Intellectuelle

Those who deny the subordinationism of I Cor 15 and John 13-17 are denying the implications of Trinitarianism. It's complete nonsense to speak as if it's a denial of Trinitarianism to emphasize the plain teachings of scripture such as that Christ is subordinated to God eternally. Arianism is not the thesis that the Trinitarian roles are different. It's the thesis that Christ was created by God as a lesser being. Subordinationism implies nothing of the sort. It's just the claim that the different persons of the Trinity have different roles, something classic Trinitarianism has always insisted on. The distinction between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity comes into play, and people like the Groothuises seem to me to be simply denying that classic distinction.

I agree with Jeremy. Historically, as to the trinity, the persons are equal, but the roles of both the son and the spirit are subordinate to the role of the father.

With all due respect to those with greater reputation and I would say better intellect than my own, I will have to chchallenge you to support your statement that "Christ is subordinated to God eternally". This is not the historical stance of the Church when speaking of the immanent Trinity. It is the economic manifestation of Christ when He laid aside all to become as one of us, created beings. I don't believe you can prove that your statement, especially as strongly as it is worded is the historical and orthodox stance of Christianity.

So prove your statements. please.

I think it only goes to show that Giles is right: modern theology of the Trinity in Evangelical circles has pretty much been neglected and is largely misunderstood.

"Subordinationism implies nothing of the sort. It's just the claim that the different persons of the Trinity have different roles, something classic Trinitarianism has always insisted on."

Jeremy, while it is hard to find a view of subordinationism defined I posted the definition from the International Catholic University and a quote from Karl Barth...both of which you seem to ignore. I would like to know how your statement aligns with these things I have posted, because we are seeing two different expressions from this, given that I believe you've read them.

I am not saying that there is no concept of subordination in the Bible- I believe there is one, but in the term as it is used in the theological exploration of the Trinity, callled "subordinationism" there are statements from some that this is a permanent ( eternal state) which you also seem to say. I believe that is wrong and in conflict with important other statements and principles in the Bible. I hope many of us are looking at the sources before we dispute.

I'm still thinking this one through. But I would add that Millard Erickson (not that I agree with him entirely) has questioned whether there is a meaningful distinction between an ontological and economic trinity if the Son is subject to the Father eternally. In other words, if subordination is not only an accidental attribute (occurring in this temporal world), but a necessary or universal attribute, then how is it not a permanent aspect of the ontological trinity?

The complimentarian/egalitarian debate often distinguishes between essence and function, but I wonder how meaningful the distinction really is. Here's a simplified example: birds fly, fish swim, and human beings think (reason). Is the function of rational thinking economic or ontological?

I always enjoy your input, Chong, and was reading your comment, and others, over @ Jollyblogger on this topic.

To start with your last point, first. In speaking of God we can't use those created beings as analogous in that way. He is Holy- as Sartre described otherness, this is an idea of such complete otherness that no one else is like Him. So, I would say that when we are talking about the immanent Trinity as different than the economic Trinity it has meaning when we are speaking about God. I really think we have to take the things we are given to know about God and not try to read into them from creation. I think this is expressed in His name:"I AM THAT I AM"

"if subordination is not only an accidental attribute (occurring in this temporal world), but a necessary or universal attribute"

my first question is why we would infer such a thing? Why would we think subordination is universal and permanent? To me, the scriptures stack up on the side of it being confined to this creation and this life: Christ in His earthly life, male and female in theirs.

In my own mind I am beginning to make a distinction between the idea of subordination and submission. To me, it is the difference between Law and Grace.

=====
The functions as far as the distinctions of the persons retain the individual expression of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost... but the essence retains the Oneness - the fact that we are talking about One God. It is very important.

Contrary to Jeremy's comment, I think that even if Scripture does suggest an eternal subordinationism of some kind (I don't think it does, but even if), it is very clearly not the plain sense of scripture. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't tell us anything about an eternal subordinationism, but only about the effects of Christ's resurrection; and John 13-17 seems clearly to be about what's involved in the Son's being sent. It's the eliding this into eternal subordinationism that appears to be violating the classic distinction between immanent and economic Trinity: the economic Trinity is the Trinity insofar as it works for our salvation, and therefore includes the Incarnation, which was not eternal.

Similarly, I agree with Ilona (against Jeremy and Rebecca) that there appears to be no eternal subordinationism in historical orthodoxy. The best arguments I have seen toward this conclusion are Grudem's, and they beg the question, e.g., by assuming that simply calling the persons 'Father' and 'Son' implies subordination. (That claim, by the way, is explicitly denied by several thinkers, going back at least to Augustine, the tenor of whose Trinitarianism is very anti-subordinationist.) Subordinationism of any sort has not generally been considered the plain sense of Scripture, when all of Scripture is taken into account; claiming otherwise needs more serious argument than is usually given.

I think we need to distinguish the complementarian debate on marriage from the subordinationist debate on marriage, and both from the dispute on subordinationism in the Trinity, despite the fact that they are often jumbled together. You can be a complementarian without holding that the distinctive roles of Christian men and women involve any sort of real subordination; and you can be subordinationist about marriage without taking seriously the complementarian claim that men and women have distinct, but equally important, roles to play (in fact, it's easy to do this last one, and there is a long line of thinkers who have assumed that this is the way Scripture is to be read). The Trinitarian arguments are only relevant to this dispute if you are both complementarian and subordinationist; and even then they are only relevant as an analogy: i.e., they are supposed to give a case analogous to the complementarian-subordinationist's attempt to treat men and women in marriage as equal-but-different (as a complementarian) but also to treat the woman subordinate to the man (as a subordinationist). This is a very tenuous link to the debate, and we should be very cautious about assuming that the link between the Trinitarian arguments and the marriage arguments is obvious and easy. It is possible, for instance, to agree with the functional subordinationist claim about the Trinity but deny that this is directly relevant to marriage; and it is possible to agree with the complementarian-subordinationist position on marriage and deny that the Trinity provides any real analogy. (An easy way to do either of these would be to read the passages used to make this link in the way they traditionally have been read, i.e., as giving insights about the Incarnation rather insights about the eternal relations between the Persons of the Trinity.)

Brandon, I would generally agree with the possibilities you assert. I wouldn't say that the the Incarnation was not eternal though, based upon the fact that the resurrected Christ had his same body, that body is glorified, and the statement in Revelation: "a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders." but I take it that you meant Christ's Incarnation before His resurrection, as having set aside His own glory and divine prerogatives.

you said, "we should be very cautious about assuming that the link between the Trinitarian arguments and the marriage arguments is obvious and easy." That is true, but the connections have already been made and that should be discussed.

Evangelical thinking has been to "read back into" ( Giles phrasing) the God head to more emphatically make the subordination point.

I am not ready to throw out all heirarchal thinking on doctrine. I think there is a place for some of the complementarian view, but I am not sure how much is true to the gospel message and I'm not sure of how that works out in the practical lives of Christians. It is that alignment with the "what is" that I think is an important test of some of these things.

Sometimes I am not sure who I am addressing in this blog. I come originally from liberal theological mainstream background, but my whole Christian experience has been in very conservative congregations and fellowship. I have lived the traditional woman's life of the complementarians more than those who adhere to the thinking in the abstract. This is why I resist the ideas of "subordination" - I have seen where they led, and it isn't a wholesome sort of Christianity- if you ask me at this point.

My main concern now is the balance: what do we hold to in doctrine that won't "collapse down" vital components of our faith? Then... later when we ( I have faith!) finally get to discuss the culture, what freedoms and egalitarian practices are appropriate and preserve the place of men, and the understanding of "The Father"?

