing. But other than having a good and kind hearted return for ill treatment, really, it’s mostly in their court.

Also, it’s good to remember that the unity that Paul speaks of is one of attitude not same beliefs. Thus we can disagree on understanding and still love one another in the Lord.

Comment by Mark Baker-Wright

May 3, 2010 @ 11:24 am

If we are the ones advocating for the full inclusion of all of God’s people (that is, men and women) to all forms of God’s service, we are not the ones “dividing.” Those who would seek to exclude are the dividers.

Comment by S. M. Hutchens

May 3, 2010 @ 11:56 am

The problem with these excellent rules is that they apply as between Christians, while the egalitarians and orthodox (it has become plainer to me as time goes on and egalitarianism becomes more explicit in its trinitarian theology) worship different deities, the kind between whom no fellowship is possible to begin with. There really is no question of “should we divide?” It is rather, “In what sense is there a ‘we’?” The issue between us is, Who will repent of their error and return to worship the Christian God?

As stark and radical as this may seem at first blush, it corresponds to the actual all-or-nothing state of affairs to which TL refers. The differences of opinion to which we are referring here do not concern just a few issues like women’s ordination, amenable to resolution over time given Christian attitudes, but have at base to do with entirely opposed perspectives on reality–different religions–not just variances within Christianity.

I find no answer to Mr. Johnson’s question, as posed.

Comment by Michelle

May 3, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

I tend to lean toward what is expressed in comment 91289: “If we are the ones advocating for the full inclusion of all of God’s people (that is, men and women) to all forms of God’s service, we are not the ones ‘dividing.’ Those who would seek to exclude are the dividers.”

I still attend a church where women are not permitted to serve in all the ways in which they are gifted and called, that is part of a denomination in which women are not permitted to serve in all the ways in which they gifted and called.

So we are all in the same building, yes, but the holy spirit is being stifled in some women. Are these gifted women at peace with God, themselves, their congregations, and their denomination?

And even women (perhaps men, as well, but I’ve heard this only from women–your experience may vary) who are not egalitarian seem unhappy with the relatively little time given to talking about women in the Bible and their importance in God’s plan, while the “fathers of the faith” can be discussed endlessly.

And then there are women who chose to stay in a non-egalitarian church (for whatever reasons) who do not have the energy and/or are not called to be change agents. I’ve heard one of them mutter under her breath about the anatomical requirement for the position of elder.

I find it increasingly difficult to focus on worship, to focus on God. I find this silent division so loud, so distracting. I wonder how many of the people who sit in the pews there would be willing to worship at a church with a “whites-only” leadership policy, justified with scripture. How is “males-only” less glaring?

In short, although I do not question the salvation of Christians who are not egalitarian, and I would like to cooperate with Christians who hold diverse viewpoints…

There has been much said over the years about how “God hates divorce.” Well, yes. This is true. But what is divorce? Is it the actual legal proceeding? Or is it the alienation, the pain, the separation that occurs *prior* to the legal proceeding? (I am not trying to advocate divorce or to say it is always good or justified, but rather to use it to illustrate a legalistic understanding vs. another option.)

Comment by Don Johnson

May 3, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

From SMH we see the claim that there are egals and there are orthodox, that is, some are claiming that along with an egal reading of Scripture comes bundled a (claimed) heterodoxy on the Godhead, etc.

I see it as being a question of who is the divider, who is the schismatic?

But for SHM it is already a case of believers and non-believers. I find that very sad and remind myself that I am called to love all believers, regardless whether they even think I am one.

Comment by Trevor

May 3, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

I’m with you Don (comment 91292), “I find that very sad and remind myself that I am called to love all believers, regardless whether they even think I am one.”

I’ve had first hand experience of this when at an executive meeting of a Fellowship of Churches, to which our church belonged, I was accused of having departed from the faith of the said group, even though I was the founding chairman and had given 20 plus years of faithful service to the organisation. I was given no opportunity to defend the accusations, or to have enunciated for me as to what they actually were! Nor sadly, within the meeting, to state my own case. To my accuser I was anathema, silenced and ignored.

At the end of the meeting I approached my accuser, who was also a long time family friend and a well educated person, offering my hand of fellowship, even though we disagreed. He refused to shake my hand, treating me in that moment as an apostate. I respected his conscience on the matter but said to him calmly and simply, “The Jesus whom I serve would have me love even my enemies.” It was so sad that we could not dialogue but it was perceived that my ‘beliefs’ were dangerous to a strictly conservative mindset.

I like what another commenter said about these ‘rules’ being a matter of attitude. It grieves me too that some are so concerned about doctrinal purity, and a fear of being contaminated, that they cannot extend common, human decency and courtesy. These disputed issues are peripheral things and should be open for discussion. Surely we can only be accused of departing from the faith when we hold in question the person and work of Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy, or heterodoxy surely has to do with core beliefs and if one holds to these, no matter of what denominational persuasion, one is held to be a believer.

It is on the basis of our core beliefs, concerning the atoning work on the cross of Jesus Christ, that we have unity and fellowship in the Holy Spirit. That unity should be desired by all believers and be our calling card to the world.

Comment by EricW

May 3, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

Don:

Maybe I’m misreading SMH, but it seemed to me that s/he was saying that egalitarians are the ones whose increasingly explicit Trinitarian theology shows them to be the Christians rather than the (so-called) “orthodox” hierarchalists whose doctrine of the Godhead includes the heretical/heterodox idea of the eternal subordination of the Son.

But I could be wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time).

Comment by Don Johnson

May 4, 2010 @ 7:08 am

Eric,

Try reading it again.

He is claiming that the conception of God is different between egals and the orthodox, and therefore as it is a different God, it is not the same faith, and therefore, who is wrong and needs to repent? Furthermore, since egals are not even in the faith (according to him), my question cannot be answered as it assumes egals are in the faith.

By contrasting egals with the orthodox, one can guess that he is non-egal, but he does not make the contrast that way. You can find other posts on the web where he posts and confirm that he claims non-egalism is a part of orthodoxy.

Ain’t language grand!

Comment by Larry S

May 4, 2010 @ 8:38 am

Eric,

I got the same reading of Hutchens as Don did.
The post isn’t clearly written; kind of a sly dig. If I’m going to be called a heretic I perfer a more blunt approach.

Comment by TL

May 4, 2010 @ 11:29 am

IMO it is a dangerous stance to be calling a believer a non-believer. For then one is taking sides with the ‘accuser of the brethren’;
brethren meaning the Body of Christ.

It is interesting that in our era there are so many humans who are willing to self mutilate. I’ve heard testimonies that it gives them a rush, a high of sorts. So what kind of ‘high’ does one get who attacks their own Body spiritually? And what are the spiritual ramifications of doing so?

Comment by Lisa

May 4, 2010 @ 11:50 am

I have an issue in my personal life that I am having problems resolving. I am a part of a Christian ministry group where we minister to the community. Two of the men in the group have taken issue with how I am ministering because I am a woman (mainly, they have issue with me praying, reading scripture and ministering to men).

How can you have unity with people that try to break down unity? I can either give up my position because I don’t want to cause strife in the church (Paul says that all things are allowable, but not all things are profitable). Or I can stand and fight, which is the second option. It seems like a complex dilemma; because if I take the latter choice, I am causing discord to attain to unity. If I choose the former choice, I am trying to act unified under their demands of unity. Any advice?

Comment by Lisa

May 4, 2010 @ 11:51 am

In the last sentence, I mean to say “I am trying to act unified under their demands to break down unity.” Sorry, for the typo!

Comment by TL

May 4, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

Very tough position. I’ll be praying for you. My position is also living on the edge at my church.

Comment by Michelle

May 4, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

Actually, I thought that you (91299) made the point well before correcting the typo–but I am biased because it was the point I was trying to make, above (91291).

We talk about the unity of the church, but is it unity in actuality? In practice? Or are we faking it, holding things together for appearances’ sake, telling half* the church as it is being quashed, “Hold on–we’ll get there”?

Their demands of “unity” include you squelching ways in which you have been gifted by the spirit. I do not view this as true unity. I am sorry for your situation, that you have to deal with this. It is difficult, and I have nothing to offer you, unfortunately, but to hope that others here may have wisdom to share with you. In the end, you must do whatever you discern you are to do at that time. Best wishes.

I share the great distaste that others have expressed here for calling into question the faith of another Christian.

*(not in actuality half, as many recognize the proper place of women in God’s creation, but a word chosen for sake of simplicity)

Comment by ls

May 4, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

I, too, had trouble reading SMH. And in studying Luke this year with a wonderful group I can’t help but think of Jesus revealing God’s heart toward people, wanting them to ‘get it’, even, especially…, the spiritual leaders. I think of His compassion touching ‘outcasts’ and not letting the woman who reached to touch His garment go until she had testified and she was blessed by Him as He called her “Daughter”. All that presence is soooo different than….the implication that you are not a believer unless you affirm a layer of male leadership between women and Jesus. I just cannot understand CBMW ideas of male hegemony, I think that’s the right word. I do agree with the fact of personhood, differentiation, I think those are the right words, who knows…, that is, I think those are things God desires for people according to my current Biblical understanding.

