Hierarchical teaching influences the doctrine of the Trinity
Apr 20th, 2008 by Cheryl
One of the ways that hierarchical teaching has influenced the church since the 1970’s is in the area of the doctrine of the Trinity. In hierarchical teaching, the Trinity is no longer three functionally equal persons who share the same nature. Instead Jesus and the Holy Spirit become functionally subordinate to the point that Jesus no longer has a will that is exercised. Instead of a functional equality with the Father, it is now claimed by some hierarchists that Jesus as the pre-incarnate Son of God had to have permission to create the world since the authority even for creation rested on the Father alone. It is also claimed that the Jesus is so unequal in authority with the Father that we are not biblically allowed to pray to Jesus or have intimate communication with him. These claims more closely resemble the teaching of some well-known cults than they do of historic Christianity.
Will the church stand back and allow the Trinity to be downgraded so that the persons of the Trinity are no longer equal in authority, in their will or their work? We are now seeing a ground swell of opposition to the hierarchical teaching that tries to equate women’s subordination with an re-invented eternal subordination within the Trinity (this is not the first time in church history that the issue of subordinationism has reared its ugly head). Our new DVD on the Trinity is just getting ready for filming in early May 2008 and the second DVD in this 2 DVD set will focus on a refutation of the hierarchical distortion of the Trinity. Although the subordination of women will not be mentioned in the DVD, the foundation of the modern subordination movement that bases the subordination of women on the supposed eternal subordination of Christ in the Trinity, will be thoroughly refuted. There will also be many audio clips from noted hierarchical teachers such as Bruce Ware that documents the faulty logic used to downgrade Jesus to a lesser authority than the Father (the same logic they use to downgrade women as under the authority of all men).
Others who are bringing to light the connection between the hierarchical movement and the subordination of the Son are doing a good job at drawing our attention to the attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity from within our Christian churches most notably from within the Southern Baptist Convention.
Be sure to read Wade Burleson’s blog post and Dr. Cynthia Kunsman’s post discussing the censorship that she has experienced by merely talking about patriarchy and views espoused by hierarchists such as Bruce Ware and CBMW.
We believe that our new DVD will bring to light evidence of the tampering of the Trinity by modern Evangelicals that may shock a lot of people. One thing that I have found most disturbing is that in the written material that I have read from Dr. Bruce Ware as well as in all of the lectures that I listened to by Ware on this subject, he never fails to connect the Trinity to the women’s issue and the subordination of women. This is extremely troubling to me that he would be so passionate to limit the full usage of women’s gifts in the church that he has become passionate in the last dozen or so years to make the Trinity an issue of eternal subordination. I do want to point out that in email correspondence with me Ware has denied that he sees Jesus as less than equal with the Father in function because he sees women also in the same lower “role”. However his inability to even discuss the Trinity without bringing the women’s issue into play makes his denial very suspect. Ware simply sees the two issues so intimately connected that he cannot discuss the Trinity without making application to the “glorious” pattern of male authority over women which is a reflection of the Trinity. I related to Bruce Ware that whether women are or are not subordinated to men does not reflect on the full equality of the Son. Ware does not see it this way. He has been one of several who have dedicated themselves to teaching the eternal subordination of the pre-incarnate Christ. This is not good nor is it right.
It is about time that we set up a flag in the ground and a line in the sand and say “No more!” We will fight for the truth and expose the error. No longer should we stand by to see Jesus dishonored by those who wish to remove his full and equal function as Deity.
Well there’s no place else for a gender hierarchalist with an agenda to turn, having tried to claim a subordinated eternal Trinity and the gospel itself for support, or is there?
Cheryl,
Thanks for all your hard work on these forthcoming videos. I have been trying to closely follow the fiasco going on with some modern complimentarians denying the equality that Christ has with the Father within the Trinity. I can only hope that these DVDs will be widely distributed and powerfully used to forward the truth about our dear Lord Jesus. Thank you for your service to Christ and His kingdom!
Watcher,
The gender hierarchalist would certainly get some help from cult literature in how to take the time of Jesus’ humility as a man and turn it into his eternal state. Such a shame, though, don’t you think?
Several years back I sat in a lecture on the Trinity by Bruce Ware and I was sitting with two former Jehovah’s Witnesses who had come to Christ. I told them that Ware lowers the Deity of Christ in much the same way as they were taught to believe, but I don’t think they believed me until they heard it for themselves. Their mouths dropped open in shock and they told me that this is what they used to believe as Jehovah’s Witnesses. To hear an evangelical Christian spout the same doctrine was truly shocking to them.
Dusman,
Thank you for your encouragement! We too want the new DVDs to be widely distributed. We feel that if today’s Pastors are not going to protect the sheep, then God will bypass the pastors and protect the sheep through our hard work. It certainly is time that the nonsense about the eternal subordination of Christ is exposed and it is done in a format that is not so high above the “normal” individual that they would not benefit from it. Our intent is to be scholarly yet to bring it down to the barn floor where the sheep can feed from it. Our intention is also to distribute the DVDs on Amazon.com, our web sites and through word of mouth by people interested in this project and who are willing to pass it on to other blogs, etc. This is not a secondary issue of faith. It is a precious foundational truth that must be defended.