These are the thoughts I want to explore right now.
Is it so much distinct roles as distinct function within roles that men and women play? That is another thing I am wondering about.

Thank you for a very useful articulation of the proposed set of ideas, and how they may relate.

"giving insights about the Incarnation rather insights about the eternal relations between the Persons of the Trinity"
true. it would be safe to read things that way. What holds me here is the idea that Paul put forth of speaking of a "mystery". Would this indicate that there is more in the human marriage relationship than what normally meets with our thinking?

Right now, as you see, I am still considering and don't give myself out as one with perfect clarity. I'm just willing to look at the angles ...while at the same time see if they fit with my fundamental understanding of the Lord.

You are right: I should have been more careful about the use of 'eternity'. My point was simply that the phrase 'eternal subordinationism' is generally distinguished from any sort of subordination involving the Incarnation.

My own view is that the pure complementarian view -- the one not involving subordinationism -- is a respectable position; and the subordinationist-complementarian can be OK ifkeeps in mind that the whole point of passages like those in Ephesians 5 is that we should not be living like 'the Gentiles' but better, so that the roles we start with become transfigured (Spirit-infused, one might say) into something else entirely. I don't think subordinationist-complementarians always keep this in mind, and that's a very, very bad thing, because they're putting the emphasis in entirely the wrong place -- on the roles we live rather than on the Christ in our lives. But I confess that I have no patience for this trend toward subordinationism in Trinitarian theology, particularly when it seems to be a case (as it sometimes does seem to be) of reading the Trinity simply in the way most convenient for one's views of the roles of men and women.

"the pure complementarian view -- the one not involving subordinationism -- is a respectable position"

Will definitely be looking at that, I have lots of reservations about subordinationism, though.

"that we should not be living like 'the Gentiles' but better"
oops, stepped on my sore spot;)
We should live differently, not like them only better... which again is most likely your meaning, but the way I've seen this lived out is Christians who out-world the world: better cars, better finances, better kids, better clothes, better accomplishments ...you get the drift. Took the soapbox, sorry- I knew what you meant and this is not really a correction. a little rant, which has no place here-

=====

I think what I am finding is that Jesus gave to us a whole new system, a different way of relating among other parts of His Salvation. That is something I am looking at, in terms of breaking down the classes and divisons that man, religious man, was used to in sorting people and their roles. But we still live in these bodies and in this world, so some of our roles are tranformed -as you say-

May I say 'amen' to your last statement? :)

Iliona and everyone,

First, let me say that, I generally don’t think that we should use the Trinity to justify the biblical view that men and women assume different roles in the home and church. I think we’re reading a lot into the common use of the term “hupotasso.” So I agree that God is wholly other.

But the point I was making was that the lines between that which is economic (function) and that which is ontological (essence) is not as clear cut as some suggest. And, after what I said above, I hate to do this. But the tetragrammaton is a perfect example. God identifies Himself as “I am that I am” or “what I am is that I am” or “esse est existentia.” He is the ever existing One. He is life. God defines Himself in terms of His function because His very function (living in all of its fullness) is who He is.

My comment concerning the subordination/subjection/submission (all the same to me) was directed at those who view subordination as eternal (which is common among complimentarians). I tend to agree with you that Scripture tells a story of Jesus leaving the splendor of Heaven and humbling Himself to take the form of a man to accomplish the purpose of redeeming souls. But in heaven and eternity, He shares in the glory of the Father and sits enthroned forever. Like you, I tend to disagree with the eternal subordination of the Son.

Let me explain when I say that the terms are all the same to me. Subordination may sound like the harsher and more domineering version of the term submission, but they’re both based on the same Greek word. To be fair to the “subordinationists,” they probably use the terms interchangeably (without intending to implicate some “lording over” concept). If by subordination, you mean “hierarchy,” I think all complimentarians believe in God’s established hierarchy.

By the way, I’m still of the view that we live in obedience to God’s word and honor God’s established order. The reason I engage in these conversations is because I think that our current explanation of biblical womanhood is so far from adequate (Grudem seems to present the prevailing view among complimentarians, but his exegesis is sometimes outcome-determinative). Both our theory and practice needs improvement—especially if we’re going to present the world with a view that makes sense. Not that we conform to the world, but we offer the biblical view in a way that is coherent.

Just want to say, I think it pleases God that we’re wrestling over this--not against each other but with each other to arrive at a better understanding of His word. His word is so good and altogether perfect. And so is He!

Shalom,
Chong

Chong, you always end with something encouraging:)

On subordination and submission: it is not so much the words as words, but the concepts they represent in this case. Subordinationism representing a full ensemble of a particular view, including ideas on the Trinity. I think the Bible teaches something else and that is why I prefer the word submission.

Hierarchy, itself, has differing ideas on the extrapolations. One can't deny that there is heirarchy and order... it is how that applies to us as Christians in God's Kingdom that is coming into dispute in this issue of gender.

"Not that we conform to the world, but we offer the biblical view in a way that is coherent."

This is key, isn't it? I think the more one tries to offer "reason for the hope within us" to the world the more we are pressed to find the necessity to understand that coherent view. I have entertained the thoughts that this is God's way of maturing the body... forcing us to dig further into His truths - to re-examine that we might further depend upon His revelation. What we come out of that process with is a better conformance to His nature and will... and that is our final hope in all this, anyway.

The connection between the Trinity doctrine and this issue of how gender functions is stronger than appears on the surface.

I am starting to focus on the ideas of "One-ness" and "glory" right now in my thinking. What do these things actually mean? They are the two words that keep coming up in the scriptures where male/female order is discussed, and which Jesus used throughout the John 13-17 chapters.

almost forgot. Chong, I used your comment for a post in my blog- I just couldn't stop thinking about the fish-bird-man thing you said.

I will have to chchallenge you to support your statement that "Christ is subordinated to God eternally".

I'd rather use a more scriptural terms, and say that the Father has authority over the Christ eternally, or that the Son is eternally submitted to the Father, which, to my mind is what subordination means.

Part of my support for that would come from the fact that Christ is the eternal Son, and the Father is eternal the Father. This speaks not of different origins, because the Godhead is eternal, but of different eternal roles within the Godhead.

Then there are all the statements that say that Christ came to to the Father's will, or that he was sent by the Father, or that God is the head of Christ. Not only was Christ in submission to the Father within the incarnation, but he was sent by the Father, showing prior submission to the will of the Father. His very coming itself was in submission to the authority of the Father.

Then we have the statements about Christ being finally exalted. Even then, we have him being subject to the Father, or the final glory in Christ's exultation going to the Father. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15: 28, where it says that God will suject everything to Christ, but Christ himself will subject himself to God. And Philippians 2, where the one ultimately glorified when Christ is exalted is God the Father.

And historically, in the creeds you have Christ "eternally begotten" of the Father, and "seated at the right hand" of the Father; The Son being "from the Father alone", but the Father is not "from the Son". In other words, the creeds affirm the full equality of the Son to the Father, but at the same time, they affirm that the son is eternally "from the Father" in that he eternally does the Father's will.

And here's how I would explain the difference between functional and essential subordination. The Son's submission to the Father is a willing submission. He chooses to submit himself voluntarily. This submission is not owed to the Father, which if Christ were essentially subordinate, would be the case.

Thank you for this response, Rebecca.

I would address these things in this way:
(1)"the fact that Christ is the eternal Son, and the Father is eternal the Father"

"but of different eternal roles within the Godhead."

You speak of distinction of persons, I would have to wait for greater definition of the word role to acquiesce to what you are saying here.

Gregory of Nyssa, of the Cappadocian Fathers: "[action] starts off from the Father as from a spring; it is effected by the Son, and by the power of the Spirit it completes its grace. All providence, care, and attention of all ... and the preservation of what exists, ... is one and not three." Whose discourse on this gives a sense of how the roles of the Godhead interact.

This expresses roles, but not dominance; rather mutuality of roles. It isn't command and obey, it is how the Godhead works in union.

(2)"he was sent by the Father, showing prior submission to the will of the Father"

Immediately such verses as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" come to my mind. This appeared to have been agreed upon within the Godhead, but I would like to bring up this scripture, Phil.2:5-7. In order to come into the earth on His mission, the Son had to empty Himself, this is the submission, and I think it comes from the mutual desire in the Godhead to fulfill a particular goal that God decided upon. I don't think this proves an eternal type of subordination, although I see the temptation to read back into God's Person from this.

(3)"the one ultimately glorified when Christ is exalted is God the Father"

I recently paid particular attention to the John 13-17 chapters that Jeremy mentioned. There is a mutuality of giving glory. Although here I would say, wouldn't it be Christ's great desire to give all as a gift to His Father, and isn't the Father's stated desire to give all to the Son? And doesn't the Holy Spirit delight in glorifying Christ, who glorifies the Father?

And one thing not mentioned by any of us, doesn't God glorify us? Are we not in the process of going from glory to glory? There is alot we are not understanding in this concept of glory. I think it would be a mistake to attribute this to some dominance of the Father over the Son.

(4)"historically, in the creeds you have Christ "eternally begotten" of the Father, and "seated at the right hand" of the Father; The Son being "from the Father alone", but the Father is not "from the Son". In other words, the creeds affirm the full equality of the Son to the Father, but at the same time, they affirm that the son is eternally "from the Father" in that he eternally does the Father's will."

The first question I would put to you in interpreting the creed in the way you do is this:"And what does the Father do?" That the Son does the Father's will does not necessarily mean the obedience to a command, while it does mean unity in will. Jesus being the very image would perfectly express what comes from the Father. There are many scriptures which identify Christ with the Father as there are that He was sent. You have simply articulated the distinction of the Father from the Son, which we understand when we say 'three persons', but not the order. In the meaning of 'what is a father' and 'what is a son' is the fact that the one comes from the other. If this were the same substance, which it is, does this mean eternal dominance? I don't think that is in the creeds.

in the end you say this:
"The Son's submission to the Father is a willing submission. He chooses to submit himself voluntarily. This submission is not owed to the Father"

Essentially you are stating the equality, for if someone willingly gives something and does not owe it, they are acting from an equal position. From whatever cause, inate or given. When transposing this idea to men and women, if women willingly give submission it is something quite different from and inate position of inferiority or as subordinate.

I want to now interject something of my own.

When we are talking about man/woman relationship of order and rule/subordination are we not discussing the outcome of the fall?

Is this not somehow coloring our view of God? And through Christ, are we not to overcome this disadvantage and go on into renewing our minds with the reality of what we find in the example of Christ?

He was equal, He found Himself not equal in the Incarnation, He submitted Himself, He fulfilled His ordained purpose upon the earth and returned, not empty handed but with great reward for what His submission accomplished. That is submission.

But we are simultaneously talking about something else: we are talking about authority. I think this is the main emphasis of many of the disputed scriptures of Paul. Recognition of authority and how that works has more to do with calling than with gender. Men are to be subject to other men in this case, as well as what women are to recognize.

So while I am convinced of the mutuality of the Godhead, and find no case whatsoever for ideas of eternal subordination... I come here to a place where I would be willing ( in another post on the topic) to discuss how authority structure works in this earth, and the limitations of that from the spiritual reality we have in Christ .

I think complementarians over-reach themselves when they try to find authority for their ideas within the concept of the Godhead. They try to see what is temporal as eternal.

I have found this discussion very interesting. I must confess I don't quite feel up to the challenge of joining in, as I know I would have a difficult time expressing thoughts that are all still in the contemplation stage. And I haven't done a lot of reading of speculations about the nature of the Trinity---which is why I have found this discussion so enlightning.

However, I did want to comment on one area on which I have done a little research--the reference to God, the Father as the 'head' of Christ. Manfred Brauch in his book Hard Sayings of Paul puts forth a very convincing and scholarly argurment for the interpretation of the word 'head', kephale, in reference to 1 Corinthians 11:3 as being understood by Greeks as meaning source or origin--coming forth from (not created from. Head as in 'head waters'--the source of a river. According to Brauch, the majority of usages of the word kephale indicated this meaning, and other words were usually used when indicating authority over someone.

Here is a portion of Brauch's comments:
Strong support for the linguistic evidence (that is, that the metaphorical range of meanings of kephale did not normally include the ideas of "authority over" or "superior rank") comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Septaugint)...Like the English word "head" and the Greek word "kephale", the Hebrew word ro'sh has first of all the literal meaning "head of man or beast." But like the English and Greek, it also has numerous figurative meanngs. In an exhaustive study of how the Septaugint translators rendered the words ro'sh, the following data emerged. In the more than 200 times when ro'sh refers to a physical head, the translators always used kephale. About 180 times, ro'sh clearly has the figurative meaning of "leader" or "chief" or "authority figure" of a group.....When the translators, however, sought the appropriate Greek word to render this figurative meaning they used the not kephale, but archon (and it's derivatives) in the great majority of cases (138 times). Archon means "ruler", "commander", "leader"...In only 8 out of 180 cases was kephale used to translate ro'sh when it designated the leader of a group...It is clear from this data that the Greek translators were keenly aware that kephale did not normally have a metaphorical meaning equivalent to that of ro'sh; else they would have used it for most, if not all, occurences of ro'sh when it carried the meaning of "chief" or "leader"...
This linguistic evidence, which suggests that the idea of "authority over" was not native to the Greek kephale has led numerous scholars to see behind Paul's use of "head" either the meaning "source, origin" or "top, crown, completion".
If the readers of Paul's Greek did not hear our "headship" concept in the word kephale, but rather the idea of "source, origin", what did it convey to them...? Cyril of Alexandria, an important Greek speaking leader of the church in the 4th century, commenting on this text wrote: "Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of the woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because he is from Him according to His nature."...

Now this does not address the issue of whether or not the Son is eternally subject to the Father or in voluntary submission to Him--whatever that might mean in the relationships among the Godhead. I mean I understand submission with regards to my submission to my husband and brothers and sisters in Christ and to earthly authorities. And I understand it in regards to Christ's wrestling with His flesh and submitting His will to the Father's. But I cannot comprehend what exactly submission might mean within the completely unified Oneness of the Godhead.

Gregory of Nyssa, of the Cappadocian Fathers: "[action] starts off from the Father as from a spring; it is effected by the Son, and by the power of the Spirit it completes its grace. All providence, care, and attention of all ... and the preservation of what exists, ... is one and not three." Whose discourse on this gives a sense of how the roles of the Godhead interact.

This expresses roles, but not dominance; rather mutuality of roles. It isn't command and obey, it is how the Godhead works in union.

Gregory of Nyssa’s quote seems to me to be exactly the historical Christian view of the trinity, which is not subordinationism, which has always been considered heresy; but what has been called functional subordination, which affirms distinction of roles within the trinity. The Father directs, the Son acts as the agent, working what the Father has started by his decree, and the Spirit assist both the Father and the Son.

And I don’t see dominance either, but rather directing by the Father and willing effecting of the Father’s will by the Son. It’s not mutuality of roles, because the roles are different. The persons of the Godhead do different things, but there is is unity of purpose, and that’s the way they work in union.

Immediately such verses as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" come to my mind. This appeared to have been agreed upon within the Godhead

I would agree that it was agreed upon (I wouldn’t think the Son ever disagreed with the Father), but nonetheless, scripture uses the word “send” for the role the Father plays in the incarnation. and the sending by the Father had to occur before the actual incarnation itself, and the Son agreeing to come as sent by the Father had to occur before the incarnation itself. In fact, I would argue that these different roles were part of the pact made in eternity before creation itself--that Christ was foreordained as "the sent one" before the time began.

In order to come into the earth on His mission, the Son had to empty Himself, this is the submission,

I think emptying himself refers not to submission per se (although he emptied himself as part of his submission), but to Christ voluntarily giving up the glory, rights, perogative, etc that was due him as diety to come in human form.

and I think it comes from the mutual desire in the Godhead to fulfill a particular goal that God decided upon.

I don’t disagree with this.

I don't think this proves an eternal type of subordination, although I see the temptation to read back into God's Person from this.

I don’t think it’s just a temptation to read back. I think it has to do with the immutability (or eternality) of God. The way the persons of the Trinity relate to each other can’t change.

I think we see those rolls in creation as well, BTW. We have God the Father creating the world through Christ’s agency (Hebrews 1:2). God the Father speaks the words of creation that bring everything into existence, but the work of creation is done by the Son.

And it is the Father who appointed the Son heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2 again). The Son has authority, but he has the authority as appointed by the Father.

There is a mutuality of giving glory. Although here I would say, wouldn't it be Christ's great desire to give all as a gift to His Father, and isn't the Father's stated desire to give all to the Son? And doesn't the Holy Spirit delight in glorifying Christ, who glorifies the Father?

I’m not sure there’s a mutuality of giving glory, depending, I guess on what you mean by giving glory. I think, for example, that in his role, the Spirit gives glory to the other two, but I have a hard time finding any scripture that reverses things, and has the Father or the Son giving glory to the Spirit. (This is not to say that they three persons aren’t equal in glory, just that the Spirit seems to defer his glory to the other two.)

And I think it’s fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that in the consummation of all things, Christ subjects himself to the Father so that God the Father may be all in all. (Paul is using the name “God” in this passage to refer to the Father, as he usually does, and as the context suggests.) I don’t think you can find anywhere in scripture where the Father subjects himself to the Son, and yet here, at the consummation of all things, when everything is put exactly and forever in order, you have the Son subjecting himself to the Father. He is acknowledging, willingly, the eternal priority of the Father.

And one thing not mentioned by any of us, doesn't God glorify us? Are we not in the process of going from glory to glory? There is alot we are not understanding in this concept of glory. I think it would be a mistake to attribute this to some dominance of the Father over the Son.

Ahhh...but the purpose of our glorification (or our salvation) is to glorify God, in particular his attribute of grace. Our glorification is only a means to an end, the end being the glorification of God. God works it, so he is the only one who gets glory. The boast (or glory) in our recreation is God’s alone because it comes about as a work of his grace. (See Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 1 etc.)

The first question I would put to you in interpreting the creed in the way you do is this:"And what does the Father do?"

The Father wills. The Father decrees. The Father plans. The Father sends. The Father gives.

In the meaning of 'what is a father' and 'what is a son' is the fact that the one comes from the other. If this were the same substance, which it is, does this mean eternal dominance?

I wouldn't use the word dominance. Eternal ultimate authority, yes, but not necessarily dominance, depending I guess, on what you mean by that word.

Can you explain to me what you think it means that the Son comes from the Father? Why do the creeds say that the Father is not from the Son? What does that mean? It can’t refer to origins, since they are both eternal. It can’t refer to substance (or likeness), since they are of the same substance, and have been eternally. It can’t be talking only of the incarnation, since that the Son is from the Father is an eternal thing. What does it mean?

Essentially you are stating the equality, for if someone willingly gives something and does not owe it, they are acting from an equal position.

Yes, exactly. That’s what functional subordination is. Equal essence, equal status, equal value, equal glory, equal power, but different roles. Not inferior roles, either, but subordinate roles. By choice.

I hesitate to use the word “position” because I don’t know what you mean by it. If all you mean by it is status, then I’d agree. If you mean that they have the same “job” or that there is no priority in order within their roles, then I’d disagree.

When transposing this idea to men and women, if women willingly give submission it is something quite different from and inate position of inferiority or as subordinate.

Exactly. And functional subordination doesn’t say that the subordination of Christ to the Father comes from an inate (or characteristic) position of inferiority, either. It is a willing subordination in role among equals.

When we are talking about man/woman relationship of order and rule/subordination are we not discussing the outcome of the fall?

I don’t think so. The roles come out of the order of creation (man was formed first), and before that, out of the order of the Godhead. The man named the woman, showing his authority, before creation. That things turn nasty on us--that husbands dominate or lord it over wives--comes out of the fall. That wives fight for control over their husbands comes out of the fall.

And through Christ, are we not to overcome this disadvantage and go on into renewing our minds with the reality of what we find in the example of Christ?

We certainly should work to overcome the results of the curse. But the particular roles weren’t given in the curse, but before that, and I wouldn’t call the different roles a “disadvantage”, either.

Let me ask you a question in regards to the Trinity as it exists eternally. How are the persons in the trinity differentiated? You’ve explained how you think they are eternally the same, but how are they eternally different?

Oops...rolls should be roles in there. There are probably other typos as well, but they won't annoy me like that one.

I know what you mean about the consternation with typos!

Rebecca, again- appreciation for the time and thought you are putting into the responses.
"It’s not mutuality of roles, because the roles are different." You are right - I should have worded that differently. Mutual cooperation is the thought I want to convey.

It is my understanding that the Cappadocian Fathers upheld the Nicene councils conclusion and further developed the thinking. I think if you read the entire letter you can see that it isn't giving a heretical view, although there is some qualifying that is done on some of his views from critics. This particular writing seems to explain the unity and how you can't come to conclusions of three gods from the doctrine of the Trinity. There is one end in the action of the Trinity, One Word.

As we talk of the Father, I don't want to diminish the idea of that name represents, I agree in all points when we speak of origin, initiator, etc. I am rather hesitant whenever it gets expressed as domination as we understand that in our human thinking.

"Not inferior roles, either, but subordinate roles"
Chong brought up that inferior is inferred in the term "subordinate", etc. I think she had a valid point in this type of discussion.

" I think it’s fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that in the consummation of all things, Christ subjects himself to the Father so that God the Father may be all in all. "

At this point I want to say some of the things that I am weighing: when we are speaking of the Son in these things is it clear whether we are speaking of the Son as He is in the Trinity before Incarnation, or are we now speaking of the Son as Son of Man and Last Adam of the New Creation? Do you see what I am saying? What is occurring for me is an overview of the eternal purposes of God.... that I see God's purposes working towards unity. All that He is doing is tending towards a unity- not like that of Eastern thought, but that of Christian thought. Is it then proper for us to look back into the original Trinity and say this act in the consummation is indicative of the Son's subordination rather than Christ, bringing all of creation back into its place in realtionship to God?

I'm not saying any of this as concrete thoughts of doctrine, but as exploration. I am very resistant to ideas of heirarchy within the Godhead. And very resistant to those conclusions which will then be difficult to backtrack from when extending the truth of the gospel into the economics of how we should then live. I am not trying to be difficult about specific points.

"The roles come out of the order of creation (man was formed first), and before that, out of the order of the Godhead."

Here is where I am going to dissent from you. I will agree that this articulates authority, but defining roles I am not so sure of. I liked the idea that man is given to name woman and that relates to the authority order- that makes much sense in my thinking. I hope to clarify the distinctions and why they are important in a future post.

It is after the fall that the woman is given a more secondary place, like the man's leadership is then more onerus to him. Sequence doesn't necessarily mean pre-eminence in the creation. Maybe I'm being facile, but man was created last and given dominance over all the other creatures, right? Man was, in a sense, diminished by the fact that woman was from him ( bone of my bone,etc) -so he was not in the original state; or another way to say that is that the woman was in man when man was first created. Perhaps these things are meaningless, but they are thoughts I looked at.

Eventually, what I am looking toward is the idea that while in this life we have the order that needs to be maintained, although in a modified way... but that in Christ the distinctions no longer apply in the same way. If there is no male and female in heaven, and all are as the angels... how does this subordination idea carry over to eternity?

This is the glimpse into where I am going.
"a question in regards to the Trinity as it exists eternally. How are the persons in the trinity differentiated? You’ve explained how you think they are eternally the same, but how are they eternally different?"

I'm so glad you asked that;)
They are distinct from one another.

Unity in the way it is expressed within Christianity is not a disappearance of individuality. God is a Person, and He created us as persons. The distinctiveness of the individual is included within the unity, although for us that means cleansed of the sin damage- the lost and distorted message of who we are. This is repetition of what we see in the Godhead- The person is who the person is... I can't say what the Father is without looking at Him through Jesus Christ, I have to look at how Jesus says the Father acts and thinks and desires... and then I understand the Father, the Son is my example, I now see and understand Him... I relate to the Father the way the Son of Man does.... and I experience the Holy Spirit, I know that this is the feelings, the guidance that is coming from the Father through the Son, but I can't encompass a real description except I repeat what is in the word given me.

This is how we understand the Trinity- which is a doctrine which tries to congeal the revelation of God throughout the Bible. It is there, but line upon line. The three expressions which we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is thoughout scripture: the LORD says to my Lord, The Spirit of God, etc

But none of us would say this is easy to express or even understand before trying to express it.

I have to say everything I know about Jesus is through revelation experience as it is held against the revelation of the Bible; I have to say what I understand about the Godhead the same way. I experienced a revelation of that mutual love, but I have to hold it to the revealed word of the Bible to give it proper form and not put my own filter of faulty understanding upon it. It is necessary to always distrust my own understanding, but to have faith that God is revealing things that He will refine along the way.

This is how I approach it, and lots of times I have to admit I simply hid within the reiteration of the doctrine of the creed by faith. There is much I cannot explain to myself let alone you:)

I am just not prepared to say that my understanding of who the Father is will give an idea of command obey as He relates to the Son. This seems inimical to the concept that God is Love as defined by Christ's revelation of what real ( agape) love is like.

That is where I am on this, Rebecca.

I appreciate people like you who are helping me work these things out.

want to clarify that I see the Holy Spirit as a Person, not merely the effects of what I receive from Him. I didn't word it well.

===further edited to add:
"Not inferior roles, either, but subordinate roles. By choice."
"He is acknowledging, willingly, the eternal priority of the Father"

if you want to say "the eternal priority of the Father" it creates the subordination of the Son, and then it can't be said to be by choice. The choice would be inconsequential, though a right response. The idea of "priority" is not only one of original but of "higher". We just keep having this connotation which inserts itself.

I guess my question in all this is "Does God see Himself this way?" I say God sees Himself as "One". United in all ways of will and action.

It is my understanding that the Cappadocian Fathers upheld the Nicene councils conclusion and further developed the thinking. I think if you read the entire letter you can see that it isn't giving a heretical view,

I don't think Gregory's view is heretical. It is exactly the historical Christian view of the Trinity, including a differentiation in the roles of (or relationships between) the persons of the Trinity--the Father initiates, the Son effects, and the Spirit completes. I would agree with his statement, but most egalitarians don't see differentiation in the roles in the Trinity like Gregory does, and it's this differentiation of roles that they say is subordinationism (which it isn't!).

Chong brought up that inferior is inferred in the term "subordinate", etc. I think she had a valid point in this type of discussion.

I think that is incorrect thinking. It may be the common assumption in the world, but I don't think it's right thinking. Thinking that way means an employee is inferior to a boss, a child is inferior to an adult, a citizen is inferior to his/her country's leader. I just don't think any of those things is true.

I will agree that this articulates authority, but defining roles I am not so sure of.

I don't know how you can say one person has authority over another without saying they have different roles.

Sequence doesn't necessarily mean pre-eminence in the creation.

No, it probably doesn't necessarily mean pre-eminence, but Paul refers to the creation order as the reason a woman can't excercise authority over man, so in this case, it must mean something, about who has authority.

It is after the fall that the woman is given a more secondary place

I don't think so. Adam sinned second, but it is Adam that represented all of humankind in the fall. We all fell in Adam, which means that he had some sort of representation for the whole human race that Eve didn't.

If there is no male and female in heaven

Where does it say there is no male and female in heaven?

I say God sees Himself as "One". United in all ways of will and action.

But "united" or "one" doesn't mean "same". The persons of the trinity always have the same purpose (or will) but they don't have the same "action". They do different actions to accomplish the same purpose. The action of regeneration, for instance, is worked by the Spirit, not by the Son or by the Father, although it is worked in unity with the purpose of the Father and Son. The Son does the work of redemption, not the Father or the Spirit, although it too is worked in unity with the purpose of the Father and the Spirit. Etc.

I just wanted to share some thoughts that reading all your comments has inspired---and I can't tell you how helpful this discussion has been to me. (And, please, correct me anywhere you feel I've misunderstood your points.)

Rebecca, I follow what you are saying about subordination and submission not being synonymous with inferiority. And I understand what you are saying about the different roles of the persons of the Trinity. What I am trying to think through is what the Son being subject to the Father could mean. In our relationships with our fellow human beings, to submit means to put the will of another above your own--but this necessitates two differing wills. If the two are of one mind, as is the case within the Godhead, then there is no need for submission of one to the other. But maybe this is not what we are talking about when we speak of Christ being subject to the Father.

In the 1 Corinthians 15 passage it speaks of all creation being made subject to Christ and Christ being made subject to the Father so that "God may be all in all'. Perhaps this is saying that all of creation will eventually be made to do the will of the Son and the Son does the will of the Father so that there will eventually be one purpose, one Will. Through Jesus, there will be complete harmony between God and all of Creation. So to be subject to would mean to do the will of another. The Father wills. The Son's role is to do the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit's role is to enable the created sons to do the will of the Father.

Ilona, I also think I understand what you are getting at in bringing up the effects of the Fall. If the interaction between males and females, within marriage, was meant to reflect this interaction within the Godhead, the Fall would certainly mess things up. Work is no longer a pleasant expenditure of energy to accomplish something but has become an onerous task. So also the interaction between husbands and wives is no longer simply a dance where the two partners work together, one leading, the other following, with no sense of competition, domination, or inferiority--but has become a difficult and often painful tug-of-war.

In eternity, we'll have our redeemed bodies which are male and female bodies. But the dance of marriage will be over. We'll have a new dance--and I can't even imagine the glory of that!

No one seems to have mentioned it, or maybe I missed it, since I skimmed the above, but do google "Kevin Giles, trinity and subordinationism", and take a look at the 8th link down below. There is a good online debate thats worth reading.