One thing that struck me in studying Luke was Jesus before the Jewish leaders when they demanded “Tell us if you are the Christ”. He responded “Even if I tell you, you won’t believe me. And if I ask you a question, you won’t answer me.” THAT is communication impasse. I take note of who is doing the controlling, demanding style. It seems to me that they had the answers they wanted. They didn’t really seem to have any questions, really. And finally, to manipulate the political powers, they did the very thing they accused Jesus of. They said they had no other king but Ceasar. I take note of who it is that desires for me and others to know God truly.

I do not want to hate, well my ‘old self’ does, I guess. I want to rightly value all people. I don’t appreciate confusion brought on to my own journey (and others that I know have simlar struggles or tendencies)from some spiritual leaders themselves.

ls

Comment by Hubert Edgar

May 4, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

I think TL (in comment 91288) hit it on the head: “…the unity that Paul speaks of is one of attitude not same beliefs.” I hold doctrines (including egalitarianism) that keep me from being acceptable to Conservative Christianity, and doctrines that keep me from Non-Conservative Christianity. I often feel very lost in the Body. But, I have to follow what I believe God teaches in His word. In sites like CBE Scroll I can find some affirmation, some sense of unity.

I’ll give you an example of how unity can actually work. It’s not an egalitarian question, but my eldest brother and I have a disagreement concerning a doctrine which he considers major and I consider minor. We spent a series of emails with him explaining his point of view and me explaining mine. Neither of us convinced the other. So, we maintain Christian fellowship (and family) by acknowledging our mutual knowledge that both of us are following God as best we can, we both love each other, and so we can have unanimity of love without unanimity of theology. (The issue is not important to any aspect of the doctrine of Salvation.) This will work in situations where such unity/disunity does not impact how the other person serves God. I suggest that one question to ask yourself when trying to decide how to live God’s unity is whether you can still serve God and retain the unity of the Spirit. If you can’t you may have to move on. I had to do that from one church and it was one of the most painful experiences of my life.

The concept of unity requires a state of agreement about something that overcomes the disagreements that try to tear us apart. Like faith itself, unity cannot be forced upon another person.

I think this issue should be expanded for egalitarians. It’s not just about sexual equality. We still divvy up the poor and wealthy, the races, the nations and nationalities, the languages and a variety of non-religious groupings in our churches. I have a nephew (we’re white) who has found his place of service in an almost solely black church. This is a victory for egalitarianism! Neither Jew nor Greek!

I give one last word in this rather lengthy comment: forgiveness. The righteousness that can come from this disunity is mutual forgiveness. Maybe that’s the first step to acceptance: forgiveness of those we each believe are wrong.

Comment by Sonnet

May 4, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

Hi Lisa,
After reading your question in your post 91299, the following verses came to my mind.

“Then they [the Sanhedrin] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, ‘Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4:18-20 TNIV

So, I guess my answer would be to do what you believe God (and not man) is leading you to do.

Comment by Trevor

May 4, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Hi Lisa,

As I read through your comment you mention two men who oppose your participation in that way. Does that mean that there are others on the community serving team who are not offended by your actions? Interestingly, in community service, the people receiving the service would in no way question your ‘hands on’ involvement, for them it would be perfectly natural, it’s only in the church that this is seen to be an issue. Strangely enough, even in male dominated societies, women missionaries are accepted as being OK to serve Christ in this way. Churches seem to have a real hang up on their ‘home turf’.

From what you have also said it would seem that the sending body, the church itself, is opposed to having women visible in these kinds of ways, (ie. praying publicly and ministering to men). If that be the case then perhaps serving the community in this way, which I presume to be outside of the church’s normal jurisdiction, is a way for the church to be enlightened as to the possibilities of both genders being gifted by God to be involved together in ministry.

The way that you rendered that last statement, before the correction, spelled out for me too that the men were laying out the terms of unity, a ‘my way or the highway’ kind of deal. That’s not unity at all. It comes at the cost of you denying your God given gifts. It would seem that you are enjoying being able to feel used of God in the community service and it would be a shame to sacrifice that for the sake of mere compliance. It’s a tough one Lisa. I guess that you need to know God’s wisdom in whether it is right to push on gently and make an issue of it, both for yourself and others who may also be struggling with this within your church family.

Otherwise, as Hubert has suggested, you are faced with the possibility of looking for another church family that recognises and encourages your gifts. Not only is this a painful option, it may be that it isn’t an option for two reasons. One, that there isn’t another church in your area that would welcome your gifts and two, you may have to say goodbye to your community service opportunity anyway.

With that in mind I would be opting for gently pushing ahead and challenging the opinions of the two men who oppose you with the question, “What is God doing with my praying and ministering to men and women in public?” If the recipients are not only not offended but blessed and encouraged by your participation then this must surely say something to your antagonists and challenge their doctrinal stance. Everyone on this blog site will be standing with you Lisa.

Comment by Frank

May 4, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

Over the last few years, as much as God has enabled me to do so, I have lived by the old Puritan dictum, “In essentials, unity; in disputable matters, liberty; but in all things, charity (love).” And I certainly would not want to cause any unnecessary division among Christians, but love even those who strongly disagree me on certain points of doctrine and practice.

However, even love has its limits: “It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices when the truth wins out” (1 Cor 13:6, NLT). And so if our Lord himself was the embodiment of divine life, then, as we see from the record of his life and ministry in the NT, his own firm resistance to injustice and falsehood must be maintained in our own lives and ministries, through the power of the Holy Spirit, who indwells us. And yet to do this will be costly for us, as guardians of the Gospel of Christ (cf. Gal. 4:21-29, NLT).

Now as for SMH, I have this to say. Contrary to what he says, we have not departed from the orthodox, Trinitarian Faith of the Scriptures or of the Ecumenical Creeds. As I have pointed out here and elsewhere, ESS is nothing but a novel reworking of Semi-Arianism, a heresy condemned by the Eastern Church in 381 A.D. and by the Western Church in 382 A.D.

And this heresy was revived and reworked by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, following the lead of George Knight III, as a theological basis for their false and unjust teaching that men and women are ontologically equal yet functionally subordinate in the same way and at the same time. So let us be clear here: A study of the historical documents will show who first began this battle over the Trinity: the hierarchicalists, not the egalitarians!

Moreover, several orthodox, Evangelical scholars–such as Kevin Giles, Millard Erickson, and Alan Myatt–have shown that ESS is not only heretical, but also rationally inconsistent and incoherent. Yet their warnings against the destructive consequences of this Trinitarian heresy are being ignored by hierarchicalists.

Heirarchicalists appear to be so committed to their idol of Male Dominance, that they no longer recognize God as he has made himself known to us through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And they have also forgotten the warning of Scripture: “Dear children, keep away from anything that might take God’s place in your hearts” (1 John 5:21, NLT). Well, I’m sorry if I have come across harshly, and I do hope SMH and others will repent of their Trinitarian heresy and their hatred toward us. But tampering with the central doctrine of the Trinity is no trivial matter, and as Millard Erickson has demonstrated, it is not the egalitarians who have bent the doctrine to promote their own agenda.

Comment by Kamilla

May 5, 2010 @ 10:08 am

Frank,

Interesting you should make such an explicit appeal to the ancient creeds which unite all Christians. It is not Hutchens who has denied allegiance to those creeds, but the author of this blog post, Johnson.

Kamilla

Comment by Brie Marie

May 5, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

I must start out by saying that I agree that we must commit to unity within the church, even with those who we disagree with, and it is always necessary for us to be in respectful conversation with others.

In reference to statement 6/7; by even declaring or defining who is and is not a person of faith, however vague, we are drawing a line in the sand that can all too easily be crossed. Even in trying to define salvation in the most inclusive of terms, interpretation becomes crucial, as even the words gospel and faith may cause extreme contention.
If unity is what we are truly trying to achieve, then point 6 should read: “Decline to declare that others that do not agree with you are outside the faith.”

(Not that I am trying to say that there is no differentiation between the saved or not, only that by bringing it into consciousness we start to make determinations that only God has authority on, and thwart the conversation.)

Comment by Marjorie

May 5, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

Coming back to the question which is the title of Don Johnson’s original post, “Should we divide over perspective on gender and service?” Absolutely not! But keep in mind that what is “perspective” to one person is the absolute, unchanging Word of God to another. I think the Apostle Paul might say, “Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don’t see things the way you do. And don’t jump all over them every time they do or say something you don’t agree with—even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.” (Romans 14:1 from The Message, which I’ve quoted for its pointed clarity.) A comment by HE (91304) illustrates this. The disagreement between brothers was about doctrine one thought was minor but the other considered major. They agreed to love one another without have to conform in their thinking. Beautiful!