If you would have told me that this was being taught by conservative SBC professors I would never have believed it unless I saw it for myself. People are really having a hard time believing it. These men have lots of credibility and influence. I have been told that I have misunderstood what they are REALLY saying or that I am applying it wrong. Or, that it is not an ontological thing.
(I was told this exact same thing when I spoke of Ware’s teaching that women are made in the ‘indirect’ image of God)
So much of what they have written or spoken is so convulted that unless you are vigilent and bring it down to basic questions they can spin what they are saying any way they want. We hold them accountable to clarity.
But, the bottom line is that for so many, these men just cannot be wrong. And that is a dangerous place for too many.
This is nothing less than an attempt to create a new religion that makes gender roles primary doctrine. But, without the Supremacy of Christ…it is not Christian.
Lin,
You are absolutely correct in that these men have credibility and influence and this is used to allow them to teach things about Christ that is against our historic faith. Others who do not want the “scholar” to lose that credibility will defend them vigorously. You are also very right in saying that the teachings are themselves convoluted. The problem is that when one uncovers the “spin” that they have put on the doctrine of Christ, they refuse to communicate further with you. That is the position that I am in right now. Greg Koukl a well-known apologist has developed a technique for getting at the “bottom line” truth of an issue and it is called “taking the roof off” the argument. It is a very effective technique used to show the person where there is a faulty foundation of the person’s logic.
I “took the roof off” of Bruce Ware’s argument on the eternal subordination of Christ. I did it in a very gentle and respectful way but he would not allow his teaching to be challenged. He told me that he would no longer answer my emails and he apparently is not interested in receiving a free review copy of our Trinity DVD either. From my interactions with him, it appears to me that he has so bought into a mindset that gives him an edge over women because he is the “direct” image of God while women are only an “indirect” image of God, that he will not allow his view of the eternal subordination of Christ to be tested and challenged. I suspect that it would result in his own superiority being challenged and that is unacceptable to him. I was willing to continue to work through these issues and I was completely open for him to challenge me back but he was unwilling to continue our communication. That is his prerogative, but it seems to me that it isn’t the way of a real truth lover. After all he was aware that we are producing a DVD set on the Trinity and using his teaching as the example of error and soundly refuting him. I would think that he would have been more open to show me the error of my way instead of saying “God have mercy on your soul” and cutting off communication.
Cheryl,
Thank you for this encouragement and validation.
God richly bless you for all the labor that you’ve put into this and may he heal the wounds you’ve sustained as you’ve studied this. I know how difficult it is to read and read these things, and I have not done nearly the amount of work that you have in this area. May God heal and restore you, making you stronger than you were before. May God gird you with strength and make your way perfect!
Thank you Cindy! I accept that prayer on my behalf.
“I would think that he would have been more open to show me the error of my way instead of saying “God have mercy on your soul” and cutting off communication.”
This is a variation of one of the standard responses when they see you are NOT coming around to their way of thinking. It is meant to be a conversation stopper and it works. Another one that is used quite a bit is “It is in the bible you just don’t believe it”.
I would be interested in a link or resorce to the Koukls ‘raise the roof’ technique to get to the bottom line of a debate.
Lin,
Greg Koukl’s tactics are available here.
It is called Tactics in Defending the faith. It is a great series and I have learned a lot from Greg.
By the way Lin, nice picture!
This development is not TOO suprising, as the non-egals find hierarchy where it is not in the church and home, they also find it where it is not in the Godhead. From anyone standing outside their worldview, it is clearly because they are wearing hierarchical lenses, so they see hierarchy everywhere.
Don,
What shocks me is that this is coming from the top levels of a Southern Baptist seminary (SBTS, in fact). And that a whole seminary faculty can listen to this stuff and not be up in arms. And that all but for about no more than 10 people (Cheryl and I included in that number!) say anything about it. And the rest of the church marches on, asleep.
Though I grew up in the Pentecostal Church, I always had the utmost respect for the Southern Baptists and their dedication to the Word of God, the “people of the Book.” I went to a Christian highschool that used ACE curricullum (basically Baptist), and it was so sound and good. I attended a huge Baptist Church in Louisiana in the ’90s, and I was crushed to discover how Biblically illiterate most people there were. Eighteen years later, if my experience there was anything like the state of affairs anywhere else, I’m not surprised that Ware’s teachings have gone unchallenged.
I’m deeply grieved at the state of affairs of the church anyway, but to witness all this in the SBC really disappoints me. This is a very sad commentary on the whole Evangelical church.
But I have to wonder why there are only 10 or so people up in arms over subordinationism and not at least 10,000. Maybe I don’t even want to know the answers.
That is,
10 people or organizations that are willing to make very public statements… Why is not every apologetics minded Christian and group not speaking out?
Don Johnson wrote: “hierarchical lenses.”
FYI:
This is taken directly from Ware, from at least 3 sources that I can name, one of which is his book on the subject.
