Thank you, Kathryn. I would read Knox but I’m afraid I don’t have access to a theological library.
The CBMW does not draw the, “distinction between leadership in the family of God, and leadership in the pagan world,” that you do. They say that women should never put themselves in a position where they might find themselves leading men, inside or outside the church and/or home. Indeed, they say that women should be careful, even when giving street directions to a man, to do so in a non-directive fashion. They should have their eyes downcast, voice lowered and do lots of hedging of the, “if you would like to,” sort, I presume. And as far as I know the CBMW uses the “eternal submission/subordination of the Son” argument to justify their position.
I’ve read some of Kevin Giles’ arguments and some of his opponents arguments but don’t have time to digest them all. My main impression so far is that the latter group are playing philosophical games with words and abstractions in an attempt to make the mystery of the Trinity support their own (sociopolitical?) agenda.
Giles mentions Broughton Knox which is how I found the page. He says that Dr Knox, “recommended more than any other,” an essay by BB Warfield who,
argues that the Bible and historic orthodoxy do not allow in the eternal Trinity any subordination in “subsistence” (the personal existence or being of the Son) or in “operations” (works). He only allows for a voluntary and temporal functional subordination of the Son “in the work of redemption.”
Finally, it strikes me as quite ironic that those who complain about the arguments in favour of women’s ordination will cite, among other things, nearly 2,000 years of church tradition but are, themselves, arguing against the almost equally old traditional church understanding of the Trinity.
I’ve read some of Kevin Giles’ arguments and some of his opponents arguments but don’t have time to digest them all. My main impression so far is that the latter group are playing philosophical games with words and abstractions in an attempt to make the mystery of the Trinity support their own (sociopolitical?) agenda.
Hi Janice
I don’t think the wikipedia article is being fair to those who argue that there is an “eternal relational subordination”. That is - that the Son is eternally the Son, and the Father is eternally the Father, and in that relationship, the Son submits his will to the Father. Please note that core to this argument against Giles’ is that it is possible to be submit to someone without being inherently inferior. And the Son can eternally, voluntarily submit to the father, without being “less” than the father, and without “lacking” something. Giles will disagree with this argument.
The essence of the argument is that “God is as he has revealed himself” or “God is what he does”. So how God has revealed himself as Father and Son (And Spirit) is how God actually is - as Father and Son (and of course Spirit) - and there is an order of those relationship. The Father sends the Son. The Son submits himself to the Father. The Father and the Son send the Spirit. The Spirit unites people to the Son, and so points to both the Father and the Son. The Father hands over his glory and power and kingdom to the Son.
It is also important to note that there are some significant problems with Giles’ scholarship, and some of the things he claims people have said in the past is wrong. Check out the Briefing article here that reviews his book. (Disclaimer: I may be related to the guy who wrote the review).
Finally, it strikes me as quite ironic that those who complain about the arguments in favour of women’s ordination will cite, among other things, nearly 2,000 years of church tradition but are, themselves, arguing against the almost equally old traditional church understanding of the Trinity.
Hi Janice,
That seems a little harsh.
Have you looked at the thread on Trinity? It’s a pity Kevin Giles never wanted to engage in the debate. You could also have a look at the essays on Andrew Moody’s website.
I’m a little simple, I believe that Jesus was the sent by the Father. It wasn’t the Son who sent the Father. The Father and Son are equal, but there is order within the Trinity.
Your position is getting very close to the Arian Heresy that led to the formlae that fill the Nicene Creed:
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made.
The fathers of the church felt it was necessary to say all these things to emphasise that there was no essential difference between Father and Son - that they were of the same substance and being - homoousios. This could not be the case if one preceeded the other or was subordinate in some way to the other.
Arius and many others since him have fallen into the trap of thinking of God in anthropomorphic terms because we choose to use words such as Father and Son to describe God. These words merely hint at what God is like and should never be used in definitive terms.
Finally, it strikes me as quite ironic that those who complain about the arguments in favour of women’s ordination will cite, among other things, nearly 2,000 years of church tradition but are, themselves, arguing against the almost equally old traditional church understanding of the Trinity.
Hi Janice,
That seems a little harsh.
Hi Andrew,
I thought I’d been progressing reasonably well in giving up harshness. Would you like to help me do better by telling why you think it’s harsh?
The fathers of the church felt it was necessary to say all these things to emphasise that there was no essential difference between Father and Son....
You are right about the Father and Son being of the same substance and being. But this does not mean there are no differences. If there were no differences - it wouldn’t be a Trinity. Some of those differences include how they relate to each other, and what they do. The church fathers (and more importantly, the bible) will strongly uphold a difference in the roles and relationship of the members of the Trinity. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The Father was not sent. The Father did not die on the cross.