It was Paul too who said if his freedom to eat meat caused a brother to stumble, he would not ever eat meat again as long as he lived. Is it taking it too far to say to another believer, “If discussing this issue breaks the unity of our fellowship, I will never bring it up in your presence again”? Let us not mistake agitation with the current state of affairs for the direction of God to do something—anything! On the other hand, if one cannot be fully obedient to the clear leading of the Spirit while remaining connected to a specific local body of believers, it may be time to move on. God has people everywhere, and unlimited opportunities for service. After all, Jesus sent His own twelve disciples out to minister where they were welcomed.

Comment by Frank

May 5, 2010 @ 10:34 pm

Kamilla, like my Reformed forebears, I appeal to the Creeds only as early and reliable witness to what all orthodox Christians believed to be the teaching of the Scriptures, prior to the great schisms caused when the Roman Catholic Church arrogated to itself a pre-eminence and authority over other churches for which it had no true Scriptural warrant.

And though I recognize the Ecumenical Creeds and the Reformed Confessions as valuable aids in our understanding and applying the teaching of Scripture, I do not regard them as sacred and infallible on all points. Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God–and all Christian beliefs, practices and traditions, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox–must be measured and judged by Scripture.

Now, I am familiar with Don from his writing and commenting on other blogs, and can safely say that while he and I have disagreed on some minor points, for anyone to either imply or state he does not have a high view of Scripture, a proper respect for Christian tradition, and a genuine commitment to orthodoxy–well, I would say that this is to both dishonor and slander him. And to dishonor a brother or sister in this way is contrary to the love which the Spirit causes to well up in our hearts for one another. As it is written, “Love is not proud, it does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking” (1 Cor. 13:4-5).

Comment by LMcC

May 6, 2010 @ 9:25 am

Frank, thank you for posting that.

It is strange. So-called “complementarian” theology in its current form is actually younger than I am. It dates back only to 1977.

I’ve seen in my own lifetime the difference between the traditionalist “women are inferior, so you girls shut up” to the so-called complementarian “yeah, you ladies could do X, but you shouldn’t so be quiet”. The results for women are the same, but the reasoning differences actually make “complementarianism” worse, IMNAHO.

At least the traditionalists never messed with the Trinity. Egal views of the Trinity are in line with doctrinal orthodoxy, and well-defended. The comp view of the Trinity, with its semi-Arian subordinationism, is less than 50 years old. Never in the history of the church has there been an attempt to base eternal subordination on something that was allegedly not part of the assumed inferiority of one’s being. Supposedly this eternal subordination of Christ is only “functional”. Sorry, but the minute the subordination becomes eternal and unchangeable, there’s no way to call it merely “functional”. Functions can and do change. Essential being does not.

The church never before saw a reason to mess with the Trinity while practicing subordination of women. Only when women began to prove ability in areas of business and leadership did this kind of doctrinal juggling come about. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to accept joyfully that the church actually had a full workforce to carry out the Great Commission? Sure, but where’s the fun in that for those who like to be in charge?

Comment by Don Johnson

May 6, 2010 @ 3:52 pm

I accept the 66 books of the (prot) Bible as God’s inspired word. I do not put anything else in this category. Everything else is to conform to Scripture’s revelation of God, etc., and if it does not, Scripture remains.

Comment by Michelle

May 6, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

I suppose my main struggle with this question is the question itself–

Having experienced some (mis)treatment that came about as a result of others holding to these beliefs about gender (e.g., men lead/women follow, men are the natural protectors of women, women are less logical than men) that are often cloaked as pious Christian belief/practice, I have a hard time experiencing this as about merely “gender and service”. Because the issue is not limited to the ways in which I am permitted to serve my church.

In addition, while I can choose to drink alcohol or not (for example), I live in a human body that is *female*. Period. There is no choice there.

Comment by Jeannette

May 6, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

Should we divide over the issue? I suppose it depends what you mean by the word ‘divide’. Unity is more than just close proximity it is an attitude. And so I believe that I can choose to love and forgive a brother or sister who is oppressing me by prohibiting me from expressing my gifts or calling. But unity does not mean that I have to simply be silent or continue to remain in the community. Sonnet’s Scripture reference and point is spot on. Jesus died to redeem us from the Fall and the free us from the curse. To be silent or stifle my gifts for the sake of “unity” (which is really not unity) is to silence the gospel for which my Lord gave his life. What if Martin Luther had decided to be quiet and follow orders in the name of “unity”? What if abolitionist Christians decided to put pseudo unity above the fight against slavery? Where would we be today? It is not a simple issue to navigate. Each situation calls for walking in the Spirit and hearing from God. But let’s not assume that the absence of conflict is the definition of unity. How we handle the conflict is the heart of the matter.

Comment by Don Johnson

May 7, 2010 @ 6:52 am

To clarify, what I meant by divide is whether to consider those that believe in gender hierarchy as (A) mistaken believers or (B) apostates and heretics.

I think most by far as in category A. That is, belief in gender hierarchy is not by itself a reason to think someone is not a believer.

Comment by LMcC

May 7, 2010 @ 9:45 am

To answer the question in 91318:

Splitting strictly over gender issues, no. Some people honestly can’t overcome their backgrounds. If they can otherwise accept us as Christians, there are ways to work around our differences.

That said, if the reason for their gender beliefs has to do with their view of the Trinity, the Trinity issue may very well be a good reason to divide. That’s distortion of the doctrine of God, a foundation issue. Some may disagree with me, and may well be able to work with those who teach a different view of Jesus Christ. I’m just not so sure I can compromise on an issue that major.

Comment by Michelle

May 7, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

What are the practical implications of a view that Jesus is God yet somehow eternally subordinate to God? How does that play out in worship and in relationships?

What are the practical implications of a view that God created all people equally in God’s image, yet intends one group of people to submit to another group? What would this say about God and the character of God? How does this play out in worship and in relationships?

Comment by Michelle

May 7, 2010 @ 1:26 pm

To clarify–I left out a word in the second paragraph, and it leads to some slight reworking:

What are the practical implications of a view that God created all people equally in God’s image, yet intends one group of people to submit to another group? What would this say about the nature and the character of God? How does this play out in worship and in relationships?

Comment by Maz

May 8, 2010 @ 3:07 am

I am a simple soul. I do not understand all the arguments in God’s church. I do know that Jesus loves all believers ….. and all non-believers. I think that Jesus spent so much time with sinners because he did not like all the arguments in the religious organisations of his day.

I have worked in missionary organisations and I worked alongside people from many denominations and nationalities, men and women together. The differences were not important when we focused on the task set before us. We had unity in our calling to service.

Thankfully, the saving grace of Jesus Christ is the gospel, not the church. I am saddened by in-fighting within God’s church, just because all that emotional energy and thought could be more productively used outside of the church, to reach the lost and make this world a better place.

I am a woman in a church whose leadership believes that leadership is male and that women should not teach men, nor be elders. My current challenge is to obey God and not men within that context. It is a lonely road. Am I in unity within my church? Probably not. But I believe that I am in unity with God’s wider church, thanks to the fact that there are many divisions within the church and that my church is not the only expression of God’s wonderful church.

Comment by Frank

May 8, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

Are hierarchical complementarians “mistaken believers” or “heretics and apostates”? In most cases, I would say they are “mistaken believers.” They need someone to come alongside them, and more “correctly” explain God’s Word to them, as Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos (Acts 18:24-28, TEV).

However, regarding certain hierarchicalist leaders and teachers who have redefined the Trinity as an eternal hierarchy and have recently argued that the Church’s witness is severely harmed unless hierarchicalism is seen as a key elment in the presentation of the Gospel–well, I’m not so sure I can, in good conscience and in faithfulness to the Gospel of Christ, work with these people.

This is because I believe they have turned down a path that is harmful and destructive, both by altering the Doctrine of the Trinity to give a theological basis for their hierarchical view of men and women in the Church, and by insisting that anyone who does not embrace their view of male-female relations does harm to the truth and relevance of the Gospel message itself.

At a recent T4G conference in Louisville, KY, of which the theme was “The Unadjusted Gospel” J. Ligon Duncan III gave a key address, in which he made the following statement:

“We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.”

It seems to me that these people are drawing a line and in essence saying, “If you egalitarians refuse to cross this line, and accept our understanding not only regarding human relations, but also of the Trinity and the Gospel, then we will regard you as heretics and enemies”–if this is indeed the case, then our discussion about unity and division among Evangelicals is merely academic. They have already separated us from themselves, just as the Roman Catholic Church, in its resistence to Luther’s call for reform, separated itself from him and condemned him as a heretic.

Comment by Amanda

May 9, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

@Frank (91324): that’s not merely a statement made by Duncan; it’s a direct quote from the Article XVI of the T4G Affirmations & Denials, their doctrinal statement of sorts:

http://www.t4g.org/uploads/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf

I really don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say they’ve drawn a line and elevated complementarianism to a level of primary, not secondary or tertiary, importance, at a higher level above such doctrinal issues as baptism, ecclesiology, views on the Lord’s Supper, etc.

