Or, Power in the Kingdom of God
Or, where I'm at right now
Thanks to commenter Tad for calling to my attention a passage in the gospel of John which indicates that the Father is greater than Jesus, and the Father gave Him commandment (chapter 14). This is, indeed, evidence of, if not a chain of command, command nonetheless, as well as some sort of subordination of Christ. I can see that my earlier assessments of the relationship of the Trinity were inadequate. Originally, I gave an inadequate assessment of Christ's authority (which I briefly corrected, in "Grudem on kephale"). And I have dealt inadequately with distinctions between Christ's work as a human being; His position and work now, at the right hand of the Father; and Christ's work in the future, when all things will be delivered into His hands. I have also expressed distinctions between different types of authority inadequately, and inadequately dealt with forms of authority structure, but I'll get to that later.
(Yes, I have many inadequacies)
I'll also say that I'm not up to trying to study and sort through all the distinctions in the Godhead, especially since great men of the church have argued and disagreed over them for centuries.
But what can we say about the fact that Christ obeyed His Father, did the will of the Father, and is lesser than His Father, yet at the same time is one with the Father, and is God? (All statements found in the gospel of John.) Well...all but the last statement were made by Him or about Him when He lived on earth as a human being. During this time, one might say that He was one with the Father only insomuch as He completely and totally obeyed the Father, yet there was no sin in Him because He was begotten of the Father, so, He was human (unfallen) yet also God. He must have been lesser than the Father only in terms of his humanity, not His divinity. My question now is, was Christ subordinate to His Father's commands only as a human being here on earth, in completing His earthly mission, or does He still maintain this relationship with the Father?
More important for our current discussion, though, is the way either scenario might impact theology of the marriage relationship. In Ephesians 5 and 6, Paul speaks of the risen Christ in heaven when he calls Christ head of the church. Is Christ still subordinate to the Father? If God is head of Christ, Christ head of man, and man head of woman (I Cor. 11:3), then is there indeed a chain of command? Or is headship something other than chain of command, and authority something other than (or in addition to) power or authorization passed down?
These are the questions that must be answered, and that many have attempted to answer, including me (with varying degrees of success).
Here's a summary of my thinking at present:
I don't believe that the marriage relationship is any more analogous to the relationship of Christ to the church and Christ to the Father than Paul indicates, regardless of Christ's subordination or lack of it. I also am not satisfied that there is evidence to indicate that husbands are to rule as Christ rules, or have authority over their wives as Christ would have over his church, in every way.
In other words, I'm still not convinced that I must revise my views of the marriage relationship in light of these passages in the gospel of John, Christ's authority, and relationship between members of the Godhead. (Call me stubborn, but I'm going with the evidence I see. If I'm still missing evidence, I hope my detectives will supply it!)
The close observer will note that, in my series of posts so far on this issue, I began from a point of, not denying authority, but questioning its nature in the Godhead, the church, and in marriage. I tried to illustrate authority in terms of service, authority of a sort that served rather than dictated, but failed to tie it in to God-appointed authority structure in relationships. I did not want to tie service-authority into rule-authority when that rule-authority was not adequately defined, because it is apt to be misunderstood. I also wanted to make distinction between the authority of governmental structures and that in certain one-on-one relationships, but did so (in my writing) inadequately. Ilona's recent post has helped me fix this.
I interpreted headship also in light of service-authority. I still believe in the authority of service, and the responsibility that we all have before God to walk in the Spirit in all our dealings with one another. However, I gave the impression that I was denying that husbands had any authority over their wives that wives didn't have over them, that parents had no authority over their children that children don't have over them, and that masters had no authority over their slaves that their slaves don't have over them. I did not mean to do this.
The questions in my posts and comments were asked rhetorically - not necessarily from a decided, opposing point of view, but to prompt examination or re-examination of specific claims. Many of my statements were made, not as comprehensive claims, but to illustrate an aspect that I didn't want overlooked. For example, I stated that headship is found in service. This is part of the truth but not the complete truth. I also stated, in a comment, that "command is found in serving," and made statements to the effect that there was authority in nurture. I was not saying this from a point of view of denying the special authority of those who are "in charge," although I didn't make this clear, and for that I apologize.
What I meant by statements that there is authority and command in serving and nurture is that these are what have power in the Kingdom of God. They are what have power to bring us all to realization of truth as well as to salvation or sanctification - they are not merely "tasks" done in positions of authority. A husband cannot lead a wife to salvation or lead her in truth and goodness merely by being her head, or her husband. A wife cannot lead a husband likewise just by being a wife. A parent cannot lead a child well by just being a parent. A child will likely not find salvation in disobeying the proper instruction of his parents. A master cannot lead a slave into truth and goodness merely by being his master, and a disobedient or insincere slave will not likely lead his master to ways of truth.
I've come to believe that the authority of headship has to do with source in terms of God's rule (the original Source, the I AM), order of creation, and being loyal or dedicated to that which was and is the source, in terms of origin and sustenance. This goes beyond mere deference in service, yet does not go so far as to accept analogies of rule and judgment between the members of the Godhead, the Godhead and the church, and husband and wife.
Here's why: Would a husband have the same authority over his wife if woman were not made from man? I don't think so, because the manner of the creation of woman is given as the explanation for man's headship. Likewise, in terms of headship, Christ is begotten of the Father, and the church (and man) were made through Christ, and Christ is the firstborn of the dead. Does this mean that a husband is supposed to rule over his wife? Not in terms of governmental rule. He doesn't govern her. His authority over her is in terms of being her source in the original creation - he is the reason for her, she exists for him and because of him, and completes him (as he completes her in the opposite way) - they become one.
A parent is the source of his children. Even if a child is adopted, or cared for in a foster situation, the adoptive parent assumes the parental role in every way except genesis. As the child's source and origination, the parent is responsible to care for that child and train him up in the admonition of the Lord. As owner of his slave, a master is source, or sustainer, of his slave's slave-hood. If the master gives the slave his freedom, then the slave is no longer under the master's authority. When a child grows up and goes off on his own, he is no longer under his parents' authority. A wife, if legitimately divorced from her husband, is no longer under the authority of his headship. If she remarries, she has a new head in marriage.
To try to fairly summarize my own views, then, I will say that, while there is one ultimate Authority, which is God, there are different forms and types in which that authority is manifest. They are all equal only insofar as they are of God, and those people with authority who are not God must answer to God by way of the authority they have, which has its source in God and the way He has set up His creation. There are governments, there are armies, there are other human organizations serving many people which have an authority structure which suits the nature of the organization and in that way are authorized by God. There is authority structure in every one-on-one relationship, which varies according to the nature of that relationship, but the person in charge and of what depends upon the nature of the relationship.
None of these relationships, however, deliver salvation in and of themselves. Indeed, each of these relationships can lead to both human and spiritual damage and destruction. So, if we are to speak of delegated authority, I think we can speak of it in terms of legitimate leadership positions or roles. We could also speak of it in terms of authority that people are given on earth to act in helpful ways (love), although, again, whether this is authority truly delegated is worth debating.
(Forgive the poor ending of this post - I ran out of time :-) )