In fact, the Nicene creed goes on to explain that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Father is not eternally begotten of the Son. As well as this, the Creed clearly explains the roles of the Son and the Spirit - for example, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I think the church fathers are clear (as is the Bible) that the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different (though work in unity, and together, as part of the Triune God), and not interchangeable.
Augustine says (Answer to Maximus, II.xiv.89):
It was not fitting that the Begetter be sent by his Son, but that the Son be sent by his Begetter. This is not inequality of substance, but the order of nature
The Second Helvetic Confession (chapter 3) says:
Thus there are not three gods, but three persons, consubstantial, coeternal and coequal; distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one preceding the other, but without inequality.
Hilary of Poitiers - known as the “hammer against Arianism” says (in De Trinitate, book 3):
Who, indeed, would deny that the Father is the greater; the Unbegotten greater than the Begotten, the Father than the Son, the Sender than the Sent, He that wills than He that obeys? He Himself shall be His own witness:-The Father is greater than I. It is a fact which we must recognise, but we must take heed lest with unskilled thinkers the majesty of the Father should obscure the glory of the Son.
These three quotes show quite clearly you can hold that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, equally part of the triune God, all equally God, and all working together, yet different in actions (though working together), roles and relationships, and NOT be Arian.
John Clapton - 04 September 2008 11:59 PM
...These words merely hint at what God is like and should never be used in definitive terms.
Which church fathers claim the terms “Father” and “Son” only hint at what God is like, and doesn’t truly reveal him? You’re arguing that what God has presented to us in Jesus is only what God seems to be, but not what God actually is. You have moved into very dangerous territory. So how God has revealed himself, is not how God actually is. In other words - we don’t have true knowledge of God. I’m not sure you’ll find much support from the fathers, or in the bible for this.
Furthermore, the Arian Heresy suggests Jesus is not truly God. There is no such claim being made here, and it is silly (and offensive) for you to suggest this.
Mike
PS I suggest checking out Andrew Moody’s site, which links to many other takes on the issue.
Point taken Mike, and thank you for identifying the flaws in my argument.
I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is a most complex one, but I can’t see any room in it for any kind of idea of subordination which seemed to be being suggested in some of the posts.
But my last question still stands. How did we get into a discussion of the intricacies of the Trinity in a thread about women Bisops and whether or not we might accept their authority?
I have read some of the stuff referred to in links and found it rather interesting. The think that intrigues me is that some seem to talk about “subordination” in Jesus as being related to him having been “beggotten” of the Father who therefore preceded him, and there is also a seeming reference to the subordination being one of choice and therefore deference to the Father.
My reading of the Scriptures takes the idea of Jesus’ subordination as coming from Phlippians 2:6 which is a reference to his taking on Humanity, not his being a Son and God being a Father.
So if people like Katheryn are going to take the voluntary action of Jesus in repudiating his equality with God so that he could take on our humanity as a model for the subordination or deference of women to the leadership of men, then I don’t get it.
The real question is about the place of women in the Kingdom of God. If we are all called through our baptism into a priesthood of all believers in a kingdom in which there is neither male nor female there should be no issue with the leadership of women.
So many denominations of the church have understood this - the Salvation Army is a classic one that has been authorising the leadership of women for many years. Many of the pentecostal churches affirm the leadership of their women as do some of the conservative evangelical churches.
I, for one, welcome the leadership of +Kay Goldsworthy in our Diocese and affirm in her the qualities and graces that are called for in Scripture for one in such a position. I will welcome her to preside in my parish and have no intention of leaving.
Andrew, I’m not surprised you haven’t heard anyone arguing against traditional church understanding of the Trinity. I hadn’t either until very recently. It’s not as though these arguments make the daily papers or get detailed, blow by blow, in church bulletins. But both the Wikipedia article and Giles note that this view of the Trinity, that the Son is eternally equal, but subordinate, to the Father is one that, “is an invention of the 1970s.”
There was ... since the 1970s a new evangelical fashion, laying claim to orthodoxy, that women were equal to men in being, but subordinate in role and authority. ... It was only a matter of time before we would have to do what the subordinationists, mainly conservative American evangelicals, were already seeking to do, namely arguing their case within the analogy of the Trinity.
...
Hierarchy in the Trinity justifies gender hierarchy. In [Wayne] Grudem’s thought, women are not inferior to men. They are equal. They just have different roles. One such role is to submit to the headship of men, just as the Son submits to the headship of the Father. So women are equal, but in the hierarchy they are below men.
Please note that core to this argument against Giles’ is that it is possible to be submit to someone without being inherently inferior. And the Son can eternally, voluntarily submit to the father, without being “less” than the father, and without “lacking” something. Giles will disagree with this argument.