Dear Cheryl: Subordinationism is a heresy of very long standing, that re-entered the protestant movement soon after the Reformation through Socinianism. These people inherit the argumentaton of the Arians of the fourth century. This is why they have similarities with the JWs. I don’t know how much historical background you have been able to consider for the forth-coming DVD, but this issue is also tied up with the Socinian assertions about libertarian freewillism. They argued that if freewill is essential to personhood, it follows that the Persons of the Trinity must also have this kind of freewill, and this makes the Trinity a committee of voluntary members. The only question then is who is the most powerful member, and naturally they held that the Father holds this position. Mormons reason similarly. Arians also used this libertarian freewill argument to change the Bible’s doctrine of salvation through Grace alone. Read the book Early Arianism on this topic of Arian salvation theory, by Gregg and Groh. It’s on BookFinder.com for less than $20 including S&H. Libertarian freewillism is also the guiding principle behind Openness Theology, as I argued in “No Place For Sovereignty” (IVP, 1996). The error of Subordinationism was long ago declared a heresy by historic Christianity in Church Councils, and the result is summarized in the “Athanasian” Creed at articles 25-26. THe argument for eternal subordination of the Son and Spirit is only made plausible by abandoning the orthodox distinction between the ontological Trinity (as it was in Eternity before creation) and the economic Trinity (as it is viewed during the drama of redemption in time. To blend time and eternity is a philosophic disaster for Christian theology, and leads to pantheism in which the world and God are part of the One Ultimate. The appeal to an eternal subordination of the Persons in the Trinity is probably the most dangerous heresy to reappear in many years, and will decimate the Evangelical movement. There can be no compromise with it. It just goes to show how far redeemed sinners will go to protect their male supremacy stance. If Bruce Ware became an egalitarian he would be fired immediately by Mohler.
Love,
Bob K. Wright
Thanks, Dr. McGregor Wright for that great information! We have been thinking about a further DVD set that will deal with historical heresies on the Trinity and the early church fathers & creeds etc. This one we have stayed with scripture alone. In my research I noticed that hierarchical teachers complained that in defending the Trinity Kevin Giles appealed to the creeds and early church fathers and they say that these fathers agree with them and not Kevin Giles. They are also saying that they are winning the argument because only they are appealing to scripture. Kevin Giles of course has a second book out called Jesus and the Father so he has done a well-rounded view of the Trinity from scripture. Yet there are conjectures by hierarchists and challenges that need to be answered. We believe that we have answered these challenges in a very upfront way with scripture alone. There is of course more to be said that wouldn’t fit on the DVDs.
Thanks for the information and I will have a look as will, I am sure, many others!
Thank you, Bob K. Wright!
Cheryl,
I too am baffled at how Bruce Ware can remotely and with any sense of good conscience quote Augustine (when discussing Christ being the Eternal Son of the Father — which does not in any way mean that Christ has non-supreme authority) when in my reading, he completely destroys Ware’s argument. I can’t wait to study how the freewillism aspect plays into this, which is an ironic twist and pretty funny (likely as offensive to Dr. Ware as the term subordinationism proves for him). It is frustrating to read Ware after Augustine, because Augustine was so committed to the same-ness of the power of each Divine Person. I’ve also found two quotes from Tertullian that destroy what Ware suggests, yet the hierarchalists claim a long litany of church father’s that supposedly prove their point. Actual reading of them, even including RL Dabney, strongly argue against their thesis, that which is presented as the most solid argument of doctrine in Christendom. I was admonished to present my refutations of Ware online by the spokesman for the apologetics group that disavowed me, but it is very difficult to wade through on an emotional level. If I put up only the quotes from Ware and others without calling the problems out that are so blatantly clear to me, I believe that people will miss the error, as they have done so all along. The appeal to authority is a strong master for so many.
I’m re-reading some old stuff about the difference between social trinitarianism which prefers emphasis on the diversity of the Divine Persons which sees the Persons as each having very discrete and separate consiousness, intellect and free will. This view is predisposed to a type of polytheistic tri-theism. (Something Barth wrote quite a lot about, not that he elucidated all things clearly in orthodox fashion.) This is opposed to an “anti-social Trinitarianism” that prefers the view and perspective that there is one God with a consistency or uniting of intellect and will that is in no way compromised by the Three Persons. Anti-social Trinitarianism risks falling off into unitarianism or monism.
That is why, in Trinitarian matters, I always lean to Iraneaus and what I understand typified his perspective: we must stay grounded in solid Christology which will keep us balanced. We must stay committed to the historical Jesus and what we know clearly and absolutely from the Word based on what eventually would become a solid hermeneutic. (I learn best with a grammatico-historical one and find that best for my brain as it makes its attempt to put things together in a meaningful way.) I also come back to what Harold Brown says about heresy in his book on the topic: it is the intent that one brings to the study. Either one seeks out Scripture to confirm an hypothesis or one comes to the Scripture with the paramount interest to discern what what we know from Scripture, committed to discern the truth regardless of what we would like the conclusion to be. That is what distinguishes heresy even from a misguided teaching — intent and motive.
I would like to throw this into the mix as well concerning motive and behavior such as the use of “I will pray for your misguided, errant soul” tactic. I recently heard Dr. Paul Martin of the Wellspring Center in Ohio teach (at the unnamed apologetics conference where I spoke). He pointed out that there were 210 Scriptures in the Bible dealing with false teachers, abusive shepherds, Pharisees, etc. Of those Scriptures, this is what each verse is concerned with:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
It’s hard for me to process the rebukes to ignore behavior, fruit and motive in favor of doctrine when this is exactly what the Word of God teaches us to do. I believe that this politically correct Christianity is likely responsible for the mess in which we now find ourselves.
God have mercy on us all and give us abundant wisdom that we might discern just even the basics of the Word. God help us.
If Bruce Ware became an egalitarian he’d have a lot to lose…. which is why he probably won’t without a thunderbolt of some sort from God.
I read somewhere that it is impossible to convince a person whose livelihood depends on them holding the opposing view. Someone who is a member of CBMW and who has put into print the subordination of Christ will not be convinced no matter how much evidence one has.
But we definitely could provide some lightning!
Not to imply that these specifically relate directly to this situation or whether this reflects my position on the matter… Just an offering for contemplation about how far people will go or why they will not go to any extent when their convictions potentially influence their ability to earn their sustanance.
Favorite Quotes on Authority, Employment, Livelhood and Basic Human Need (paying the rent and putting food on the table):
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams
“We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep.”
Fyodor Dostoevski
LOL that made my day Cheryl. Where do you get your art work? Do you do it yourself?
Cindy,
Lots of things to think about, for sure!
Tiro3,
I am privileged to have lots of subscriptions because I am a video editor. The one I like best that I use on this blog is clipart.com It is lots of fun for me to express myself through graphics.
Watcher,
The gender hierarchalist would certainly get some help from cult literature in how to take the time of Jesus’ humility as a man and turn it into his eternal state. Such a shame, though, don’t you think?
Several years back I sat in a lecture on the Trinity by Bruce Ware and I was sitting with two former Jehovah’s Witnesses who had come to Christ. I told them that Ware lowers the Deity of Christ in much the same way as they were taught to believe, but I don’t think they believed me until they heard it for themselves. Their mouths dropped open in shock and they told me that this is what they used to believe as Jehovah’s Witnesses. To hear an evangelical Christian spout the same doctrine was truly shocking to them.’
My beginnings in lessons in cults began with the JW’s. Yeah it was hard trying to sort everything out, so long ago at the time but I did note that at the beginning of my research into the man/woman debate that gender hierarchlaists teachings showed that they viewed women the same way as the JW’s.
Regards to the Trinity I remember having an inckling or something that the same proponents of gender hierachy probably subordinated Christ. So I went into a christian book store, picked up Grudem’s ‘Systematic Theology’ and my suspicion was confirmed. I couldn’t believe it! Before my intuition was confirmed I had thought to myself something like ’there is no way they could do that because that is just beyound…’ When I found out, I was there in the store completely heart broken. The church was a failure. It failed on the issue of women and Christ. That was probably one of the worst days of my life, that be ‘the’ worst. Where was the church I thought?
Anyway, I was just sharing some past experiences that relate to JW’s and the false teachings of the Trinity. I didn’t let the JW’s attempt to doctrinate me for too long, I did fall for some things for a time out of confusion. I just couldn’t get the confusion sorted out cognitively at the time. I remember them showing me a vidoe on the Trinity though everything in the video was so confusion, the verbiage, concepts etc for me. It all seemed wrong but I soo wanted to understand what was what! So these are things I remember of my experiences related to JW’s, the man/woman debate and the Trinity.
I meant ‘indoctrinate’. Sorry for the typos and other mistakes!
Watcher,
I knew exactly what you meant. Thanks for sharing your experience! I am sure that would have hit me hard too had I been in your place and seen the subordination of the Son in a Christian book store. I was oblivious to this teaching for the whole 16 years that I lead a support group to help JW’s come out of their own indoctrination. Had I known that this stuff was also in the church, I would have been very discouraged. JW’s come out of the Watchtower confused as it is. I have found some men who came out of the JW’s are hierarchists merely because this view is the closest to the JW thinking about Jesus so the easiest to accept for them. I am expecting that the DVD set we are producing will set a lot of these men free and clear up the years of confusion.
Dr. McGregor Wright,
I ordered the book. Should be an interesting read, I am sure.
Cheryl K.’s thoughtful comments (at 18 above) prompt me to comment on the technique of quoting early church Fathers to support a resurgent heresy. Most of us who have read somewhat in the Fathers (the field is called “Patristics”) know quite well that most of them were unsound on one thing or another. Many are also wordy, inexact, boring and idiosyncratic). One can always select from such a large body of documentary testimony, the kind of emphasis that will support one’s views. The Tractarians (the Anglo-Catholic movement in England in the 1800s) soon discovered that when they pleaded that the earliest Christianity must have been the purest, they quickly confronted the fact that the Fathers contradicted each other on almost everything .
Since references to the Trinity in the Fathers fall into the two categories of references to the Ontological OR the Economic Trinity, and since most of the references are to the Economic Trinity as God interacts with history in time, the vast majority of quotes on the Trinity in the Fathers is naturally going to include a lot of verses and interpretations implying subordination of the Son in time to the Father. This is NOT EVIDENCE OF ETERNAL SUBORDINATIONISM, but only of passages describing or assuming the Economy of redemption. Like certain other speculative theories, eternal subordinationism has disastrous implications for other areas of theology, as the followers of Origen eventually were forced to see. There are very good reasons why, despite his real devotion to Christ, and his enormous scholarly output and vast and respectful following in the ancient churches, Origen is not “Saint Origen.” The main one is that eternal subordinationism is flatly a heresy and the Holy Catholic Church has recognized this uniformly for well over 16 centuries (i.e., since 325 AD with the use of homoousios at Nicea). Once more, notations of the economic aspects of God’s actions to redeem us in time have no bearing whatever on whether the three Persons are related in Eternity by a subordination of either function or being. When the Reformed half of the Reformation insisted that “Finitum non capax Infinitum” (the finite is not capable of encompassing the Infinite) they were making this very point. Therefore it is a serious error to measure what God “must” be like in Eternity (before the creation), by what we see him doing in the flow of time. It should be the other way around: the Trinity is the presupposition and Origin of Meaning for understanding everything else. Without assuming the Creator-creature distinctionm, we are just stuck with various grades of Pantheism.
The methodology of the New Subordinationism is to start with how they think of women in their churches, then move from that as a model to insist that Jesus was subordinate to the Father in the drama of redemption (which nobody denies, as it was a condition of the Incarnation) to then arguing what God “must” be like in Eternity. In the fourth century, this was the method of Arius, with VERY bad results.
Love, Bob K. Wright
FWIIW, I see the 2nd century as being the flowering of the gentilization of the church, this was a sea change from the 1st century Jewish believers at first. I see this loss of Hebrew context as one reason for the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, since it was the word of God, it needed to be put to SOME use but some parts were not understood in their original context and this neededcontext was lost more and more over the centuries. So while the early church fathers provide SOME evidence, they are certainly not infallible, not even as a group, contra the RCC and EOC claims.
“ Most of us who have read somewhat in the Fathers (the field is called “Patristics”) know quite well that most of them were unsound on one thing or another. Many are also wordy, inexact, boring and idiosyncratic). ”
Thank you!! My sentiments exactly.
You know what I find most ironic about all this? These professors are doing exactly what many of them have accused Rick Warren of doing: Interpreting scripture to fit a premise.
We all know, if the premise is wrong then all of it is wrong.
Grumdems “Systematic Theology” is being taught everywhere. It is basically a textbook in the SBC now. I am still trying to figure out how Grumden comes to the conclusion that God is subordinate when He helps us. Parents are subordinate to kids when they help them and so on. All of this to PROVE ezer means subordinate. Mohler highly promotes both his books which means every seminary student in the SBC will read them and take them to heart.
All of us can do that and might not even realize it. We need to be humble when we approach the word of God and be willing to learn more so that we understand it better. Its depths are inexhaustible, so I am skeptical of Grudem’s efforts, it smacks too much for me like treating the Bible as if it was like Euclid’s Elements, which it most certainly is not. But because it is supposedly a logical construct, if he gets even one thing wrong, say by missing an idiom, big sections of the whole structure might collapse.
It seems Don Johnson sees eye-to-eye with me on these issues. The systematization of the contents of the Bible is certainly not an exhaustive deductive process, but it is true that because of the “unity of Truth in the Mind of God,” it is both appropriate and necessary that we uncover the internal relations and interconnectedness of the various doctrines found in the Word as written. God doesn’t tell us lots of things we would like to know, however, so we have to be satisfied with what he does give us, and not water it down with alien philosophic notions from the surrounding culture. Many of the Fathers of the first five centuries certainly were guilty of this sort of thing. If anyone wants my essay against allegorism it can be sent from my e-mail at rkwjc@charter.net as an attachment and printed off to read at leisure.
Love, Bob K.
Per Bob Wright’s comment about Jesus’ subordinate position per the incarnation, ‘my’ church uses this belief to ‘justify’ the subordination of women to their husbands, etc. in this lifetime (not in the hereafter). They don’t think Jesus is meant to be in an eternally subordinate position-just while on earth. How does one address this variation on Jesus’s earthly subordination being used to justify women’s earthly subordination?
Lin,
My husband pointed me to Grudem’s Doctrines of the Bibles in which he explains his understanding of the subordination of the Trinity on pp. 113-117. Basically he states that the Trinity is equal in <em>being</em> but the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the<em> </em>Father in <em>function or role</em>. IMHO, Grudem has a worldview that is seriously skewed toward hierarchy and is unable to understand that different functions or roles do not necessarily imply subordination. Therefore, since men and women are different in some ways, in his worldview that would mean there would be a heirarchy of some sort. He certainly has a skewed view of help as his teaching on <em>ezer</em> clearly shows. </p>
<p>The more I look at this teaching, the more concerned I become, first of all as a Christian and second of all, as a member of a SBC church.  AND thanks to some creative teaching by Don (thank you) I understand much more clearly the equality that exists between the Trinity. I can certainly see how this heresy can lead to teachings such as the JWs on Christ. Scary stuff.
A MAJOR stumbling block for Jews and Moslems believing in Jesus as God is the idea of God being 3 “gods” somehow which simply cannot be monotheistic, so any idea of permanent subordination they see right thru for what it means, which is tritheism.
Don,
It’s only recently that I’ve understood that, in many Christian’s minds, the Trinity is actually viewed as 3 Gods, though they might deny this if asked. It apparently colors their perceptions of their Bible readings. I see this as a warning for myself to be careful to remember that I’m certainly fallible and to test my beliefs to see if they are true reality or just my perception.
Truthseeker asks a perfectly good question in #34 above. The answer, I would think, is not to deny that under particular circumstances, person X may be subordinate, or subordinates his/her self to person Y, but whether this is a natural ontological order of a hierarchical nature, or simply a moral relation in a particular context. Ephesians 5:21 states as a general principle that Christians should be mutually submissive “to each other.” This is strictly unintelligible on a hierarchical basis, but is a perfectly normal moral relation between believers, on which the rest of the examples in the verses following make sense. It suggests that in one situation, I will be “submissive to” my wife and in other situations she will be to me. that in some situations I will give place to a respected Christian leader who I differ from on some point, while on some matter in which he realizes I know more than he does, he will “submit” to me. This is not some ontological rigidity, but a flexible pattern of relationships conditioned by love of the brethren, like everything else in the Christian life. It’s GIFTS that should determine who takes the lead in a particular situation, not an ontological hierarchy. My wife has different gifts than I do, and I submit to that fact, ordained as it is by God (1 Cor 12:4 fol.)
Mutual submission is much more difficult to practice than hierarchical submission. The first is a moral relationship, a balancing act within a love-framework, while the second is an automatic acceptance of an inflexible state of affairs. There is no question that hierarchicalism if assumed, will trump love every time….
Love, Bob K.
Everyone,
Ethics Daily contacted me late yesterday and posted an online article about this whole affair.
The Dallas Morning News Religion Editor has posted a blog item this afternoon asking for theologians to comment on the matter. Denny Burk is over there posting. Anyone game?
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/04/is-jesus-subordinate-to-god-an.html
Thank you, B. Wright. I agree with what you have said. You explained it very well. In my case, the church would say they agree, also, then make it clear that while they might submit to women in some instances, in all cases of pastoral and teaching ‘leadership’ as well as headship in the home, women are to submit to them/their husbands. Sort of a case of ‘partial mutual submission’ if you will, based in part on their application of the verse telling us to ‘obey those who are in authority over us’.
‘Sort of a case of ‘partial mutual submission’ if you will, based in part on their application of the verse telling us to ‘obey those who are in authority over us’. ”
Ah, another verse which is misused quite a bit. You wouldn’t obey your ‘authority’ in the church if he all of a sudden decided you should move to Guyana and drink some kool-aid. :o)
Lin, that is so true. I wonder why it is that subordinationists or comps, etc. fail to sufficiently account for the fact that the bible lists pastoring and teaching (among others) as GIFTS, not as offices to be filled by human discernment and discretion as is the case with elders and deacons? No where does the bible say that gifts are given or restricted based on an individual’s gender. Neither for that matter, does it say so regarding eldering and deaconing though that mistake, based on the ‘husband of one wife’ phrase is easier to understand. These things seem so straightforward-especially per the gifts of pastor, teacher, etc.
If, as a woman, I didn’t value my hair, I think I would be pulling it out by now!
Dr. Wright,
Your comments here have been like a B-12 shot in the arm for me!
I so appreicate what you’ve written.
Thank you!
Well I posted at religionblog…. All I can say is that I hope I didn’t burn anything.
I’m gonna go get some water to cool off!
Lots of good thoughts, all of you! I kept myself away to let you talk. I should be back tomorrow.
Dear Cheryl,
Thank you so much for your hard work in serving the Body of Christ. You are a blessing to us all!!!
http://www.EthicsDaily.com just published their second article this week about my patriarchy workshop and this controversy. This article goes into their werid “militant fecundity” business and how it overlaps with ideologies held by powerful leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s today’s headline article. It makes you wonder when they will stop using John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 to witness and share the Gospel message to women in favor of I Tim 2:15 (women are saved through childbirth). I had no idea that the ties were so strong between the SBC and the patriocentrists.
It’s been a blessing and amazing to me to see people come from out of nowhere to speak out against this stuff, especially nice after getting “disavowed” by the apologetics group that asked me to speak on the subject. Cheryl has been such a great support and so validating to me. Now EthicsDaily.com is plugging at this.