God Bless,
- Raj Rao
"From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth."
~Psalm 50v.2

Rebecca, you formerly said "Gregory of Nyssa’s quote seems to me to be exactly the historical Christian view of the trinity, which is not subordinationism, which has always been considered heresy; but what has been called functional subordination, which affirms distinction of roles within the trinity. "

I'm sorry, when I read that I did not see the terms clearly- 'functional subordination' was not a term that I came across, and I will have to research that since you didn't say who says this in what context.
=====
you said:
"subordinationism, which has always been considered heresy" This is what I believe was disputed way back in the first comments when Jeremy said Those who deny the subordinationism of I Cor 15 and John 13-17 are denying the implications of Trinitarianism. and Subordinationism implies nothing of the sort. It's just the claim that the different persons of the Trinity have different roles, something classic Trinitarianism has always insisted on.

But then you say "subordinationism, which has always been considered heresy" much later.... which is not something I am disputing. I am saying that subordinationism is considered heresy and was decided so in the fourth century. It was you that agreed with Jeremy in his statements, and said that was the historical stance.

Now you are inserting another term, and one which hasn't been formally defined in the discussion. I apologize for getting a bit confused. I agree with Gregory of Nyssa in this quote from his letter, That is why I posted it. I misunderstood you.

You also brought up the word 'egalitarian'. This also has not yet been defined for the discussion. It will enter into the conversation, but I am not sure who of the egalitarians hold the view you mentioned, or even what comprises egalitarianism yet.

Right now, it is the hierarchal complementarian view, and its claims to authority within the doctrine of the Trinity that is discussed in our thread. I see it is something to look further into sooner rather than later.
=====
I'm not an either/or person yet in this issue.
=====
on inferiority
"It may be the common assumption in the world, but I don't think it's right thinking."
Ok. But you aren't making your case.
=====
"I don't know how you can say one person has authority over another without saying they have different roles."

Perhaps. Roles are the parts we play. There are roles without designations of authority per se. We were talking of men and women. If the husband should die the woman takes the role of head of the house, though it was formerly the man's role. Should she remarry then the role changes again. She stays in role as mother, but her mother role is flexible. I would guess there are other examples.

======
"Paul refers to the creation order as the reason a woman can't excercise authority over man"

I agree order in this case means something. But I can't say it fits in the way that many have interpreted it. I think it relates to a seemliness, and pertains to purpose rather than being solely a case of authority. Authority is in there, but I would like to see a cohesiveness to the whole picture of authority and these scriptures that are at issue. Women being silent, not teaching, .... where the lines of authority actually lie. I think we can agree that the reproduction process divides male and female purposes. This would have to include roles to some extent, but what I want to be careful of is saying there are clear cut lines between male and female in all roles. I don't think we may say that. Can we say females cannot be teachers, that that is not their role? We have to refine the thought on this. If people want to say women can only not teach men in the Church... I want to define why that is. I think there is reasoning to be had, or else doubt the interpretation.
====
"Adam sinned second, but it is Adam that represented all of humankind in the fall. We all fell in Adam, which means that he had some sort of representation for the whole human race that Eve didn't."

This is an excellent point. It is something to think on.
=====
But "united" or "one" doesn't mean "same"
I'm not attempting to say "same" about anything here. I believe in the Trinity doctrine. I know there to be differences between men and women.... and I said previously that this idea of "Oneness" is something that needs further investigation. We both agree with all you've said in that last paragraph. My only caveat is the idea of domination/subordination within the Godhead with the overlay of man's understanding.

======
"Where does it say there is no male and female in heaven?"

"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

and

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

and

"But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. "

I take it that those distinctions are erased when we are clothed upon with a different body. I never understood the angels to be gendered as women, but it could be that this is just how I have viewed the scriptures. And the fact that we are all called "sons of God":
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"

and "because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

Perhaps that is my literalism showing up. I just presumed we would all be sons, and that there is no sexual gender distinction.

I see Debra views it differently in a way, how do you see this?

Thanks Raj. Did you mean
"The Obedient Son
HERESY, NOVELTY OR BIBLICAL THEOLOGY?"

I'm reading it now. Tell me y'all... are you going to make me really sorry I attempted to bring up this topic;)

Debra, great thoughts.... I will have to give some time to the idea of the differing wills and whether submission would demand that or a state of emptiness of will- if that would even be possible. Is submission maybe a readiness to come into alignment through the state of love?

submission .....a readiness to come into alignment through the state of love

That's a very good way definition, IMO.

There will be no marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean there's literally no male and female. There's no marriage between angels and humans, but that doesn't mean there are no angels and humans. It also doesn't mean there never was marriage between angels and humans. Genesis 6 seems to many to record exactly such unions.

As for Gal 3:28, it says that there is no male and female in Christ. But we are in Christ now, and it surely doesn't mean that there's no male and female in any sense now, just as it doesn't mean there's no slave and free or Jew and Greek in any sense. Paul insisted on considering himself a Jew. He addressed slaves and masters as if they were still slaves and masters. He addressed men and women as if they were still men and women. Gal 3:28 cannot mean that there is no distinction whatsoever, just that with respect to being in Christ there is no distinction.

submission .....a readiness to come into alignment through the state of love

That's a very good definition, IMO.

This is what I mean to post---pesky typos!

More thoughts:
In discussing the roles of men and women we need to be clear whether we are discussing interactions between men and women, in general, or the relationship of husbands and wives. One of the biggest mistakes I have seen in churches is the application of scriptures that refer to the relational roles of husbands and wives and extrapolate that to all relationships between men and women. And it is also important to note when Paul refers to the created order as the basis for his instructions and when he refers to the Fall. Our created natures will remain (although in a redeemed, perfected form) in eternity--however the effects of the Fall will no longer remain. So without marriage or the effects of the Fall, things are bound to be very different with regards to the roles of men in women in eternity.

I think it is a mistake to take our very limited understanding of the nature of the Trinity and try to extrapolate that directly to all interactions between men and women. I think a good case could be made that marriage is a reflection of the relationships within the Trinity and certainly between Christ and the church---but we don't fully comprehend those things. We do know that Christ, in humility, set aside His glory to take on the flesh of a man. We know that in His incarnation, out of love, He set aside His will in obedience to the Father's. All Christians have the honor of following Christ in this way, as we are told to submit ourselves to one another and to the Will of the Father. I think, within marriage, women, having come forth from man as Christ came forth from God, demonstrate, as an imperfect reflection, the role of the Son interacting with the Father as an equal but being subject to (i.e being obedient to) the Will of the Father. But the Father and Son and Spirit are One--and this is reflected in the one flesh of the husband and wife.

I don't see this same analogy with the Trinity applying to men and women, in general, or their roles in the church, though. In discussing why he doesn't allow women to teach men in the church, Paul refers to the created order and the Fall as his basis for his instructions. In other words, the nature of men and women and the nature of the Fall--the nature of things-is his basis for determining what was best for the church with regards to the role of women. However, my question is, since the word for woman and wife and the word for man and husband are used interchangeably in the Greek--how do we know that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a reference to men and women and not husbands and wives? And, even if it does refer to all men and women in the church---could it not be, as Atlantic pointed out in an earlier post, that women are simply not to speak or teach with spiritual authority in the church? It is clear that women prayed and prophesied in the church--so complete silence could not be what this passage means.

excuse me--make that "with regards to the roles of men and women..." :-D

Jeremy, I am willing to see the matter the way you put it about marriage not equating gender. maybe there is male and female, but I tend to doubt it, on the basis of scriptures I gave being taken together.

That does not close the matter for me, however, on the basis of this point:
We are a new creation and it does not yet appear what the spiritual body will look like, although we have Christ as an example.

"Gal 3:28 cannot mean that there is no distinction whatsoever, just that with respect to being in Christ there is no distinction."

Hmmm, I would read that( in Christ) as the veritable situation- what we are in Christ is what we really are and what we eternally are. As far as differences now, we continue in this body, in this world and that is where I would contain the complementarian ideas.

I would apply some of that verse from 1Cor. that cessationists so like to quote: when the perfect comes the imperfect vanishes away... such things as knowledge, because we will perfectly know as we are known ( of God). In the glorified body we are completed, and I can't say what that does to the gender. I don't think the Bible says alot about this.
====

"It also doesn't mean there never was marriage between angels and humans. Genesis 6 seems to many to record exactly such unions."

Whoa there. Does marriage imply legitimacy? and the Bible doesn't say marriage, it gives indication that something monstrous took place, monstrous enough that those angels were "chained" to keep from repeating such things. I am at my frontier in what I am willing to speculate on in this turn of topic. If we get to succubus and incubus stuff... I'm not prepared to go there.

So I just give you a great big ???? and say you don't have enough pieces of Biblical info to go there.

==========
Debra, I very closely follow you until your last paragraph. My intuition on this is that there is something intrinsic in a man which requires that women not usurp authority over him. (Take the reins, so to speak, but that women are to be given the reins within the structure of that. ) That there is something in the natural order that was there before the fall.

I do want to differentiate between what is natural and what is spiritual if that is called for, though... which would explain my hesitancy at this point to come down firmly on either side of these views.

Spiritual authority comes from God. If a woman prophesies, and it is prophecy from the Holy Spirit, isn't there spiritual authority in that? But this is a different gift than teaching. So I can't just accept the Catholic view. I can't say there is no case for spiritual authority coming through a woman, but I can see it would a restricted case.

I think that is Paul's view, frankly. That the spiritual freedom women have in Christ does not translate into freedom to lord it over men in the natural, no matter how immature or unregenerate those men may appear in their estimation. One strong point in Biblical authority is honoring the office. I think that is an integral part of what we are seeing in these "gender" scriptures. Feninism collapses down the male, and I think that is what we see in their theology and in their practical outcomes in society. It is an emasculation in my estimation, and that is contrary to the will and love of God. Just as oppression of women, or any other human being is.

Regarding the idea of gender outside our earthbound world...great speculative thinking about this can be found in CS Lewis' book "That Hideous Strength". He speculates that there are actually *more* genders than we see represented in our scheme of men and women.

Ilona, I just know that Paul used the order of creation (which was before the fall) as well as refering to Eve's deception, to justify his instruction with regards to women/wives not teaching or having authority over men/husbands. So I am assuming that there are created differences as well as consequences of the fall that effect the way men and women interact. The basic nature of women gives them some great advantages over men, as well as the obvious disadvantages. Perhaps this instruction is meant to guard against the disruption in the 'balance of power' between men and women that occurs when women take over. If Paul had seen tendencies to oppress women and not allow them to fully function within the Body of Christ and utilize the gifts they were given within the church I'm sure his instructions would have been altogether different. I'm sure he would have something to say to churches that operate like that.

I think we see the tendency today for women to end up being the backbone of the church, even when not in positions of direct authority. We must be on guard against the feminization of the church. Not because there is anything wrong with women or their influence but because it tends to inadvertantly sideline the men.

I didn't mean to come across as implying any inate subordination of women to men (and I don't think Paul was implying that) But the order of creation does apparently bear some significance with regards to our nature and our roles. Understanding the nature of men and women and how they relate to one another should give us a better understanding as to how to best order our homes and our churches. But even without this understanding, we have Paul's instructions and his explanation that these instructions are based on a recognition of the nature of men and women and the effects of the Fall.

And these natures, differences and interactions I am referring to are all generalities, of course. There are individual exceptions to these 'rules'. But you cannot base instructions and operating procedures on the exceptions.

"I think we see the tendency today for women to end up being the backbone of the church, even when not in positions of direct authority. We must be on guard against the feminization of the church."

I agree with you.

I'm looking for a coherent way to understand how gender interacts and apply that in the culture. I want something that won't break down into hypocrisy and dissconnect within itself and within practice of the tenets of the gospel.

When we are talking about God's truths, I question whether we can speak of "exceptions". The exceptions such as you mention seem to arise from different situations ( how the truth is applied), but that wouldn't compromise the larger truth. That is what I think, anyway. Because your last sentence is true we have to see what the guiding principle is that encompasses both the generality and the exception. Under what circumstance is the exception right? Why is that? these would be the form of my questions.

I look for that pivotal point or points. I believe it can be discovered for a coherent way to give the gospel to the culture we live in. Not changing the gospel for the culture, but explaining it.

We are going to have to look at ideas of freedom and forms of the egalitarian thought processes. We have to explain what basis is used for race and what for women, we are also going to have to 'fess up to where the Church has gotten things wrong in the historical expressions. And we are going to have to make a clear representation of the gospel to modern man. If egalitarianism takes things too far, why? If there is authority, what is the boundary for it? What is the source of it?

We are talking about some of that now in the theology of the Trinity...but we will have to move back to the specific scriptures to hammer out any concluding thoughts.

I should clarify--by exceptions I didn't mean exceptions to Truth. I meant exceptions in nature. As an example: there are women who are as capable as men when it comes to combat. In fact there are some women who are more capable than many men in combat. But these women are the exception to the rule. (Not to mention that the mere presence of a female in combat would effect the situation regardless of her capabilities.) So it would be foolhardy to base a decision of whether or not to allow women in combat soley on the basis of there being exceptional women who could capably fulfill that role.

When it comes to leadership in a church, obviously there are many women qualified for positions of effective leadership. But how would that effect the operation of the church? I am sure there are some churches where a woman leader would not cause the feminization of the church or diminish male participation but that would be an exception to what is probably an observable, general rule. If you have rules that allow for exceptions, experience will show that nearly everyone will believe they are an exception.

Maybe there is some underlying spiritual reason for male leadership in the church that I am missing. Since I try not to separate spiritual truth from the everyday ordinary, practical truths, I still say it is a spiritual matter. To ignore the truth with regards to the nature of things is to ignore God's truth. But while I can see a spiritual reflection of the interaction of the Trinity between a husband and wife in marriage--I can't see that same parallel in the interaction of men and women, in general, or even within the church.

In Christ--we are equal, regardless of our race, gender or economic status. That was an amazing, revolutionary concept when it was introduced by Christianity and we should make that Truth clear to the everyone. However, equal does not mean the same. Within institutions like the family, the church, companies, governments, etc....we have to have roles and some sort of authority in order to operate properly. Scripture gives us guidelines and principles for operating within these institutions. And these scriptural guidelines, as with all Truth, are based on Reality and the nature of things.

Hi everyone,

I did not intend to say a few words and then not return and contribute to the discussion. I’ve just been swamped with assignments for school (I still work full time). And I have finals next week.

I just wanted to clarify a few things.

I. A couple people mentioned that I brought up that “inferior is inferred in the term ‘subordinate.’”

Here’s my earlier comment: “Let me explain when I say that the terms are all the same to me. Subordination may sound like the harsher and more domineering version of the term submission, but they’re both based on the same Greek word. To be fair to the “subordinationists,” they probably use the terms interchangeably (without intending to implicate some “lording over” concept)….”

My point was that the terms subordination/submission/subjection mean the same thing to me and it does not suggest inferiority in the sense of one dominating the other (and, I would add, it does not suggest inferiority in the sense of inequality). If anything, the term subordination suggests hierarchy.

The confusion may be the result of comments I have made in earlier discussions, where I spoke of woman having the “lesser” role. As I tried to explain there, I use the term “lesser” in reference to position and not essence. To me, the word “inferior” speaks of essence. And I always have and will maintain equality of essence.

II. As to the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity, the problem we often face is that our experience of God invariably will be in terms of the economic Trinity. Essentially, everything God does in interacting with humanity is God carrying out His redemptive purposes in this world. Even the Father’s role of sending the Son does not reveal anything of the eternal organization of the Godhead. William G.T. Shedd provides the following definitions: “The economic Trinity concerns the roles that each member performs in terms of the created order ad extra or outside of himself” and the ontological Trinity is “the internal, intratrinitarian distinctions ad intra or within the Godhead itself.” Because God’s revelation to us and our experience of Him primarily involves the created order, our understanding of His function usually refer to the economic Trinity.

I’m engaged in another discussion on God’s transcendence and whether we can even have knowledge of the essence of God (that our knowledge is accurate and corresponds to God as He truly is). That is ontological, and often we can only speculate concerning these things.

So, in speculating, I tend to disagree with the eternal subordination of the Son for a couple reasons (I’m going to try to post something more comprehensive at some point): (1) the biblical descriptions of the Son humbling Himself, which suggests an uncompromised equality with the Father before creation and the incarnation; and, (2) what true, perfect equality/unity/oneness entails (as consistent with Scripture and reason).

III. Again, in speculating (speculating, meaning providing an education guess or opinion because Scripture is silent or unclear on the matter), I’m open to the possibility that heaven is genderless for a few reasons: (1) because there is no marriage in heaven; (2) because gender differences serve the purpose of fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” which was necessary to populate the earth and which will not be necessary in heaven; (3) because gender differences serve the purpose of bringing order to life and worship because we fail to do this naturally (being sinners and self-interested, and not holy and focused on God and others); (4) because all that the categories that differentiate us on earth (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) probably will have no purpose in the perfect unity of heaven.

I want to emphasize that I’m only speculating on many of these things and that I’m constantly thinking these things through for myself—and always open to learning from others.

Shalom,
Chong

Chong,
How about the idea that gender remains in heaven but our experience of gender and the relationship between them will be radically different from our experience of these things on earth? That idea is suggested to me by the fact that we have bodies here in this life and we will have them in the next---but it is clear that they will be radically changed. However, Jesus' demonstration of resurrected bodies shows us that they will still be very recognizably human and bear reminders of our previous existence.

I too have difficulty with the idea of eternal subordination within the Trinity. I have no problem with the idea of subordination and submission in any way that it is ordained for us in our human existence. But I just can't buy the idea that there is any need for (or possibility of) submission between those who are of one mind and one will. Submission is the means by which unity is achieved between those of differing wills.

My thoughts about the 1 Corinthians 15 passage are that it is saying that the Father is bringing (has brought?) all things under the control of Christ and Christ will then bring all things under the control of the Father--"so that God may be all in all." I don't entirely understand this--but it sounds amazing and wonderful! I think the Reality of what this is describing is really beyond our current comprehension (which is not to say we still shouldn't try! :-) )

I might have a few responses later, but for now:
Chong,
per first clarification. You are right, there was a reference to the past conversation on my part. I
am not ready to give my thoughts yet, but part of the problem I see with the complementarian side ( which I have de facto held all my life in some way or another) is the difficulty it presents in not falling into "inferiority" as to the place and ontology of women. I'm trying to work out the thinking on this right now.
per second "God’s transcendence and whether we can even have knowledge of the essence of God (that our knowledge is accurate and corresponds to God as He truly is). That is ontological, and often we can only speculate concerning these things."

I offer the idea that that was one purpose of the Incarnation. That in Jesus Christ the veil is torn and we can know, albeit in part (through a glass, darkly) in this life, things about the essence of God. I think that is how John had his revelation that God is love. This is speculation on my part.

per third With you on this- and am further looking at the concept that we are a new creation in Christ and it does not appear yet what we shall be.

I'm starting to favor a view in my thinking that the Christian reality so upturns what we know and establishes a new order that Paul was constrained to bring the Church into balance of the rightness of doing some things on earth for the sake of righteousness; that we had a reality to live in, here. Women needed to be reminded not to usurp authority over men. There is probably alot to explore in that idea alone.

Upholding things like obedience to government, paying taxes, respecting the leadership of the male. These things have some limitations, but they aren't swept away. I have said elsewhere it is a matter of Law and Grace that I think we are looking at in some of this.

Debra-
In your last sentence, I agree, there is something of the great purposes of God, where all of creation is placed in its unity and honor of God. Where we can't understand all, we can magnify God with what does break into our comprehension- as you say!

Thought you all might be interested in a couple of quotes on the topic of sex/gender in heaven. This first, I ran across while doing a search for the second:

"Aquinas, following Augustine, believed that after judgment day, when we receive our celestial bodies, we will keep our sexual organs, but only to restore the perfection of our former identities as male and female.

This one comes from C.S Lewis from chapter 16 of his book "Miracles: A Preliminary Study":

'The letter and spirit of scripture, and of all Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life; and this reduces our imagination to the withering alternatives either of bodies which are hardly recognisable as human bodies at all or else of a perpetual fast. As regards the fast, I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure, should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer "No," he might regard absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their carnal raptures don't bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing which excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it. Hence where fulness awaits us we anticipate fasting. In denying that sexual life, as we now understand it, makes any part of the final beatitude, it is not of course necessary to suppose that the distinction of sexes will disappear. What is no longer needed for biological purposes may be expected to survive for splendour. Sexuality is the instrument both of virginity and of conjugal virtue; neither men nor women will be asked to throw away the weapon they have used victoriously. It is the beaten and the fugitives who throw away their swords. The conquerors sheathe theirs and retain them. "Trans-sexual" would be a better word than "sexless" for the heavenly life.'

Debra,

In everything that I speculate, I'm open to any reasonable, biblical alternative. Jesus' resurrected body, although he had not yet ascended to the Father, was recognizably human (at least, the biblical writers did not suggest otherwise). God also created us in His image, both male and female. None of this (nor anything I mentioned earlier) provides clear proof either way.

But I agree that the heavenly life (and all of these details) will be beyond our imagination. "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart imagined what God has prepared for those of us who love Him" (1 Cor. 2:9).

You are so right, Chong.

And it's important for us to recognize where scripture ends and our imagination and speculation begins. Who knows? The answer to this question might be that both speculations are correct!

""Trans-sexual" would be a better word than "sexless" for the heavenly life."

LOL! Debra, you realize of course what a can of worms that opens up for discussion...but I'm not going there ( everyone breathe a sigh of relief) I'm still laughing - sorry-it's too funny how these things go sometimes.

I know it is practially heresy to disagree with CS Lewis, but has no one ever heard of the spiritual ecstasy stuff of the Catholic mystics? I don't think we will lack for pleasures in the presence of God no matter what our state of sexuality.

Sexual pleasure is so much more than mere body responses that I don't doubt that God is able to create bodies of the glorified sort that will be as fully enjoyable as anything yet imagined in this life.

LOL! Debra, you realize of course what a can of worms that opens up for discussion...

Yeah, I thought about how that sounded just as I hit the send button...:-D

..but I figured since it was a Saint Lewis quote it probably wouldn't be misunderstood. :^)

I thank God that he has not revealed this to the wise and learned of the world but to the little ones.