Of course it’s possible to submit to someone without being inherently inferior. Nevertheless, if I submit to your will what I am doing is giving up my own will, which is different to yours. I agree to do what you want and not what I want and my reason for doing what you want is different from your reason for doing what you want.
If you and I both want to do whatever it is that we are doing there is no submission on the part of either of us because there is no need for it. We are both doing what we both want to do. We are united in will and purpose.
And that, I think, is the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. They are united in will and purpose. (John 10:30 - “I and the Father are one.") There is no eternal submission because there is no need for submission because they are one. To say that there is eternal submission is to say that they are not one.
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought some there might be some interesting discussion about the acceptance of authority but it seems to have quickly slidden back into questions of the proper understanding of gender roles… This is good to think through (seems to be what some people were born to do), but I do wonder if there are other aspects to this issue too.
Someone recently challenged me about the importance of respecting leadership - even leadership that you believe is fundamentally improper or flawed. In the OT, Israel’s call for a human king was a sin - a big sin ("they have not rejected you [Samuel], but they have rejected me from being king over them” 1 Sam 8:7 - ouch!). Nevertheless, when this truly terrible request is allowed to become reality and the kingship is established, the people are expected to respect the authority of the king. Even after Saul has lost the plot, David will not dare lift a finger against him for the very reason that he is God’s annointed.
So there seem to be two separate questions and I feel we rarely get past the first one which is ‘who should be installed as leaders of God’s people?’ This is a good question to ask and this is where all the stuff about gender roles needs to be kicked around. But ultimately - and here’s the rub - people debating these issues on web forums may not be the ones making the appointments. It’s one thing to say ‘this is what I would / would not do if I were the archbishop’, but most of us are not.
So the second question is ‘what should we do if our leaders appoint other leaders who we’re not comfortable with?’ So far, most of the answers I’ve heard are either i) we reject those leaders and their authority or ii) I’m not that uncomfortable with it. But are these the only biblical responses? Is there any place for saying ‘I’m not comfortable with them being there, but they have been placed in that position by someone with more authority than me and I need to respect that authority’?
Evangelical Anglicans seem to have very whimsical views about authority - we absolutely love it when our leaders speak out against the baddies and arrange big conferences and establish new councils - we fall in line and stand proud behind them. But if they make a decision that we don’t like, we tend to revert to ‘well I don’t have to listen to them because I don’t really believe in heirarchy’. I guess I’m wondering if this is just a bit fickle.
(And of course, there’s the risk of idolatory in this - if you choose to only follow the leaders that you find to be faultless, then you’re making them into gods. All leaders - except Jesus - have got something wrong somewhere unless they’ve attained theological infallability, and we all choose to regard some of our leaders.)
Remember, the Anglican church is an episcopal church and anyone who’s ordained has vowed an oath to their bishop. That has to mean something. (I know the oath is in ‘all thing lawful’, but I’m not sure that this means ‘biblical’. I believe it’s referring to canon law.) While many people have been grateful for the alternative oversight protocols, my worry is that they pave the way for the complete breakdown of the episcopal system. Again, many of us may not care that much, but many of us have signed onto that system in a solemn way.
I’m writing this as someone in a situation where these questions are more than theoretical and I’m genuinely wrestling with the issues so if you have helpful thoughts about acceptance of authority, not just validity of office, it would be great to hear them.
Janice, thanks for the link to Stuart Piggin’s speech. and I loved your comment to Mike about the absence of a need for subordination in a context of both parties willing the same thing. It seems to me to be implicit in the idea of the Trinity that all three persons of the godhead would will the same thing, therefore subordination is unnecessary.
One of the things that has intrigued me as I have engaged with various writers on these forums is the incredible lengths people will go to create theories that justify or explain their pre-determined positions. I take the view that this theory of subordination of the Son to the Father is such a thing - providing the basis for an argument supporting the subordination of women to men - equal in status before God, but confined to different, so-called complimentary roles.
It reminds me of the lengthy debate we had on another thread about complimentarianism, to which many contributors adhere.
As for Timothy’s post, thanks for the reality check, Tim. Your observations about our response to those in authority over us is right on the nail. We have all signed oathes by which we will comply with all “lawful orders” of our bishop. Since the places where women may be concecrated Bishop will have ensured that it is lawful for them to do so, the request for alternative oversight is implicitly a rejection of that lawful action by the bishop or archbishop. While it was inevitable that protocols would have been established my concern is two-fold - that such arrangements undermine and may ultimately destroy the episcopal system; and that these arrangements may end up like the APBA which took on board many of the theological and liturgical concerns of evangelicals in its final draft, only to find it remains unauthorised in those diocese even now. (in other words, having made the concessions about alternative oversight, we may well see a secession of those diocese into an alternative Anglican Church of some sort.)
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
report bugs
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi