Just as hierarchy is taught by inference and demonstration, so we can teach mutuality in the same way by not perpetuating some of the stereotypical statements made to children and and purposefully using kids in different roles and encouraging them to be who God has designed them to be.

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:20-23 TNIV

Actually, I’m not really joking. To a hierarchalist, it is assumed that someone must be in charge, and it must be the men. If women say they want equality, they accuse said women of using a code word that means “we’re taking over”. The idea that men and women can live and serve side-by-side without a permanent hierarchy does not compute. It’s too dangerous for their views of themselves and their world to allow it.

AFA the egalitarian-homosexuality link: The minute they can show me from Scripture that being a woman or behaving as a woman (assuming one is born female here) in and of itself is a sin just as homosexuality is, then I’ll give their arguments for a link some real thought. Until then, it’s one giant scare tactic. I go to an egalitarian church which teaches support for marriage and celibate singleness, but not homosexuality.

Another point, just to be clear. I do not know where Abram got his information about abusive relationships, but he is wrong on every count. It is not true that lesbian relationships have the highest rate of abuse, it is pretty much the same across the board, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at least in any research I have read. About 28% of all (intimate) relationships contain physical abuse, while the rate is closer to 50% for other forms of abuse. What is different is that hierarchicalists are more accepting of abuse happening in the first place. Research shows that those with an egalitarian view of relationships are less accepting of abuse towards another. Notice, I did not say it happens more in one “camp” than the other, just that they are less upset over it. Makes me wonder if that is because they view the husband as having that right or, as Ware has said, she brought it on herself.

I have to say, I also get tired of whenever the issue of egalitarianism comes up, hierarchicalists are quick to include SOMETHING about homosexuality… as if we are just as “sinfully deviant.” Pa -leease.

The funny thing is that the church I grew up in (a) was a housechurch super-opposed to hierarchy, refusing to even have “pastors,” only elders. (b)We did sing the doxology at meals…. I think b/c we were asking the creatures to praise God, and it wasn’t a direct address, somehow this was okay. (c) Most gender-and-Trinity-hierarchical churches I know of do address the Spirit a lot in song and prayer. They haven’t followed these aspects of the theology through. But clearly, this is quite possibly a future result.

A further word on Erickson’s book on the Trinity. While it is true he doesn’t deal with the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers to the degree that Kevin Giles does in JESUS AND THE FATHER, he does cover those most appealed to by both sides: Origen, Novation, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Augustine, Thomas Acquinas(not covered by Giles), Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

I also think his critique of the hierarchicalists’ teaching on prayer and worship being directed only to the Father is excellent, or as Aussies say, “Spot On!” I especially like his conclusion:

I take it that the difference between worship based on Ware’s theology at this point and that flowing from Gile’s theology would be this. According to Ware, the Father should be praised and thanked for those works attributed to him. The works done by Jesus should be the occasion of our praising Jesus, but also always praising the Father who is the source of the decision and therefore deserving of the ultimate praise. And, although Ware does not discuss the subject, I assume that he would say that the works of the Holy Spirit are works for which we should also praise the Son and, even more completely, the Father…Giles, and presumably other equivalentists, however, while especially praising the member of the Trinity who plays the primary role in any given work, would praise the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for all the works and blessings of God and thank him (them) for all gifts. Based on the texts that we examined in chapter 4, the equivalence view is more expressive of the biblical teaching. And the commonly sung doxology expresses more closely the equivalence view than it does the gradational view: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow, Praise Him all creatures here below, Praise Him above, ye heavenly host. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (Cf. “The Practical Implications,” WHO’S TAMPERING WITH THE TRINITY?, pp. 235-236)

And being the good Baptist that I am, I say, “Amen, Brother Erickson!”