Comment by ls

May 9, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Thank you, Frank! Someone recently told me this quote “As soon as you ‘draw the line’, Jesus is on the other side”. I also think of Dr. Richard C. Halverson’s words..”To absolutize secondary issues and allow them to divide believers is a form of idolatry..the worship of something less than Jesus Christ Himself.”

It seems to me that reworking the doctrine of the Trinity and using that to ‘prescribe’ gender roles is pretty bold! How can THAT be offered as opinion rather than an attempt to ‘absolutize’ prescribed roles? I could listen to them better if they worded things as ‘this is what we, in our fallibility, are considering or thinking or wondering’. And, of course, I ‘work’/'fit’ better in places where there is interest or consideration, also, in what I think or even what other women think. Because I can only relate to God from where I am at. And I acknowledge that I have a great deal to learn and want to learn and to work through. God created , both, male and female, with minds to think. How can all female thought , at the ‘teaching’ level be irrelevant to all men?

I suppose, though, that I am drawing a line at refusing to give up being Berean, refusing to be “kept so busy that I can’t think” (I was told this once), refusing to agree with the belief that fathers or men desiring Christ-likeness are not called to be included in a great portion of the quantity of time it takes to nurture children and others well and are just relegated to the realm of economic provision and ‘validation’. I am refusing to agree that women ought to leave the realm of economic provision and ‘validation’ to their husbands and not take interest, or a part, in it. It seems to me that I have a line that I am refusing to ‘defer’ to ‘them’ on. I’m not preaching from the pulpit, though. Sadly, though, even the majority of my female friends are tired of hearing about Biblical equality. I think that is mostly because their issues of this life take over. To me, it affects everything of things worth treasuring and I wonder how they cannot see it and take great interest in it. I have really good, long and short descriptions and thoughts of the effects or ways it relates to the issues of ‘life’. :)

I guess I am choosing to wait for God’s work over ‘here’ rather than over ‘there’. And I am choosing to not invest too much in a local church’s ‘leadership building’ by serving much in the program areas they have designed. I am investing in areas that make sense to me from where I am at. But I still need and want to be a part of a local church somehow. Lately, I am remembering how I was told that my grandmother on my father’s side went to a different church every Sunday and many funerals whether she knew the person or not. :( She was divorced. :( BUT..she had her own business caring for the elderly and insisted they come to the table for meals if they were physically able. And she took meals to those who were unable to come to the table. :)

ls

Comment by Maz

May 9, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

I came across this quote from Thomas Story written in 1737: “The unity of Christians never did nor ever will or can stand in uniformity of thought and opinion, but in Christian love only.”

Comment by Frank

May 9, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

Amanda, thanks for the link to the T4G Affirmations and Denials. I truly did not know that they had clearly stated not only the necessity of embracing hierarchical complmentarianism as regards men and women, but in their article on the Trinity they also deny the distinction between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, and require embracing a heirarchy among the Three Persons of the Triune God. Therefore, they are preaching a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit, a different Gospel. God have mercy upon them!

Comment by Don Johnson

May 9, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Comment by Fr. Bill

May 9, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

Reading over the comments above, I’m puzzled at those who deem Hutchens to be puzzling. Don (91296) and Larry (91297) have understood him, even if Larry thinks Hutchens’ post was not clear.

Hutchens gave a fuller explanation of why egalitarians and traditionalists are worshiping different dieties the day before he posted his comment here. You may find it at Touchstone’s blog Mere Comments, dated May 2, under the heading “Biblical, Scmiblical.”

What really puzzles me is the notion expressed in the comments above that Hutchens has said something radical. Even Hutchens anticipates that his idea may seem “stark and radical … at first blush,” in spite of what he finds to be TL’s fundamental agreement. Again, reading down through the comments, I find many here agreeing with Hutchens while deploring what he has said.

Consider, for example:

91291, Michelle: “I find it increasingly difficult to focus on worship, to focus on God. I find this silent division so loud, so distracting.” If the diety being worshipped by Michelle is different from the one being worshiped by those around her, why should she ~not~ find it difficult to focus? Anyone in that situation would be distracted!

91293, Trevor: “The Jesus whom I serve would have me love even my enemies.” Implicit here is that Trevor worships a Jesus different from the one worshiped by the fellow Trevor is talking to. QED.

Also, this from Trevor: “It is on the basis of our core beliefs, concerning the atoning work on the cross of Jesus Christ, that we have unity and fellowship in the Holy Spirit.” It would go far beyond the boundaries of a comment to explore orthodox and egalitarian readings of Romans 5, but such an exploration would easily expose that egalitarian notions of male headship make hash of the economy of salvation as Paul expounds it. If men are not heads of their marriages and families, if Adam is not such a head, then neither is Jesus, to whom Adam is expressly compared. Male headship is what damns the race; headship is what saves the redeemed. Or, at least, that’s what the Church has believed until egalitarianism rewrote Paul’s exposition of headship in Romans 5.

Again, the orthodox and egalitarian Jesuses are not the same fellows.

91294, EricW: “… it seemed to me that s/he [i.e. Hutchens] was saying that egalitarians are the ones whose increasingly explicit Trinitarian theology shows them to be the Christians rather than the (so-called) ‘orthodox’ hierarchalists whose doctrine of the Godhead includes the heretical/heterodox idea of the eternal subordination of the Son.”

Eric misread what Hutchens claimed to be the heretical Trinitarian doctrine. BUT, he got correct that Hutchens viewed someone’s Trinitarian doctrine as heretical while the other’s was not. Again, different dieties in view here.

91299-300, Lisa: “Or I can stand and fight, which is the second option. It seems like a complex dilemma; because if I take the latter choice, I am causing discord to attain to unity. If I choose the former choice, “I am trying to act unified under their demands to break down unity.”

Lisa leaves aside the orthodoxy/heresy distinction. However, she does acknowledge a dilemma, an either-or sort of situation vis-a-vis egalitarians and traditionalists. If she finds resolving this dilemma daunting, maybe she’s got a good reason for such a finding.

91307, Frank: ” Evangelical scholars–such as Kevin Giles, Millard Erickson, and Alan Myatt–have shown that ESS is not only heretical, but also rationally inconsistent and incoherent. Yet their warnings against the destructive consequences of this Trinitarian heresy are being ignored by hierarchicalists.” Even more clearly, “Heirarchicalists appear to be so committed to their idol of Male Dominance, that they no longer recognize God as he has made himself known to us through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. ”

Here we have an express agreement with Hutchens that those on opposite sides of this issue are worshiping differient dieties. There would be disagreement on whose diety is the idol, of course. But, no disagreement that someone’s worshiping an idol.

91319, LMCC: “… the Trinity issue may very well be a good reason to divide. That’s distortion of the doctrine of God, a foundation issue.” Another agreement with Hutchens, even on the very doctrinal issue Hutchens points to.

91324, Frank: “… regarding certain hierarchicalist leaders and teachers who have redefined the Trinity as an eternal hierarchy and have recently argued that the Church’s witness is severely harmed unless hierarchicalism is seen as a key elment in the presentation of the Gospel–well, I’m not so sure I can, in good conscience and in faithfulness to the Gospel of Christ, work with these people.”

Again, an express agreement with Hutchens, insofar as egalitarians and traditionalists are worshiping different dieties.

91328, Frank: ” Therefore, they [T4G folks] are preaching a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit, a different Gospel. God have mercy upon them!”

Yuppers, on the point that egalitarians preach a different deity, a different Jesus, a different Spirit, a different gospel from that preached by traditionalists.

I can remember some years ago, when Hutchens’ view on these issues was aforming. He commented in one place that it would be wrong for a sexual traditionalist to work with an egalitarian in an evangelistic enterprise, because what they were seeking to realize in a convert were not only different but contradictory. As egalitarian thinkers and writers have taken their heterodox views of the sexes and run those premises into theology proper (including Trinitarianism, the Incarnation, and the Gospel), Hutchens and others (e.g. the T4G folks, myself, even CBMW [!]) have realized that the egalitarian heresy is just that.

91297, Larry S: “If I’m going to be called a heretic I prefer a more blunt approach.”

Hutchens wasn’t dodging bluntness; he’s clear enough. I’d view his words as polite understatement, considering the forum in which he posts it. If you wish more candor, I refer you again to “Biblical, Schmiblical” at Mere Comments on May 2. An advocate of egalitarianism contributes to the comments. And, Hutchens welcomes his contributions, because they highlight and clarify the point Hutchens makes, viz. that egalitarians and the orthodox are worshiping different dieties, that they adhere to and preach entirely different religions.

So, there is a divide of ultimate consequence. If Hutchens is right about the nature of the divide (and many here give him varying degrees of agreement!), then Hutchens’ conclusion is fair: there is no answer to Don’s question as posed. In fact, that question arises from a premise that the evolution of this debate shows is false.

Comment by Deborah

May 9, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

Although I do think there are times when theological matters or praxis necessitates leaving a particular church for the health of a marriage/family or the freer use of a woman’s giftings, I primarily fellowship with complementarians, knowing these ones to be true celebrants of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am disturbed by many things I’ve sat through, but it is God’s leading for me at this time. And I give to mission organizations and missionaries who preach the same.

If I’m not mistaken, I think I have a lot of company here in regards to those who share complementarian fellowship. I also think that many of those commenting on the separation issue are commenting on whether or not we stay in a comp Church–not whether complementarians can be true believers. There is the “separation” of heart where fellowship seems quite difficult, the “separation” in choosing to fellowship elsewhere, and the “separation” of saying “Here is a line between Christians and those who are so off they cannot be called Christians.” I do feel complementarians have a distortion of the Trinity in mind, and I hope that time will persuade more of them of this error. However, to say they are not Christians is like a Protestant saying there were no Christians in the century before the Reformation. Even if one finds Catholic beliefs lacking and sees many manipulated by the particular manifestation of the Church of that era, would we really believe that none knew our Lord–however imperfectly? No.

I do think the Fr. Bill has a point in regards to not lightly using the same weapon that has been wielded against us. I was personally feeling a little uncomfortable with some comments for that reason. I don’t think too many of the commenters (if any) meant the extreme degree of separation by their comments that some complementarians have laid against us (as not of the faith) however.

My 2.

Comment by Don Johnson

May 10, 2010 @ 8:16 am

On Romans 5, the word “headship” never occurs in the Bible and reading it into passages is simply human tradition, which may or may not be in error. Way before one gets to Romans 5, one needs to try one’s best to understand the 3 origins stories in Gen 1-5 and it is true that egal and non-egal readings are different. I recommend reading both types to every Berean.

On God, Voltaire wrote that God made us in his image and we return the favor. We see that in the conception of God presented by some egals and by some non-egals and the question is what does the Bible teach. We are all tempted to be idol makers and need to work against this temptation.

Comment by Fr. Bill

May 10, 2010 @ 8:32 am

As I said, Don, blog comments are a cramped place to discuss something as doctrinally momentous as Romans 5, so I’ll leave my comments and yours be, since without further elaboration on either part, they do what Hutchens’ and an egalitarian’s comments over at Mere Comments do — demonstrate for anyone that egalitarians and orthodox Christians are worshiping different dieties, proclaiming different gospels, and — as you’ve indicated — reading different deposits of holy writ.

On “headship” not being found in the Bible, I note that on Dec. 21 of last year at Denny Burk’s blog (http://www.dennyburk.com/evangelical-church-endorses-homosexuality/) you opined this:

“Trinity” is not in the Bible and I am one of those that actually believe the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practise, so I prefer not to use terms not found in the Bible. I am non-creedal.

Frank, it looks like your charge of slander against Kamilla was … what? Mistaken?

Comment by Don Johnson

May 10, 2010 @ 9:12 am

I believe what some early creeds say and have even recited them at times in some circles, but I disagree that being able to say a creed is what differentiates a believer from a non-believer. What differentiates a believer from a non-believer is believing and doing what the Bible teaches about being new covenant believers in Jesus as Messiah, not reciting what some creed says.

People can invent terms all they wish, but if one believes that the Bible is ACTUALLY sufficient for faith and practise, why would one need to do so?

Comment by ls

May 10, 2010 @ 10:32 am

I’ve experienced leadership acts that have motivated me to leave a particular local church. I don’t call those leaders unbelievers, although it is Biblical that leaders can be ‘off the mark’ of the Gospel that Paul, Peter and others and Jesus wanted all people to come to know. Paul corrected Peter, in public, and Peter received the correction. Was Peter an unbeliever while in the error? I don’t think so, but was he hindering the Gospel message for both the Jew and Gentile people trying to be believers and follow Jesus? Yes, isn’t that the point Paul was making to him and isn’t it recorded for us? God didn’t erase it so it must matter! There are also references , by Paul, of several people teaching things that hindered people from focusing on the Gospel that Paul wanted his listeners to believe and grow in. Paul had some pretty heavy descriptions of them. Scary! ,when you are a sheep knowing that you need to learn and wondering who the safe teachers are. The best I can do is ‘fix my eyes on Jesus’ and take note of those teachers who look most like Him, remembering that there is no one who has ‘arrived’ yet. It seems to me that the style of leadership Paul modeled was to direct others to Christ, not himself.

I, personnally, am bothered emotionally by the act of men leaving women(even spiritually mature ones) out of all discussions about the matter of embedding gender language in local church by-laws. I am bothered because it seems to me that that implies a certain movement from 1 cor 13, a definition of love that is not defined by gender. And it seems to lower the love one another commands and elevate something else. Something seems ‘off’ to me, timing?, something. Another matter near and dear to my heart is mentoring of struggling adults and children. That matter will be handled differently in a place where there is partiality or bias for older men and biological families and not as much support and nurturing of spiritual families and not clear acknowledgement of wrong/injustice and protection of and support for the innocent. I could be wrong about the partiality being present in every church with gender embedded by-law language, but I have friends and personal experience that seems to confirm this opinion. I am open, somewhat, to being moved from my opinion. But that is currently where I am.

On the other hand, I can be a part of a church that is doing male teaching leadership and public positions for corporate worship…..but , and this is very important to me, I have knowledge of how women in troubling situations are counseled by the pastors or women honored in leadership(counseling/mentoring/teaching) positions. In addition it seems, repentant perpetrators are not neglected but they are handled carefully. I agree with what I know of their counseling advice and how the men in public speak of the women in ministry, their importance, etc. Gender language is not,…yet…embedded. I can live and fellowship there. I think, basically, that I have a desire to give appropriate honor to ligimate ‘church’ authority but I need to understand it somewhat, that it is in line Biblically. I think an authority like that would not be watchful to see whether I honor him/her. They would be secure and more focused on helping the weaker take ‘one more step toward Jesus’. I am cautious because of what I experienced at the last church I attended, how it changed from what it was when I first went there and how the change was implemented and what others have also experienced there. I don’t think the intent of their hearts was to hurt women and children or me personally, but something seems ‘amiss’. I think it is ok, and sometimes necessary, to separate. I don’t say they are unbelievers. I don’t think it’s very kind or loving of ‘them’(and I don’t know if these particular church leaders are saying this) or CBMW folk to say that Biblical egalitarians are not believers. It seems to me that they are taking on, or trying to take on, the role of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that their teaching, preaching and relating, then, would have an intentional man-made element to it. I think there is probably unintentional human-made elements in teaching in general and it is the responsibility of each individual to seek growth and maturity as they can. That is, we are all sinners. But I think the intentional versus unintentional matters. It’s a difference. I think that bringing the matter up(both sides do this somewhat) and forcing a side(the comp. side does this), brings the matter into awareness, an intentional realm. But, ultimately, I think God is bigger than them/us.

A friend of mine was going through a certain denomination’s membership teaching. The teacher said that she needed to believe “God can do all things possible”. She had a problem with that and she boldly told the teacher so. “For God, all things are possible” Matthew 19:26, she said. She took note of the difference. I took note of her story. There is a difference and order matters.

ls

Comment by LMcC

May 10, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

Here’s the whole weird thing for me about the effort to link sex roles to the Trinity:

For those of us who consider the Trinity to be an essential doctrine, it is easier to fellowship, spiritually speaking, with those people who still believe in the pre-1977 traditionalism than it is to do so with modern “complementarians”. (Granted, for the females, still being treated like dirt by traditionalist men stinks.)

The pre-’77 traditionalists and the egalitarians have the same historically orthodox view of the Trinity, generally speaking. I grew up pre-’77 traditionalist and never accepted the modern view of subordination in the Trinity, so my view of the Trinity never changed. Only the modern “complementarians” have embraced a different form of the Trinity.

Sadly, many traditionalists have absorbed this new Trinitarian teaching in an effort to distance themselves from what they believe is “feminism”. The “eternal functional subordination of the Son view” is less than 50 years old, was formulated in reaction to women proving their capability in society, and was never before considered a necessary belief.

If you’re a sex roles traditionalist reading, please reconsider your view of the Trinity if you believe any form of the eternal subordination of the Son. Even if you can’t stomach the idea of women walking alongside men in equality, you don’t want to mess with the Trinity. We can differ on the sex roles issue if we must, but the eternal equality in the Trinity and the recognition of Jesus Christ as eternal God cannot be denied.

Comment by Michelle

May 10, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

91335–Yes. Thank you. For me, the ideas behind “complementarian” beliefs played out in a very hurtful way. Though I didn’t talk at all about the complementarian system and was not attempting to take on a leadership role or suggest that women should be permitted to take on certain tasks in the church or the home or even talk about the issue at all (I was far too scared to at the time, lest I be accused of not being a Christian). But even so, I did not escape injury from leadership and members of the church that I believe came about *partially* because of the subconscious effects of complementarian belief and practice. I was trying to say something without being incredibly specific about the nature of my “troubling situation”, and what you wrote does nicely.

Comment by Liz

May 10, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

To my understanding, our fellowship in the gospel is not on the basis of how we understand the nature of God, but rather an acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us. Only God knows the motives of each person and this is one thing which marked Jesus as God – he always knew what people were thinking and what was in a person’s heart. We are so not like that, even with our best intentions

Comment by Trevor

May 10, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

Fr. Bill,

Liz and I have been on the road travelling across the continent of Australia so couldn’t respond to this until we accessed the internet. Sorry it is late.

You are right. Those words that I used in that instance could be construed in the way that you have alluded to. However it was certainly not my intention at the time. It was a spontaneous response, not a theological statement. I didn’t premeditate what I would say if that situation arose, it took me completely by surprise. However, both he and I knew that I wasn’t suggesting that he was following another Jesus, just that we each interpreted how Jesus would have us react differently. He felt that he was being true to Jesus by refusing to shake my hand because in shaking my hand it would seem that he was prepared to overlook my perceived doctrinal imbalance.

I, on the other hand, felt that by ignoring the tension in the executive meeting and showing brotherly affection was something that Jesus would have me do. As one of my early Pastoral mentors used to say, “Oh the dust of words!” Words can so often get in the way because they can be interpreted by individual people so differently, depending on their life experience or, in this case, theological outlook. Jesus Himself constantly encountered that when dealing with the Pharisees who always wrongly interpreted Him as a misguided and dangerous religious zealot.

Coming back to Don’s original plea in this post, which was that surely we should strive for unity because of the commonality of our faith. Most egalitarians don’t have a difficulty with accepting that complementarians are just fellow believers who interpret the Scriptures regarding women differently. The best egalitarian response is still to show gracious love and acceptance believing that eventually the issues will be seen for what they really are and taking comfort in the fact that the Gospel is not compromised.

Comment by Frank

May 10, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Fr. Bill, as I have said before, while I appreciate both the Creeds and the Reformed Confessions as aids in understanding and applying the teaching of Scripture, like Don, I regard the Scriptures alone as the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, the final rule of all Christian belief practice. Including the Creeds and Confessions, which are always subject to correction and revision by Scripture. So while Christian theology, as expressed in these symbols of Christian faith, may use non-biblical terms, so long as they truly and faithfully communicate the actual truths, life principles and moral precepts of Scripture itself, they may be used in proclaiming and defending the Gospel. Otherwise, they ought to thrown out on the scrap heap.

Secondly, not only did the Holy Spirit inspire the Scriptures, but within those same Scriptures, he incorporate the necessary interpretive keys to understand what is essential for salvation and holy living in Christ. David F. Well states it well:

“It is dangerous to assert that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, but somehow omitted to give us the key(s)to understand them! Systems of understanding are legitimate and proper only to the extent that they arise from the biblical Word and are themselves disciplined by it. No one can legitimately impose a system on the Word. If we do not assert the right of Scripture to stand in authoritative relationship to every presupposition, custom, and tradition; every teaching, practice, and ecclesiastical organization, then that authority will be co-opted either by an ecclesiastical magisterium or by a scholarly one” (Cf. THE USE OF THE BIBLE IN THEOLOGY, John Knox Press, 1983, p. 181).

Since I myself believe that CBMW both sees and promotes itself as a “scholarly magisterium,” while at the same time using a method of biblical interpretation that incorporates the ancient pagan concept of the Chain of Being, which is contrary to the Creator-creature distinction of Scripture, and which underlies their hierarchical view regarding the relationships between the Three Persons of the Triune God as between those of men and women–Because of this, I am no more willing to submit to or comply with their teaching on these issues than I would be to the Roman Magisterium’s teaching on justification and sanctification.

Thirdly, in agreement with LMCC, if CBMW and those associated with them had not adopted a Semi-Arian view of the Trinity, I could still fellowship with them and work with them on common socio-political issues. But that’s the problem. In the Independent Baptist church I grew up in Michigan, we recited the Nicene Creed and were taught that the humiliation of the Son and his submission to the Father, as taught in Phil. 2:5-11, referred only to the Incarnation. He had temporarily laid aside his divine prerogatives to effect the redemption and reconciliation of lost humanity with God. After his resurrection and ascension, he was then restored to the full divine majesty, power and authority–”the glory”–he had shared with the Father before the creation of both the universe and humanity: “I brought glory to you here on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began” (John 17:5, NLT). We were also taught that it was only heretical cults, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who denied the coequality and coeternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it was the Jehovah’s Witnesses, not orthodox Catholics and Protestants in our community, who used “the Father sending of the Son and Spirit” and “the Father is greater than I” arguments to prove that Jesus and the Spirit were less divine than Jehovah himself. Therefore, certainly in the 1950′s and 1960′s, among the Baptists and Catholics I knew as a lad, the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son would have been understood as and rejected as new twist on the anti-Trinitarianism being propagated by the JW’s. So if there is a connection between our egalitarianism and our view of the interpersonal relations of the Trinity, it would be that our egalitarianism flows out of our previously established understanding of the union and communion that exists between the Three Persons: a union and communion eternally characterized by mutual love, by self-giving, and by self-affirmation of One by Each of the Others (cf. 1 John 4:9-17, NLT). After all, human beings were made in the image of the Triune God, and not the Triune God in the image of humanity (cf. Gen. 1:26-28).

Comment by Fr. Bill

May 10, 2010 @ 10:32 pm

Frank,

Like Hutchens in another location, I leave the matter here. Your exposition of the issues provides all the evidence one would need to see that orthodox Christology and egalitarian Christology (not to mention Trinitarianism and the Incarnation as confessed by each camp) are areas where the utter difference between egalitarianism and orthodoxy are obvious. It was not so clear 30 years ago. It will be even more clear 20 0r 30 years from now.

But, for now, it’s quite clear enough. Again, I do not think you really disagree with me, or Hutchens, on this point.

As to how each camp views the other, it’s fascinating to me that this is an area where Trevor (and CBE?) seem to share something with Wayne Grudem and at least some others in leadership or influence at CBMW. I refer specifically to Grudem’s view that egalitarians are simply misguided, confused, or mistaken believers who — with time, patience, and persuasion — can be won back to sexual orthodoxy. Trevor, on the other hand, says “Most egalitarians don’t have a difficulty with accepting that complementarians are just fellow believers who interpret the Scriptures regarding women differently.”

I don’t know if Grudem is changing his mind here or not; I suspect not. Others (the folks at Touchstone, which include PRotestant, Catholic, and Orthodox thinkers; the T4G folks; and scattered voices I hear via the internet) are realizing that Hutchens is right when he says this:

To the best of my judgment, egalitarianism is as significant and seductive an error as Arianism; it is an anthropological heresy that infects theology proper through the attack on Christology it necessarily entails.

Ironic, no?

Meanwhile, the controversy is rightfully becoming less and less an intramural squabble, and more and more a case of the filthy becoming yet more filthy and the righteous yet more righteous.

Comment by Don Johnson

May 11, 2010 @ 7:22 am

It is a rhetorical tactic (of Fr. Bill and Hutchens) to claim a contrast between X and orthodoxy when the discussion is whether X is a part of orthodoxy or not, in this case, egalitarian reading of Scripture.

Comment by LMcC

May 11, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Frank,

Temporarily off-topic here: Did the Independent Baptist church you attended have ties to Bob Jones University? Normally, Baptists are against using creeds, Michigan Baptists were heavily represented at BJU in the past (and may still be), and BJU has a creed which its students recite daily in chapel. Just curious…

Back to topic: Thank you for pointing out what both of us were taught about cults and how it ties in with Trinitarian doctrine. How ISS could be supported now in churches that claim to defend historical doctrinal orthodoxy and stand against these other groups is a source of grave concern. Understanding the Trinity is vital to the understanding of the person of Christ. Is Jesus Christ Lord, or is He the “Subordinated Lord”? If He is the “Subordinated Lord”, how is that contradiction supposed to work?

Comment by ls

May 11, 2010 @ 10:20 am

Referencing 91342: Hutchens claim…”….Arianism”

I wonder when he made that claim? Didn’t Giles make this claim toward Grudem’s ESS?

Considering sex roles: The CBE statement of belief states “We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God’s design.” This seems like it lines up with Scripture to me and does not present a ‘slippery slope’ into homosexual practice, or the practice of pornography or pedophilia, or adultery.

ls

Comment by Michelle

May 11, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

#91340–”Most egalitarians don’t have a difficulty with accepting that complementarians are just fellow believers who interpret the Scriptures regarding women differently. The best egalitarian response is still to show gracious love and acceptance believing that eventually the issues will be seen for what they really are and taking comfort in the fact that the Gospel is not compromised.”

I do indeed feel that we are all fellow believers with a difference of interpretation of scriptures. I don’t discuss issues of “whether so-and-so is *really* a Christian” or “truly saved”, as that’s not my place, so please read the following in that light.

I do feel that the complementarian view of scripture compromises the Gospel in the following ways:

1. It appears that women are expected to continue to pay for original sin through being of lower status. And not only of lower status, but of equal capability *yet* permanently (? or on this Earth, at least) submitted to equals. This is a denial of Christ’s complete work on the cross.