Cindy, I wrote the editor and thanked him for helping to connect some of the dots with this doctrine and the SBC.
Your presentation has opened many doors and I am thankful.
I have been stunned to read on blog comments how many SBC pastors believe that the passage in 1 Tim 2:15 refers to women staying in their role and bearing children. It does not occur to them that this would be a WORK for salvation. They do not see that. They say it is not a work but an admonition to stay in their God given role. They are blinded.
Can you imagine? Only women have to earn salvation through a role?
Cindy,
It is an amazing thing to see several blogs and news forums pick up the story about your lecture and the reaction to your lecture. It appears that people are willing to take a risk and speak out against injustice and faulty biblical thinking even in the Southern Baptist Convention. I hope that many will read these excellent news links and think again what happens to the church when we set up faulty tradition as the norm and then set up boundaries to stop us from questioning these traditions. It is a healthy thing to question. The one who has the truth should be solid enough not to be offended by the questions that are asked. Truth is provable and solid and need not fear. A faulty foundation will produce fear from those who are building on that foundation but don’t want others to see the cracks and holes. Error at times runs and hides and at other times it attacks to deflect that attention away from the questions. May we always be humble enough to admit our mistakes and to turn towards the firm foundation.
Lin,
I was in correspondence with Andreas Kostenberger while I was writing my script of WIM. He is the one who proposed that 1 Timothy 2:15 means that women were promised by God that they would be kept spiritual safe if they stayed within the boundaries of their roles as wife and mother. I asked him if this meaning was the true meaning of the verse why God would be prejudiced against men by not promising that they would be kept spiritually safe by remaining in their “roles” as husbands and fathers? I also asked him wouldn’t this mean that God failed to keep his promise since many women who have stayed home to remain in their domestic “roles” have fallen prey to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? He did not have an answer to my questions. I think the view is faulty and unsupportable by either scripture or factual evidence. It also doesn’t take into consideration that Paul uses both the singular feminine and third person plural in the verse. I believe that without paying close attention to the inspired words, we are easily captured by our society’s preconceived patriarchal thinking.
I asked him if this meaning was the true meaning of the verse why God would be prejudiced against men by not promising that they would be kept spiritually safe by remaining in their “roles” as husbands and fathers?
Cheryl,
Your comment #50 points out a really great example of how so many of these spiritually abusive and manipulative teachers take their words to create the illusion of a false dichotomy so that the listener can see only two alternatives or views of a given topic. Especially in a congregation, all the influences of the environment and the setting reinforce this for the unsuspecting, earnest, trusting follower sitting in the pew. You have minister who takes a passage of Scripture that actually falls within a number of possible interpretations that are within an acceptable, sound Biblical view, yet will use the pressure of the group and their own skill to promote only one alternative as correct. They can also “paint the picture” so that not only is their view the only view, in matters of intramural issues in the church-at-large, they can promote these intramural issues as those that are not peripheral but central, critical, defining doctrines of the Christian faith.
People are especially vulnerable to this influence when they are in the moment in fellowship with one another. The minister uses appeal to authority to his (or her!?) advantage, and can use homiletics in their favor. The group pressure is strong, as it is our basic human nature to conform in group settings, particularly for the Christian, those that accompany reference for God’ house. (If you disagree with the minister, it shows disrespect to the House of Prayer and God Himself if one were to protest then and there.) The minister has cooperation of the congregants in the service, so they are willing to comply with expected behaviors, and this diminishes and competes with one’s ability to objectively evaluate the message, especially if the message is questionable. Thought reform theory says that gaining behavioral compliance gives the speaker a foothold into one’s thoughts and emotions, so just by routine compliance with the group norm increases the power of their message. Then add in there the social pressure and social mentoring influence when you might have doubts about what was said, but everyone around you nods and says “Amen.” It is basic human nature to check oneself in these circumstances (basically designed for our survival and protection, but can work against us when we are being “led” to accept a false dichotomy).
I sit here tonight with part of mind saying “How could anyone not consider that this protection message for women through role performance not apply to men?” But then I also consider my experience of having been in congregations wherein these many powerful pressures caused me to accept these false dichotomies and other doctrines that, under other circumstances, I would have outright rejected.
I’m so blessed by this internet discussion and other ones that give earnest people an opportunity to put the brakes on some of these processes by bringing attention to the holes in the arguments of some of these folks who have such rigid gender views. In a forum where people are not wrestling with the immediate pressures that they would be when listening to a sermon or sitting in a pew, people can have more of their internal resources available to take a second look at the teachings. I believe that’s what we are seeing now on the internet, and the powerful, agenda driven pontiffs aren’t too happy about it. When people are given the support and opportunity to think things through like Bereans in a safe place like the one you’ve created here in cyberspace, many people figure out that they have an alternative to the “black and white world” that many of these teachers have created and manipulated.