2. The full expression of the work of the Holy Spirit is denied women. The system is not only a repression of women: Have we forgotten the source of the gifts that are being limited?

Anecdotally:
At a complementarian church I attended a few years ago, we used to hear nothing about the redemption of the Earth that would occur after the second coming. But we received numerous messages through the culture of the church as well as through various presentations (not from the pulpit itself) about appropriate gender roles for Christians. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but whenever I heard a sermon, I couldn’t help wondering which parts of the sermon applied to all believers, and which excluded Christian women because of their biological sex.

Comment by Frank

May 11, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

LMCC, the Baptist church I grew up in Michigan was not directly connected with BJU. Most of the leaders in my church had either attended Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College or Moody Bible Institute. And we had our Baptist statement and church covenant.

As regards my own subsequent religious education and training, after serving in the US Air Force, I attended Western Bible College, which was non-denominational, where I earned a B.B.S, with a major in Pastoral Studies. And I attended a Reformed Episcopal seminary for a year, but left due to financial difficulties. Then I went to a local university and earned a B.A in Liberal Arts.

And for 10 years I was involved in a study center ministry with Dr. Robert K. Wright and Julia, who were to me what Aquilla and Priscilla were to Apollos. And I only share this so that perhaps you may better understand my intellectual/spiritual history. Nevertheless, I don’t want to boast about who I am and what I have achieved. For as Scripture says, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, let nor let the warrior glory in his might, nor let the rich man glory in his riches; rather, let the person who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth–for these are the things I delight in”(Jer. 9:23-24, my rendering). There is nothing greater than knowing the LORD, the Triune God of love, and by the Holy Spirit participating in that divine fellowship of mutual love between the Father and the Son that is eternal life itself (cf. 1 John 2:23-27, NLT).

Comment by zanne

May 13, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

First of all, let me say that while i’m sure you all have wonderful things to say, i stopped reading comments when i got to michelle’s. and i want to stand up and applaud her for saying, ” Those who would seek to exclude are the dividers.” I have spent enough years as a woman in ministry to know that we cannot put on hold allowing women to serve in all areas of ministry while patiently waiting for others to come around. and i would argue that this IS a matter of salvation, or at least our understanding of what salvation means. My freedom in Christ means i am free to serve in the way He has designed me and called me. it’s not an abstract or theoretical “matter of faith” that we can wait to agree on. and i find it interesting how often i find the ones that lean toward preserving unity “at all costs” are either men, or women who don’t desire or feel called to disputed ministry areas. this is not about a theological tit-for-tat. it’s about truly understand Christ’s work in ALL of our lives, and being able to live out His leading and calling on those lives. Would you ask an African-American man to hold off serving as part of the preservation of unity? I certainly hope not! This issue is no less central to our understanding of who we are as God’s people. I value unity. I do not value it over freedom. If those two values are not held in tandem, we need to re-evaluate our understanding of what true justification and sanctification are.

Comment by Jennie Dugan

May 14, 2010 @ 6:37 am

What a timely topic in my life, because lately, I keep seeing the Christian body like cells that continuously divide without building the whole body. We currently attend a church that voted to leave one Lutheran branch and join another because of a disagreement over leadership policy (not related to gender equality). But it makes me wonder why we can’t tolerate differing interpretations without having to divide over them. It seems like we send a message that differing opinions are deal-breakers.
That said, I believe the real sea change will come when people who believe in gender equality stop giving their tithes to churches that don’t. More people quietly believe in gender equality than many of us might imagine. I believe we’re close to the tipping point, where this quiet revolution will explode to the surface, and I believe it’s the money that will force the change. Isn’t that sad?

Comment by Maz

May 14, 2010 @ 6:53 am

I agree with Jennie and in fact that has been my recent action – to stop tithing to my church which believes in complementarianism. Instead I am redirecting my giving to other organisations that are working to address injustices and inequalities.

Part of my decision was hearing how difficult it is for some women to find financial support to fulfill their roles in the church. I am no longer willing to support only men in full-time Christian work.

I do not aspire to leadership in the church, but I would love to be able to listen to some women teachers and to have a woman pastor to talk to. And I do not want to be seggregated and have to attend extra meetings which are women-only. I have spent 20 years listening to men preach. I think it may be time for some men to listen to some women preach.

Comment by Frank

May 16, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

I’m not quite sure why Fr. Bill fixed on my little “expositions” as representative of egalitarian thought, other than that I sought to be both clear and logically consistent in what I actually believe that both Scripture and the best Christian theologians have taught about the Three Persons of the Triune God and their interpersonal relationships.

Of course, to imply that someone holding my view is “sexually” unorthodox and morally/spiritually filthy because I don’t agree with their hierarchical, male-oriented definition of the Trinity and the Incarnation–Well, that not only side-steps and fails to address the real issues being discussed, but also is certainly not the best way to win friends and influence people. So one or two further comments, I think, are in order.

If Fr. Bill may recall regarding the discussions at the Council of Chalcedon, the orthodox theologians argued that if the Incarnate Son did not possess all that was essential to being human, then whatever essential human attribute he did not possess, then it was not redeemed and sanctified by the Son of God. Pure and simple, right?

Now if maleness is more reflective of God’s nature, and the Saviorhood of Jesus is somehow essentially or primarily tied to his maleness, where does that leave women? Not in a very good place, especially according to the critics of Christianity, who argue that Christianity is a male-oriented religion that despises and represses women. Douglas Groothuis, in his lecture, “Is Christianity Sexist?,” addresses this issue as follows:

Many non-Christian feminists claim that the God of the Bible is male. If God is male, then men are more like God than women. This belief devalues women who, because of their gender, will never have the privileged status of men. Some feminists also complain that since the Incarnation of God occured in the form of a man, Jesus, this God cannot properly relate to women’s experience. Because of these problems with Christianity, they say, women must turn to a feminine understanding of the divine, the Goddess. But those who are drawn to the goddess must come to terms with the real Jesus, not a sexist caricature. First, the God of the Bible is not male in any sense, because God is not a sexual being. Jesus taught that God is Spirit(John 4:24) and not one who brings things into existence by procreation. God is not be represented as either a male or a female (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 4:16). Scripture refers to God as “he” and Jesus called God his Father, not to emphasize masculinity against feminity, but to highlight that God is a personal and powerful being…The Bible uses the terms and concepts that would best communicate God’s power and prestige, and his role as our protector and provider.

And to this point, I don’t think most readers would disagree with what Groothuis says Jesus and the Scriptures teach about God’s nature and how he relates to us humans. But here’s the part of the story that our hierarchicalist friends so often ignore or downplay: Scripture, both OT and NT, use feminine images of God to convey what he is like and how he relates to us. Again, Groothuis states:

Nevertheless, the Bible uses feminine imagery when it speaks of God as giving birth to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18) and the Christian (James 1:18). Jesus said he longed to gather rebellious Israel to himself as a mother hen gathers her chicks(Matthew 23:37-39). These kinds of metaphors reveal that although God is not a sexual being, he possesses all the qualities that we appreciate in both men and women, for God is the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17).

So how can an “Unadjusted Gospel,” that lifts up the male as a more full and pure image bearer of God than the female, and which, contrary to what Paul actually teaches in Gal. 3:26-4:7 and Rom. 4:13-17, deny Christian women their full status and inheritance rights as both daughters of Abraham and of God, ever be considered “Good News”? Poppycock and falderol!

Furthermore, contrary to what many people think, Jesus did not come to set up a male-dominated religious system, under which women would remain servile to men. Indeed, he often surprised his male followers by teaching theology to women in private and public (John 4:7-27; 11:21-27, Luke 10:38)at a time when women were excluded from such affairs. Although Jesus esteemed the family, he stipulated that a woman’s principal purpose in life is not reducible to motherhood and domestic work, but is found in knowing and doing God’s revealed will (Luke 10:38-42; 11:27-28). And I haven’t time right now to talk about the Trinity. But I think I may do so later.

Comment by Mara

May 17, 2010 @ 5:41 am

Very good words Frank. Thank you.

Hierarchalists do not realize how they shut the door of salvation and healing to many hurting women.

I believe, not just in the healing power of God for the souls and emotions for both male and female, but in His intense desire to pour out healing on all who would come to Him.
And I believe that desire to heal is so important to Him, anyone who shuts the door in the face of anyone else for the sake of their ‘pet’ and even perhaps erroneous doctrines, those door-shutters are venturing into dangerous territory.

Matthew 23:13a But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypochrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven before (in front of) people;…

Jesus went around doing good and healing people. He didn’t run around making sure men and women knew their roles and proper places in society and the “creation order”.

There is a serious priority issue among those fixated on gender roles. They place too much importance on fleshly things which does great damage to the spritual.

Comment by Frank

May 19, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

Mara, I believe what you have said about God desiring to bring full healing to people through his Son is actually part of the ministry of reconciling humanity and creation that Jesus Christ began through his own life, death and resurrection, and which by the Holy Spirit, he seeks to carry on in and through his Body, the Church.