I’m so encouraged by all of this at work this week, here and on other places on the internet. People realize that they have choices and that even Jesus invited Thomas to examine His wounds so that he might believe. Jesus wanted Thomas to have faith in Him and not faith in what he thought he should or had to believe. I believe that the Word teaches that the goal of Christian living is intimacy with the Lord where we love Him with our hearts, minds and strength, not a goal of high-performance of man’s standards and a relationship based on “shoulds.”
Keep fighting the good fight and creating this place where people can hash out their thoughts and ideas concerning so many of these all or nothing alternatives posed in the gender debate.
“I was in correspondence with Andreas Kostenberger while I was writing my script of WIM. He is the one who proposed that 1 Timothy 2:15 means that women were promised by God that they would be kept spiritual safe if they stayed within the boundaries of their roles as wife and mother.”
That explains a lot. Because many of these pastors/seminary students mention his name. It is amazing how a ‘view’ of one teacher can become prevelant so quickly.
It is as if CBMW has become the only source for this issue in these circles.
“Especially in a congregation, all the influences of the environment and the setting reinforce this for the unsuspecting, earnest, trusting follower sitting in the pew. ”
Cindy, this really resonated with me. In 1 Corin, Paul talks about several speaking when they meet and then others would judge. Can’t we see how this would lead us to scripture when we meet and help keep out error?
A few years ago, I decided to study scripture with only the thought of looking at what the early church was like. I found little that looked similar to what we do now.
Normally, I am not a big fan of Barna but I bought his book, Pagan Christianity, written by him and Frank Viola. It is a look at the history of church. He tracks all the things we do now in church, even our buildings and tells us where this ‘tradition’ came from. Some of it I had already researched with the conversion of Constantine. It is quite shocking what we have added. And what we have added speaks to your comment above. The ‘environment’ is perfect for thought reform through a captive ‘audience’ and perceived authorities we should not disagree with publicly.
Just as an example, Barna/Viola track the single ’sermon’ by one person with a ‘pulpit’ and people sitting in rows facing the speaker to listen…… to Greek Orators who came into the church. It was a tradition in the Greek world to listen to ‘orators’ and it was a big deal to be an ‘interesting’ and well spoken orator. Does this sound familiar?
But Paul makes it clear that he did not come with good speech or fancy words but with truth.
There was also very little ‘overhead’ in the early church as they met in homes, etc., sitting around listening, taking turns in praise, singing, teaching, etc. I try as hard as I can to imagine Lydia not saying a word in her own home or not even sharing a testimony in this setting for fear of teaching men. Did they just use her place or was having the Body meet in her home a serious commitment to her? Or even Phoebe coming back from visiting Paul and not sharing the wonderful truths she learned from Paul while there and teaching it to others in the Body at Cenchurea. (sp?)
It just makes no sense. We love our traditions too much.
Some of us have wondered why so few people are willing to speak out against hierarchicalism (as Cindy at the end of posting #13). In my opinion, the main reason is because the idea of arranging everything according to grades of being or of importance, etc., is just a reflection of what I have dubbed the “generic pagan” worldview called the Great Chain of Being. This august model of an evolving reality is basic to Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, (to mention only two powerful past influences on Christian thinking), Gnosticism, Hinduism, and many other Eastern-derived world visions. It is also an important component of Darwinism as it frames an evolutionary view of life and human affairs, and strongly penetrates the realms of science fiction and fantasy. It is one of the most pervasive models of reality ever devised, and permeates much secular thinking also.
If anyone wants to see the three essays I wrote long ago (Cheryl has them), about why the CM&W statement is nonsense, I can send them at request to my e-mail address rkwjc@charter.net I will send them as attachments to be printed off. The third discusses hierarchical thinking. They are dated and need to be rewritten, but the essence of my repudiation of Chain-of-Being thinking is there.
Love,
Bob K.
I would recommend anyone interested in seeing the foundation of this thinking to take Dr. Bob at his offer and get his material. While many think that the hierarchal way of looking at things is biblical, Bob shows where it is not. It is awhile since I read his material and I should go back myself and reread to freshen up my thinking. Thanks Bob for reminding me and us all!!
Lin #52,
What is interesting about Andreas Kostenberger is that at the time of our correspondence he remarked that his view on 1 Timothy 2:15 was not accepted by some in CBMW yet since that time, it appears to have moved from a outside-of-the-norm view to become a very prominent view popular with hierarchalists. His interpretation has holes big enough to drive a mac truck through so I am mystified his interpretation has become so widely accepted.
“What is interesting about Andreas Kostenberger is that at the time of our correspondence he remarked that his view on 1 Cor. 15 was not accepted by some in CBMW yet since that time, …”
Cheryl,
1 Corin 15? The Resurrection of the Dead?
You probably meant 1 Tim 2, right? :o)
Oops, yup, you are right. It is verse 15 or 1 Timothy 2 not 1 Cor. 15. I have 1 Cor 15 burned into my mind these days as it is part of the “proof” of those who believe in a hierarchy in the Trinity and my refutation of their view from the passage itself is still fresh in my mind. I stand corrected, thanks Lin! I corrected my error in my comment above.
The idea of a “great chain of being” was a 19th century fad, but I do not think any scientist today believes it.