Lewis Smedes, the late Fuller professor of theology and ethics, in his book UNION WITH CHRIST: A BIBLICAL STUDY OF NEW LIFE IN CHRIST, has a chapter where he discusses this same topic at length. I recommend you read it, even though I disagree with him on some minor points.

Now, as I promised, a final thought or two about our discussion regarding the issue of Christian unity and disunity, as regards the Trinity. And I wish Fr. Bill and friends had stuck around long enough to dialogue with us the following points. Nevertheless, I share what I hope may be helpful and informative.

It is assumed by hierarchical complementarian that the relationships of the Three Persons of the Trinity is hierarchical in nature, and cannot be understood and explained in any other way. But a study of past Reformed Confessions and theologians would disprove that assumption.

For instance, as regards the Economic Trinity, the ordering has been understood by many Reformed scholars as covenantal in nature. Benjamin B. Warfield is one such Reformed scholar and writer. Concerning this covenantal ordering of the Three Persons, he wrote:

It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these references to subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement between the Persons of the Trinity–a “Covenant” as it is technically called–by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. It must be at least said that in the presence of the great NT doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work’s sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnation, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the humiliation of Christ, and the Two natures of his incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination of the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the NT (Cf. “Trinity,” ISBE, Vol. 5, 1956 Edition).

And that the Three Persons’ taking on primary roles in creation and redemption have more to do with a mutual agreement or covenant among them, rather than a hierarchical ordering per se, is not something Warfield invented on his own. He was merely emphasizing, for those who had forgotten it, an understanding of the Economic Trinity both found and taught in the historical Reformed Confessions. For example, the Baptist Confession of 1689, regarding the Trinity, makes the following statement:

Three divine Persons constitute the Godhead–the Father, the Son (or the Word), and the Holy Spirit. They are one in substance, in power, and in eternity. Each is fully God, and yet the Godhead is one and indivisble. The Father owes His being to none. He is the Father to the Son who is eternally begotten of Him. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. These Persons, one infinite and eternal God not to be divided in nature or in being, are distinguished in Scripture by their personal relations within the Godhead, and by the variety of works which they undertake. Their tri-unity (that is, the doctrine of the Trinity) is the essential basis of all our fellowship with God, and of the comfort we derive from our dependence on him.

There is nothing in this statement which indicates that the writers of this Baptist confession entertained any idea of a hierarchy within the Triune God, or that the Son, of necessity, became either creator of the universe or the redeemer of humanity due solely to the Father’s will or command. Moreover, in the section of, “Christ the Mediator,” the Arian idea of an eternal subordination of the Son to the Father is clearly excluded, for there we read:

To give effect to His eternal purpose God the Father chose and ordained the Lord Jesus, His only begotten-Son, in accordance with the covenant into which they had entered, to be mediator between God and man; also to be prophet, priest, king, head and saviour of His church; also to be the heir of all things and judge the world…The divine Person who made the world, and upholds and governs all things He has made, is the Son of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. He is true God, the “brightness of the Father’s glory,” of the same substance (or essence) as the Father, and equal with Him. It is He who, at the appointed time, took upon Himself the nature of man, with all its essential characteristics and its common infirmities, sin excepted…The two natures, divine and human, being thus united in the person of God’s Son, He was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit to an unlimited extent,…He is replete with all that is pleasing to the Father, being holy, harmless, untouched by sin, and full of grace and truth. Thus he became thoroughly qualified to execute the work of a mediator and surety. He did not take this work upon Himself uncalled, but was commissioned by His Father so to act. His Father also conferred upon Him full powers of jurisdiction and commanded Him to pass judgment on all. The Lord Jesus most willingly undertook the office of mediator, and in order that He might discharge it, He became subject to God’s law, which He perfectly fulfilled. He also underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, for He bore our sins and was accursed for our sakes.

Note that, according to the Confession, the One who became our Mediator is “the second Person of the Holy Trinity” who is “true God,…of the same substance (or essence) as the Father, and equal with Him”; that the Son “willingly,” not out of necessity, took his commission and charges as Mediator from the Father, not on the basis of a “subordinate” relationship between the two, but rather “in accordance with the covenant” they had both entered into prior to the Son’s incarnation; that the Father conferred on the Son “full powers of jurisdiction”; and that the Son’s subjection to the God’s law comes after the Son’s incarnation and entrance upon his earthly office of Mediator and Savior, not before.

Of course, I would not want anyone to misconstrue from what I have said that, as regards men and women, either B.B. Warfield or the framers of the 1689 Confession were egalitarians. However, they certainly were orthodox in their view of the Trinity, offering a better alternative explanation of the relationships between the Three Divine Persons than the hierarchical complementarians are willing to admit.

And as to the eternal,interpersonal relationships of the Ontological Trinity prior to creation and the redemption of humanity, I would offer the following exposition and meditation on 1 John 4:9-16, in the New Living Translation, reads as follows:

9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. 10 This is real love–not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God loved us that much, we surely ought to [so] love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and his love is brought to full expression through us. 13 And God has given us his Spirit as proof that we live in him, and he in us. 14 Furthermore, we have seen with our own eyes and now testify that the Father sent his Son to be Savior of the world. 15 All who confess that Jesus is the Son of God have God living in them, and they live in God. 16 We know how much God loves us, and we have put our trust in his love. God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.

Now some things in this text, either as statement or implication, should stand out to us: God’s love is an out-going love, a sacrifical love, a love for others outside of himself, which moved him, in order to save us who so much needed his redeeming and healing love, to sacrifice what was nearest and dearest to his heart, his one and only Son, vv. 9-10. If we truly have been reconciled to God through Christ, and have truly experienced and understood the divine self-giving, sacrificial love that seeks the welfare of others, the proof that we live in God and God in us by the Spirit is manifested by our practicing the same kind of love among one another as those whom God has redeemed and made his own people through his beloved Son, vv. 11-13. And because we have experienced God’s redeeming, sacrifical love in Christ, and because this self-giving, self-sacrificing love is poured out in us and manifested through us by the indwelling Holy Spirit, we in self-giving, sacrifical love declare the good news of redemption and reconciliation through the Son of God, inviting others to join the life-giving fellowship of love that we know and delight in as those now in fellowship with the Triune God and he with us, vv. 14-16.

But what is the theological presuppostion underlying the exposition of the Gospel given by John in this text? I am convinced it is this: Before the Triune God could enter into a loving, self-communicating, self-giving, communal relationship which focused on the welfare of those outside of himself–-if such a relationship with us were to be authentic and meaningful, it first had to be grounded in and flow out from a loving, self-communicating, self-giving of Oneself for the welfare of the Others within the Triune God himself. Thomas F. Torrance explains it this way:

The Gospel tells us that God does not choose to live for himself alone, for he has become man in order to seek and save the lost, to bring human beings into reconciling relationship with himself and to share his own divine fellowship with them. And so we learn that the one Being of God is the Being of the Father who did not spare his only Son but freely gave him up in atoning sacrifice for us, and is the Being of the Son who loved us and gave himself for us, and is the Being of the Holy Spirit who for our sakes brings us through himself into communion with the Father and the Son. God’s whole Being as three divine Persons is his Being for others beyond himself, but to his Being for others beyond himself, his Being with us in our human existence in time and space, there corresponds his Being for others within himself, for that is the eternal ground in God for what he is and promises in the Gospel to be for others beyond himself. The eternal ground in God from which there flows his communion-seeking love and grace toward us, is the Communion which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have among themselves, and let it be repeated, really are. In the Holy Trinity himself, in the mutual indwelling of the three divine Persons, each Person is who he is as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, in hypostatic and homoousial relation to the Others, and indeed through their one Being, in being who he is for the Others. The Father is not properly the Father apart from the Son and the Spirit, and the Son is not properly the Son apart from the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is not properly the Spirit apart from the Father and Son, for by their individual characteristics or distinctive properties as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they exist in and through one Another and belong to and ever live for each Other. Each Person is intrinsically who he is for the other two. They coinhere in one Another by virtue of their Being for one Another and by virtue of the dynamic Communion which they constitute in their belonging to one Another. Hence in establishing communion with us through his Son and in the Spirit, God wants us to participate in this living Communion which as Father, Son and Holy Spirit he eternally is…The one triune Being of God is to be thought of, then, as essentially and intrinsically a mutual movement of loving self-communication between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, an intensely personal Communion, an ever-living and ever-loving Being, the Being for Others which the three divine Persons have in common (Cf. “One Being, Three Persons,” THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS, pp. 152-1530.

Well, I think it is clear why I believe the hierarchical complementarian view of the Trinity is false and harmful. But in any case, I hope these final thoughts on the connection between the Trinity and the Gospel prove informative and helpful.

Comment by lin

August 6, 2010 @ 12:12 am

Thank you for the summing up of the Trinitarian controversy, Frank. Not being a theologian and being somewhat new to egalitarianism, I had to read several of the posts more than once to get an idea of how comps and egals viewed it differently and even then, I wasn’t absolutely sure I had it right. I should have read the summary first (-: