A Chinese Lunch

Today I did lunch with a dear brother of mine. We had been trying to meet up together all semester, to take some time to discuss our favorite area of discussion--- THEOLOGY! So we finally met up and did a Chinese lunch today. Boy am I so glad to have brothers!!!

Our first topic of conversation involved evangelism and how to present the gospel to someone who does not believe in God and has no concern for learning about this God we believe in at all. But eventually, the conversation took a turn down a road that he and I both knew we would arrive at; and we ended up discussing two issues that seem to really flow together: the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism (see my blog at CTS regarding the nature of this debate) and...an issue I love here very much: the issue of men and women in the church.

We began by discussing 1 Timothy 2, a passage that, as I’ve established, has been viewed by complementarians as a passage that “decisively” (their own words) kills the issue of whether or not women should lead in the church. I took my dear brother back to 1 Corinthians 11, another passage that talks about some form of creation order. There, I showed him that men and women are BOTH dependent “in the Lord.” The sphere of God’s house is the place where men and women are functionally equal, despite the woman’s functional submission to her husband in the home. Even the husband has no independence from the wife in the church (according to 1 Cor. 11:11-12)!

Then he asked me the question, “Does dependence nullify authority?” I told him that the husband has been given headship in the home, but God holds the headship of the church, and is free to do what He pleases in His House (Eph. 5:23). If Christ is the head of the church, and headship in the church belongs to Christ, then why does the Bride have to argue over which “bride” (member) of the Bride (Church) should lead?

Finally, my brother looked at me and said that he understands the differences between Calvinists (who are also complementarians) and Arminians (egalitarians): those who are Calvinists are more likely to be complementarians because they see that God chooses not only those who will be saved, but also chooses what gender (and as a result of gender, what gifts) a person will have. Arminians, on the other hand, who believe that everything is foreknown but not predetermined (chosen beforehand), see some indeterminate aspects to life itself, that everything is not picked out by God. In his mindset, Arminians, therefore, would choose to argue for women’s equal leadership opportunities in the church.

I think there is some truth to what he is saying regarding theology; however, I don’t think that a theological grid is the most important reason why the line divides along Calvinist (complementarian) and Arminian (egalitarian) lines. The most important factor that creates the divide is the biblical text. For me as both a Classical Arminian and a conservative egalitarian, I see the Bible itself as the dividing line. I cannot agree with complementarian argumentation because ultimately, they draw “inferences” to the biblical text without sufficient biblical proof. If God truly desired to tell women what they could not do in the church, why is it not as clear as the divine command for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5)?? It seems that the Holy Spirit, the Author of Holy Scripture, was not hesitant when He wanted to communicate to wives the need to submit to husbands. If complementarians are so right about women in leadership, why is the Spirit extremely silent on this issue? And why is it that the church has to “draw inferences” instead of drawing from Scripture? If “the simplest answer is often the best explanation,” then the answer to the question is “the Spirit does not make prohibition of woman leadership clear because He does not desire to prohibit women from leadership in the church."

In his chapter on “Human Nature” in the work “A Theology for the Church,” John Hammett writes regarding 1 Timothy 2:

“The passage begins with a call to let women learn, a somewhat revolutionary idea in some parts of the Mediterranean world of that time. But, Paul continues, women should not teach or exercise authority over a man. BUT HOW DOES THIS TEXT RELATE TO ROLES IN THE CHURCH? It seems clear from elsewhere in Scripture that THIS IS NOT A BLANKET PROHIBITION. For example, believers are commanded to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16), and Paul gives instructions concerning the praying and prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:2-16). CONTEXT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE TYPE OF TEACHING AND AUTHORITY PAUL HAS IN MIND IS THAT OF AN ELDER, for the qualifications for that office is the topic Paul turns to in 1 Timothy 3, and the duties of an elder include authoritative teaching and leading. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits women from serving in the role of elder or pastor” (John Hammett, “Human Nature,” from “A Theology for the Church” by Daniel L. Akin, editor. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 359).

But Hammett’s analysis here is rather subjective. Do we even read of women and elder in the same sentence in 1 Timothy 3? No. The issue of women teaching, then, is to first be investigated within the chapter of its location (which is chapter 2). Next, what about chapter 1? Hammett invests time on why women can’t teach according to chapter 3, but overlooks chapter 1 entirely. Hammett does not address the problems Paul does: (1) false teachers (1:3) and false doctrine (1:3), which consisted of “fables and endless genealogies” (1:4), as well as (2) students who desired to teach but were propagating false doctrine ignorantly (1:7). If these problems were to be incorporated into interpretation, then 1 Timothy 2 would be seen as Paul counteracting false teaching, not prohibiting women from serving in leadership roles. Hammett doesn’t address any of these mentionables of chapter 1. Why is this? It’s an interesting question indeed...

Last but not least, there is the question regarding women teaching: if women are ONLY prohibited from the office of elder and pastor (which seems to be Hammett’s conclusion), then are women prohibited from teaching men in a mixed Sunday school class? I find it fascinating that Hammett doesn’t argue against women teaching mixed Sunday school classes, and yet, so many churches prohibit women from so doing. Why is this? If scholars are not prohibiting women teaching, then why are so many churches prohibiting women from teaching? Although Hammett states that “this [1 Tim. 2] is not a blanket prohibition,” the churches sure seem convinced that it is...

Aside from Hammett’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, however, Hammett does make a good point about the weak argument from inference:

“Some complementarians think that the order established by God in marriage should also be an argument for a similar order within the church. Thus, just as women cannot be husbands or fathers in the family, so they cannot (or at least should not) be elders or pastors within the larger family, the church. While this view has a good deal of merit, WE ARE NOT LEFT TO SUCH AN INFERENTIAL ARGUMENT” (358).

Even Hammett admits that the above complementarian “consistency” is nothing more than an inference. And if the argument is just an inference, then we are left to Scripture to see what it tells us. And even the evidence against women as pastors (including Hammett’s analysis) is questionable.

Back to the Chinese lunch. At the end of the lunch time, I realized that my brother simply did not have a biblical text for his case. All he had was a collection of inferential arguments with no Scripture as justification. If Scripture provides no evidence against women, then the “traditional” view of complementarianism is nothing more than tradition; and if we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in every area of life, then we must either elevate tradition to Scripture or toss tradition out. And I know which one I choose...how about you?

The Rebel Bride: A Response to the Charge of Inconsistency

Some time ago, a friend of mine (who has been struggling with the issue of whether or not women should be elders and pastors in the modern-day church) told me that he doesn’t see evidence in the New Testament for women in pastoral leadership. His reason? According to him (and those who have instructed him), the creation order (which he believes 1 Timothy 2:12-15 teaches). My response to his statement was that if 1 Timothy 2 said what he believed it did, why is it that we read so much of wife submission (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1), but do not read of the submission of women to men in the church? The Scriptures, however, do command that the sheep of the flock submit to those who lead in the church (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but it never directly tells women to be submissive to the men of the church. Instead, what we find is that women, like men, prayed and prophesied publicly in the early church (1 Cor. 11:5), and women even served as apostles (Junia, Rom. 16:7). Women such as Phoebe were active as not only recognized workers of the church, but even as ambassadors or representatives to other churches (Rom. 16:1-2). Contrary to the belief of most complementarians, women even conducted churches in their homes (such as Nympha, Col. 4:15). Last but not least, women such as Euodia and Syntyche served side-by-side with Paul in preaching the gospel (Phil. 4:2-3). All this evidence cannot be a biblical “mistake.” No---it serves as an incredible witness to the role women played both in the church itself and outside of it. And all of this New Testament evidence doesn’t even mention the great prophetesses (such as Huldah) and judge (Deborah) of the Old Testament!!

In this post, I wanna tackle the issue of inconsistency. It has been said that conservative egalitarians are inconsistent when they advocate male headship in the home but teamwork leadership (both male and female) in the church. I was labeled “inconsistent” by my friend above, when I made this same statement to him.

But I would like to stop and pose this question to complementarians everywhere? How are conservative egalitarians inconsistent for their view? The Bible is what decides inconsistency, not my logic. If the Scriptures do not point out the error of egalitarianism, then its position is just as valid (if not more than) as complementarianism.

What do the Scriptures say? That’s the kind of question I like to hear...to answer this question, let’s look at the Bible.

As I mentioned above, the Bible confirms male headship in the home. A good example of this is Ephesians 5:22---

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD.” (NKJV)

As this verse tells us, wives are to submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to the very Lord Himself. The husband has been given headship in the home. This is undisputed amongst complementarians and conservative egalitarians. I mention “conservative” egalitarians because there are liberal egalitarians (some are called “feminists”) who assert that male headship must be overthrown. While I sympathize with feminists and their mistreatment by male authorities, I cannot say that I agree with them. God has given the male headship in the home, whether you and I like it or not. If the Bible is the Word of God, then we must accept everything in it (whether or not it fits a preference of ours or not).

Having said that, though, the next question would be, “Does the Bible confirm male headship in the church?” the answer to this question would be a resounding no!! Let’s read further in the text of Ephesians 5:

“For the husband is THE HEAD OF THE WIFE, as also Christ is THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23, NKJV).

Here we see that, while the husband is the head of the home, his headship stops there; Christ is the head of the church, and He will share His place with NOONE! So for complementarians hung up over male headship, check Ephesians 5:23. Nowhere does it affirm the male as the head of the church. So if the male is not the head of the church, then what is he in the church? Part of the bride. As Paul writes in Ephesians 5:29-30,

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, JUST AS THE LORD DOES THE CHURCH. FOR WE ARE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY, of His flesh and of His bones.”

No matter the gender, whether male or female, both genders comprise “the body of Christ.” Christ is the head, and we are the body. And the head is greater than the body, so Christ is Lord over and above all of us, whether male or female, whether Pastor, Elder, Deacon, choir member, nursery worker, etc.

Now that Ephesians 5 has cleared the air, one more question remains: Is the conservative egalitarian consistent in his/her view of male headship in the home and teamwork leadership in the church? Yes. The answer is found in the husband-wife analogy of both home and church relationships. Let’s revisit Ephesians 5:23 once more:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church...”

Here we see the “husband-wife” analogy in both spheres. In the home, the male is the husband, and the female is the wife. In the church, Christ is the husband (the head), and the church is the wife, the Bride. We can see this in verse 25:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER” (Eph. 5:25).

The church, then, is the Bride of Christ (Christ being the husband). This is why the church in the Greek is an “ekklesia,” the “ia” ending serving as a “feminine” noun ending. Paul continues this analogy further in the same chapter:

“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH” (Eph. 5:31-32).

So the verse Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24 he now tells us refers to Christ and the church. So the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is the Husband of the church.

Where then, is the inconsistency? We’ve seen that between male and female (and between Christ and church) that there is a husband and a wife established in both spheres. So, I ask complementarians, “What’s the problem?” Don’t worry: I think I know what it is...they continue to desire to replace women in the church because of a presupposition concerning 1 Timothy 2. But if Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Christ is the head of the church, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that the Spirit gives spiritual gifts “as He wills,” then how can complementarians continue to assert that 1 Tim. 2 refers to male leadership in the church? I think this is a fitting time for complementarians to step back and take a look at their scriptural interpretation. If you ask me, I think their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 needs some serious reform...and the church needs to stop playing “rebel bride” and submit to her Husband (that is, Christ) by allowing Him to decide the giftedness of the church instead of the church herself.

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part III: Living the Conclusion

“The church ought to encourage women to minister according to their God-given gifts by, among other ways, opening up avenues of ministry such as those listed in Romans 12:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 12-14, and if appropriate, in connection with honoring them financially (Rom. 16:2; 1 Tim. 5:17). The Bible commends the equality of women with men in their being, dignity, GIFTS, and ministry. THE SPIRIT VALIDATES THIS BY CALLING AND GIFTING WOMEN TO THE SAME KINDS OF MINISTRIES AS MEN, SUCH AS PROPHESYING (Acts 20:9), TEACHING (cf. Acts 18:26), PASTORING, evangelizing, and helping the church in all sorts of ways (cf. Romans 16). Nevertheless, the church should not appoint women (Greek ‘gune’) to an office, such as being an elder (‘presbyteros’)...wherein she has authority over her husband (Greek ‘aner,’ Heb. 13:17)” (Bruce Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology,” pages 245-246).

I’ve spent the last few days discussing the problems with Bruce Waltke’s view of women and their ministries in his work on Old Testament Theology. And this post will be no different in that respect: once again, I will deal with more statements from Bruce Waltke’s assessment of women in ministry.

The first thing I’d like to note is his assessment that the Spirit equally gifts men and women: “The Spirit validates this by calling and gifting women to the same kinds of ministries as men, such as prophesying...teaching...PASTORING...”

This statement most surprised me! I mean, Waltke has noted earlier in the same chapter, titled “The Gift of the Bride,” that women have equal access to the gifts; but here, he actually says that one of the ministries that women have is “pastoring.” I never expected him to say such a thing!!!

However, while applauding Waltke for this bold statement (which I’ve never read from the hand of a complementarian), I must also disagree with the statement he provides following this remarkable acknowledgement:

“Nevertheless, the church should not appoint women (Greek ‘gune’) to an office, such as being an elder (‘presbyteros’)...wherein she has authority over her husband (Greek ‘aner,’ Heb. 13:17).”

There is a problem with the last statement Waltke provides: that is, that Waltke is actually advocating something devastating to the church. He is basically saying that, while women are gifted in pastoring ministries, and God has gifted them equal to men, they are still not to hold down pastoral authority (for example) over men in the church. Notice as well that he is talking about “women” and “husband.” I infer from this that he means “wife,” but all throughout the chapter, it seems that he has been referencing all women:

“...He [Jesus] IMPLICITLY confirmed the role of men as rulers by not appointing A WOMAN as one of the twelve apostles on whom the church is built...” (Waltke, 235)

“My thesis, in brief, is that the two creation accounts reveal God’s design for men and women. They are written to help them understand their natures and THE ROLES FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED...” (232)

“The sexual, social, and economic equality of all believers will be obliterated in the eschaton, but until the redemption of our bodies, believers still participate in the first creation with its sexual, social, and economic distinctions. The biblical instructions regarding the distinctive roles of MEN AND WOMEN...address that reality and serve the best interests of BOTH SEXES” (243).

From the above quotes, it doesn’t seem as if the so-called “rule against women” is just for wives---but instead, for ALL women, whether wives or not.

But what about single women, women who have no husband? Are they subject to this rule? It seems to be the case that single women are just as referenced as the married women. The only reference made to 1 Corinthian 7 regards the children of a married woman who is “holy” despite the fact her husband is “unholy.” (1 Cor. 7:14, page 238) There is no reference made to single women, who are also mentioned in that same exact chapter (vv.8,25,34). Why is this? I have no clue. I guess Waltke will have to produce another revised edition and clue us in on this one...

Now, on to the task at hand. Waltke has stated that women do have the “pastoring” gift (Waltke, 246), but that women are not allowed to actually “be a pastor” of a church. So women can’t be elders, pastors, nothing of that sort, that will allow them to be in leadership over men and lead men in church administration whatsoever.

Is there a problem with this view? YES! Simply put, Waltke is telling women that regardless of their gift, they can never serve in leadership. If a woman has the gift of “pastoring,” she can be a “Pastor’s Wife” and aid her husband---give him advice, make suggestions, etc. However, she could never be a Pastor--- UNLESS, in the minds of most conservatives (and yes, I’m being honest about my own background!), her husband is a pastor. She can be a “co-Pastor” IF and only IF her husband is a Pastor. Her gift will never place her over her husband...so, if she is a called Pastor, she cannot actually DO pastoral ministry unless her husband is also made a Pastor. Her giftedness and place in the body of Christ is dependent upon her husband’s.

What makes it worse is the fact that in many cases, wives cannot pastor (simply because their husbands do not feel called to pastoral ministry). But what about the lazy and slothful servant do we not understand (Matt. 25:24-30)? The wicked servant failed to use his talent---and he was punished eternally for so doing (Matt. 25:30). How can the church advocate that women, although possessing leadership gifts, disobey Christ and not use them...and then turn around and tell the women that they must obey Christ by being submissive to their husbands? How can they say, “Disobey Christ and obey Christ in this matter,” all at the same time in the same way???

Last but not least, what are the gifts for if they are not given to the church to be used? Paul answers this question:

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, FOR THE EQUIPPING OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF MINISTRY, FOR THE EDIFYING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST...”(Ephesians 4:11-12, NKJV)

The purpose of receiving the gifts is to use them. How then, is the church obeying Paul’s words here if women, no matter how great the pastoring ability, are not able to pastor churches? How can a woman lead with skill and diligence if she is sidelined or placed in the nursery, or given a young children’s Sunday school class? How will she “equip” the saints if she is supposed to watch over the flock of God...but told that she can only counsel and talk to young girls, teenage girls, young adult women, and elderly women instead? How is she pastoring and counseling effectively as an overseer if she can only “oversee” one half of the church congregation (that being, the women)???

In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about the necessity of all gifts and abilities within the church:

“And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ No. much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary...God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that THERE SHOULD BE NO SCHISM IN THE BODY, but that the members should have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:21-25).

Paul instructs the congregation that EVERY PART (i.e., EVERY GIFT in the context of the chapter itself) is needed in the body of Christ. If this is true, then women and their pastoring abilities are NEEDED in the body of Christ. Women who are called to pastor, for example, are needed in the pastoring role so they can implement God’s will for His church through their gift.

If the foot is amputated, how can the foot help a person walk from place to place? A person cannot have their foot amputated and still say, “That’s my foot...it is effective in helping me travel.” Humans understand that if we have a body part that we call our own, there is something that it should do for us. In the same way, if we have women in our churches who are called to pastor, they should be allowed to pastor. Why would God give them a gift and then tell them to not use it? It seems that when one follows the complementarian logic, God begins to contradict Himself---which is one clear sign that we should not listen to the complementarian nonsense...

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part II: Assessing Waltke's Use of 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

In my last post on Bruce Waltke, I made the point that he seemed to affirm that men and women are on equal terms in the Old Testament regarding spiritual gifts (such as the case of Huldah the prophetess). However, Waltke decides to separate gifts and offices not for the purpose of demonstrating the will of God, but for the purposes of arguing against women in leadership:

“Paul gives governmental priority to the many BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION of man and woman and by the purpose for which the woman was created” (Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology,” page 242).

Since he cites 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 as his argument, let’s take a look at that here:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9, NKJV).

This is Waltke’s proof text for why women should not be in leadership. However, what Waltke forgets is that there is a text after this passage. Let’s look at the following verses:

“Nevertheless, NEITHER IS MAN INDEPENDENT OF WOMAN, nor woman independent of man, IN THE LORD. For as woman came from man, EVEN SO MAN ALSO COMES THROUGH THE WOMAN; but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:11-12, NKJV).

Funny how Waltke’s interpretation looks skewed now, doesn’t it? What Waltke fails to do (as well as most complementarians) is read through the rest of Paul’s argument. If he had done so, he would see that Paul sets up the Genesis origin account, but nullifies it when he says, “nevertheless,” and “man also comes through the woman.” When he states that “neither is independent of each other in the Lord,” he states that there is an even keel in spiritual authority that does not mandate that a woman wear a “sign” or “symbol of authority.” Notice in the text, as I stated it in the last post, that both men (v.4) and women (v.5) are praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11.

One could easily think that this would be the end of the post, right? Well...think again!! Our dear friend Waltke has a response to my interpretation (egalitarian):

“According to 1 Corinthians 11:11-12, THE MAN AND WOMAN ARE DEPENDENT ON ONE ANOTHER FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. Their interdependence, however, does not rule out male priority in government. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court does not exist independently from the people, but the people are subordinate to its rulings” (“An Old Testament Theology,” page 243).

I have two responses to Waltke’s argument. First, notice that he affirms what I did above. However, what he does next, though, is he uses an argument from logic that nullifies the context and Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11. What he attempts to do is say, “even though man and woman are dependent on one another in the Lord, men can still be over women in the church.” However, if this was the intention of Paul’s letter, why would he tell us that both men and women are praying and prophesying (same activities and gifts, 1 Cor. 11:4,5), as well as use the word “nevertheless”? The word “nevertheless” used here is the Greek word “plen” (pronounced “plain”), which means “moreover, besides, but, except,” etc.

I looked up the word “moreover” in The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, and I found this definition:

“further; besides. Furthermore, not only that, MORE THAN THAT, WHAT IS MORE; to boot, into the bargain, IN ADDITION.” (The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, “moreover”)

The words in the definition of “moreover,” tell you that what Paul says after “nevertheless” (as the NKJV translates it) outweighs what Paul said in his previous argument. The word “plen” (“plain”) also means “however,” or “but,” which is a contrast with the material just before it. The word is a Greek conjunction; and conjunctions are “connective words,” which bridge sentences together. So if Paul is saying “however” or “moreover” here, he must be saying, “Listen up; what I am about to say contrasts with what I just said.” And if Paul is giving a contrast with his prior discussion of the man being above the woman, then he is not affirming such a hierarchy here---which puts Waltke’s interpretation on the sidelines.


Secondly, Waltke does not provide us with support from Scripture. All he does is give us a rational argument. When it comes to showing why women should not be in leadership, complementarians spend time “making inferences” instead of showing Scripture for what it is. Waltke’s argument breaks down, and all he can say is, “this still does not rule out my presupposition.” How does it not, when the text explicitly places man and woman in an equal balance in spiritual authority, when Paul does not mandate women to wear head coverings (which would have been the sign of a man’s authority over the woman, a sign of the husband-wife relationship)? Waltke doesn’t have an answer for this. Instead, he attempts to resort to logic. But that seems to be what the complementarians do these days...instead of finding explicit references from Scripture to support their points.

Anyone can read the English words like “nevertheless” and conclude that Paul is contrasting his next statement with his last statement. And this is the problem with Waltke and the complementarians: they make a mountain out of a mole hill. Why do this if the process of reading Scripture is so simple? Because they desire to uphold tradition...and they will do it at all costs.

Old Testament Theology...and Women?, Part I: Bruce Waltke's Argument

I’m taking a seminary course this semester titled “Old Testament Theology.” And for the last several weeks, my class has been going through the basic features of OT theology, like poetry, prose, narrative, etc. We’ve been looking at all the types of writing in Scripture and how the writers of Scripture crafted the writing the way they did to give us a certain message. Paying attention to the message involves paying attention to form of the text, that the form helps shape the interpretation.

But I never thought that this course would also involve an entire chapter on women and their “prescribed” roles in the home and the church.

Now, before I continue, let me first say that I count myself to be a conservative theologian. What this means is that I believe that when Scripture tells the wives to submit to their husbands, I believe Scripture to be true. However, I believe that husbands are called to be like the “Lord” (uppercase L); and by serving as the ‘lord’ (lowercase L) of their homes, men are to “love their wives as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). Men leading in their homes can lead with love, concern, and the utmost care for their spouses and children. In the same way that humanity is to have a God-given, benevolent rule over the earth (Gen. 1:26-28), so men are to be benevolent leaders in their homes.

But I disagree with the assumption made in most conservative circles today, which says that men are to lead in the home and, therefore ARE CALLED TO LEAD IN THE CHURCH. I don’t see that labeled in Scripture. Rather, I see both men and women called, and both genders provided for in terms of work in the church. More specifically, I don’t see where men are told that only THEY can be the elders, pastors, and leaders. And it is my whole-hearted belief that such passages like 1 Timothy 2 have been twisted in the name of “old Southern tradition.” In reality, the “stretched metaphor” of the men ruling in the churches because they rule in the home is an inference drawn from Scripture (or so believed)---but where is the cold hard proof? In the end, if there are no explicit texts that give men full leadership in the church, then men ruling in the churches becomes about as necessary as the color of the carpet, or the style of worship. And if these things just mentioned have no explicit texts to uphold a certain belief, then I think it’s wrong to say that the carpet MUST be red, or the worship style MUST be traditional...or that men MUST rule in the churches. Paul gave a loud declaration when he said that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 4:15; 5:23-24). If Christ is the head of the church, then no matter how powerful the male leader, he is still not the head. No deacon, preacher, elder, or otherwise will ever be the head of the church. That is reserved for Christ alone. All the pastor will ever be is the “undershepherd,” or “overseer,” which is a position that lies beneath the Lord, who is “the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25, NKJV).


Bruce Waltke, author of “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach,” writes the following regarding 1 Corinthians 11:

“God establishes this pattern (the order of creation) by creating Adam first and the woman to help the man (Gen. 2:18). As Paul notes in a passage dealing with the role of men and women, one that demands its own study, ‘man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Cor. 11:8-9). In other words, Paul GIVES GOVERNMENTAL PRIORITY TO THE MAN BY THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION OF MAN AND WOMAN AND BY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE WOMAN WAS CREATED. Is it not plausible to assume that if God intended equality in government, he would have formed Eve and Adam at the same time and made them helpers suitable to each other? If he had wanted a matriarchy, would God not have formed Eve first and created the husband to be a suitable helper to his wife?” (Bruce Waltke, “An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, page 242)


There is no doubt where Waltke stands on this one: he is a conservative...and a die-hard complementarian. His argument is not surprising, but I will examine it nonetheless.

Let’s look at the passage that he quotes. In 1 Cor. 11:8-9, the discussion in the church involves the issue of women wearing head coverings. Notice in verses 4 and 5 that the men AND women are doing the same things: “every man PRAYING OR PROPHESYING” (v.4), and “every woman who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES” (v.5). The only difference is that the men should not cover their heads (in this verse), while the women should (v.5). Both men and women are equally acknowledged in the ministries of prayer and prophecy.

Waltke actually acknowledges equal gifts among men and women, and emphasizes that even the Old Testament testifies to this very fact:

“Huldah is a most remarkable prophetess with regard to the question of women’s roles in worship and ministry...Josiah directs five leaders to inquire of I AM (God) about the book. INSTEAD OF GOING TO JEREMIAH AND ZEPHANIAH, they go to their contemporary, Huldah, to verify the book (2 Kings 22:8-20)” (caps mine) (Waltke, 240).

Waltke’s comment about Huldah and prophetesses? “In the Old Testament, women are called to be ‘prophetesses’ ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE PROPHETS” (Waltke, 240).

It looks as if Waltke understands that the gifting of the Spirit places women on an equal footing with men. He actually titles five sections around the theme of equality: “Equality in Creation, Equality in Parenting, Equality in Charisma (Gifts), Equality in Prayer, Equality in Worship” (Waltke, 239-240).

But then, Waltke gets to leadership in the church...and he blows it entirely! Waltke’s first mistake after the above equality affirmations is to separate gifts and offices:

“Here we need to distinguish clearly between call to ministry and appointment to an office since they are not the same thing” (Waltke, 241).

I agree with Waltke. For instance, being a helper in the church is not the same as being a deacon. While a deacon has the “ministry of helps,” every person who possesses this gift does not end up serving in the office of deacon. A deacon can possess the gift, but possessing the gift does not guarantee the office. In this manner, I affirm what Waltke says. But I disagree when Waltke tries to show why women should not serve in the offices of pastor and elder:

“Male authority in the home and in the church is founded on the order of creation and reinforced in the order of redemption as presented in both the Old and New Testaments” (242).

In response to Waltke, I’d like to say two things: first, male authority in the home is not founded on the creation order, but in the very words of God Himself as a punishment to Eve for her sin in the Garden(Genesis 3:16). If God had clearly intended to appoint Adam as the head of his wife in the home, then why is it that we only find God saying these words to Eve in Genesis 3 with the fall and not earlier?

Complementarians such as Waltke like to play with vague generalities and draw inferences. But when are conservatives gonna get back to finding EXPLICIT references in Scripture---and when are we gonna stop using vague references to emphasize our points? If God says it in Scripture, there will be some place within the canon of the text where the concept will be as clear as day. Every text in the Bible is not a vague generality; and I despise this sort of technique used by complementarians to attempt to validate their personal belief.

Secondly, there are no texts that give men the right to be the head of the church (not even 1 Timothy 2 does this). I have interpreted this text dozens of times here at the site. For all those who desire to read my thoughts, go to the blog sections on the right of the main page and click on the section “1 Timothy 2.” Respond to this post or the others if you have comments, questions, observations, etc.


The point being made here is that the order of creation does not place the man over the woman in the churches. And 1 Corinthians 11 works against the complementarian position. What does it say? Well, I’ll get to that in my next post.

Essence and Function, Part II-B: The Contingency of the Crucifixion

Following up my last post on “Essence and Function: Definition and Distinction,” I decided to create a second portion of Part II, where I would set up a simple argument for the temporary subordination of Christ. The temporary subordination of Christ can be proven by arguing that the coming of Christ to earth to die was not a necessary action, but a contingent one: that is, it was based upon the granting of free will to human beings and God’s foreknowledge of their later sin. I have set up a syllogism as a way to present a succinct argument.


Syllogism:

a. God freely decided to create the world.

b. God freely decided to grant human creation free will.

c. God freely knew that man, with his free will, would sin.

d. God freely knew man’s sin, and freely decided to come in the person of Christ to atone for man’s sin.

e. That which is freely done or that which is a free decision is not necessary.

f. Therefore, it was not necessary for God to create the world.

g. It was not necessary for God to grant free will to His human creation.

h. It was not necessary that man should sin.

i. It was not necessary that Christ come and atone for sin (if sin was not
necessary).

j. If none of God’s free decisions were necessary, then neither was His coming
to earth and crucifixion necessary. As a result, Christ’s subordination on earth was not necessary.

k. That which is necessary is eternal (as is God’s essence); that which is not necessary, then, cannot be eternal.

l. Christ’s subordination, then, was not necessary, and therefore, cannot be eternal. It can only be temporary.


In order to understand the above syllogism, one must know the terms involved. To begin with, let’s define the word “necessary”:

“Of an inevitable nature; inescapable.”

Christ’s essence, Godness (or divinity), was NECESSARY in order that Christ come to earth and atone for man’s sin. But what about his function? Let’s find the definition of the word “contingent”:

“Conditional; dependent; that may or may not occur” (from “The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus,” Second Edition. New York: Berkeley Books, 2001).

If God had never created the world, then Jesus would never have had to come and die; how then, can His subordination have been “necessary” or “eternal”? those who argue this belief fail to consider the unorthodox theology behind such an argument.
I will refer to this twelve-point syllogism quite often as we continue to discuss the issue of essence and function. Stay tuned...

For You, Mom: In Memory of Teressa A. Richardson (June 28, 1956---February 3, 2009)

I realize that I haven’t posted at the blogs in a while. And for that, I’m extremely sorry. As a student, I’ve just recently started a new semester in seminary; this means that the work load has increased, deadlines are in place, and I am running like a chicken with its head cut off once more.

But today, I wanted to pay tribute to someone very special and extremely dear to me, a person who has been an indispensable part of my life since the day I first entered the world---my mother, Teressa A. Richardson. One year ago today, February 3, 2009, my mother died from brain cancer at the relatively young age of 52 years old. And today, I want to set aside the usual routine here at the blog to honor the woman who made me everything I am. You, my readership, will benefit from this blog because of the woman who not only gave me life, but influenced who I've become. In many ways, this blog is as much my mother's voice as it is my own.

Teressa A. Richardson was born Teressa A. Alston to parents Anthony and Annette Alston on June 28, 1956, the oldest of what would soon be a son and two daughters. Mom graduated Valedictorian in her 1974 high school class and enrolled as a student at Duke University in the fall of 1974. She went on to graduate from Duke University in 1978 with a dual Batchelor of Arts Degree in Accounting and Economics.

Mom soon married after college, to her best friend and high school sweetheart, James A. Richardson, on December 15, 1979. To this union, two children, a set of twins, were born: Danielle and Deidre (me) on August 21, 1984. After 12 years of marriage, mom and dad separated in 1991. They did not divorce until October 1993. Mom received full custody of her children and continued to work full-time, teach our Sunday school class, and raise us as any devoted parent would.

After working in a few jobs here and there in her 20s, mom found her place in the working world at a place formerly known as Consolidated Diesel Company, owned by Cummins, Inc., where she worked as the senior accountant for 21 years. She was dearly loved by her coworkers.

Not only did mom serve her community and her family, but also her church. She joined the family church, where her father has been a deacon for over 40 years, at an early age. She started singing in the church choir early, and went on to teach the youth Sunday school class (where my sister and I were) as well as serve as the financial secretary, a position that required upkeep of the church financial records. In addition to these positions, she went on to teach the Adult Sunday School class in her pastor’s stead. She served in these positions until her death on February 3, 2009.

In January 2006, mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. The cancer would then metastasize to her lungs (lung cancer) and then, finally, to brain cancer in February 2007. I was a student at seminary at the time. In August 2008, mom would enter into retirement from Consolidated Diesel, having put in 21 years of work. After six months of hospital visits due to bodily infections, mom would face more infections in the days to come.

In January 2009, while I resumed classes at Southeastern Seminary for the Spring semester, mom continued to decline in health. I saw her three days before she died. The weekend before the Tuesday of her death, I got to spend some time with her, just the two of us alone. Then and there I got to tell her just how proud of her I was and just how much of a role model and example she had been to me and my sister Danielle. The cancer had progressed until mom could not even open her mouth to talk.

That Sunday afternoon, upon coming home from teaching Sunday school and performing the music for worship service, I was left alone with mom to say some things before I left. The Lord told me then that my mother was leaving me. He had told me earlier that weekend when me and the family sat around and saw her sleeping all day, with the only noises coming from the respirator in the hospital bed. But Sunday was the day to seal it all: for me, mom was leaving...and I had to accept that she was parting from me. It was at this time that I laid over her and prayed for the Lord to receive her into His embrace. I knew she was saved, loved the Lord, and had served Him faithfully. And now, He would take her home to the place He had promised and prepared for her (and for all who love Him).

That following Monday evening, February 2, 2009, my sister Danielle called me around 5pm or so to tell me that the hospice nurse noted that mom was soon to die. The nurse told us that mom would not make it through the rest of the week...but that prognosis declined within five hours. The next pronouncement from the nurse was that mom would not make it through the night. She would die before nightfall.

I was at Southeastern surrounded by neighbors and a special friend, Eunice, who spent the night with me once it was certain that mom would die through the night. At 2:07am on Tuesday morning, February 3, 2009, my mother breathed her last here and embraced the arms of our Savior, as He took her home to live with Him forever.

If there’s one thing my mother taught me on this earth, it was that our lives are not about us, but the glory of God. Each day is a gift that we are given by a gracious God; but we are not promised a new day. Should God grant it, then He has been gracious to us (we did not deserve it); but if He does not, then that, we too, must also accept.

I was extremely graced by God to have such a wonderful woman to call my mother for 24 years. And because of the godly example she modeled before me, my life is forever changed. An old saying goes, “Life is not about what you get here; it’s about what you leave behind.” If that’s true, then my mother left a fortune unparalleled when she stepped foot into glory.

Lord, thank you for my mother, who blessed my life in so many ways. Thank you for how you watched over us, and blessed us through all our hardships. Thank you for the laughter, the love, the hugs, the tears, and even the misunderstandings. Thank you for allowing me to live and love and enjoy good days with mom. Thank you for all the support you graced her to give her children, even when she was hurting after such an unexpected divorce. And thank you that, even after the divorce, she found purpose and meaning again in you, as well as the ministry of parenthood to her children, and service to her church.

Mom, thanks for all the many things you taught me---how life is only worthwhile when we put God first in everything we do. Thank you for all the sacrifices you made to make life comfortable for me and Danielle. Thanks for all the little lessons you instilled into us, the stories you told us over and over again, the arguments, the laughter, the jokes, the surprises, the joys, and even the discipline. Thanks for giving your all so that we could benefit. Because of your labor before God, we have been given so much. Thanks for the prayers you sent up for us, even when we were doing crazy things and needed to be disciplined. Thanks for the times when you would be there to hug us when life disappointed us.

Mom, there are so many things I could say about you---but if I tried to name them all, many I would forget. But I want you to know that you are my hero. And this post is for you.

Essence and Function, Part II: Definition and Distinction

Happy New Year to everyone! I’m back, after a month away, to begin work at “Men and Women” for the year of 2010. It is such a blessing to be returning to the work I love once more!!

Since I was in the middle of a series on “Essence and Function,” I will pick up where I left off. This post will continue our series.

I told you in the last post that, as students of the Bible, all of us who name the name of Christ should be philosophers (which means, we should be “lovers of wisdom”). The Bible tells us the importance of godly wisdom and the benefits that godly wisdom provides for the believer.

Now, on to the task at hand: the definitions and distinctions of “essence” and “function.”

First, let’s define “essence”:

1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.


3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence)


Let’s notice some things about the above definitions of essence. First, we see that it is an “intrinsic” property that “identifies” something. It is important to see essence as an identifier because essence is the DEFINING MARK of an object or person. In addition, the essence of a thing is its “unchanging” nature. The essence stays the same. There is no change that occurs in the essence whatsoever. This is important because, if this is the case, then the essence must represent that which is “permanent” when compared with the function of something. The function, then, will be the opposite of essence; and if the essence is permanent, then the function must be temporary. It cannot be permanent because its duration (amount of time) must be distinguished from the essence (which is permanent). The opposite of “permanent” is “temporary.” Just keep these things in mind.

Next, let’s look at the definition of “function”:

1.the natural action or intended purpose of a person or thing in a specific role
2. a factor dependent upon another or other factors
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function)

Function relates to “purpose” or “action” of a person. According to the second definition, the function is “dependent upon another or other factors.” This means that the function is a dependent variable. As I was always taught in mathematics, a “dependent” variable is that which needs something else in order to exist; an “independent” variable, on the other hand, is something that can stand on its own.

Take for example two factors, “time” and “height.” Time is an independent factor---in other words, time can stand on its own. However, height is a dependent factor, for I can only grow if time exists. If time does not exist, then I cannot grow. Another good example would be “seed growth of plant” and “weather.” The weather is the independent variable, because if the weather does not cooperate, then the seed will not grow. But even if the seed does not grow, the weather will still exist! This is why the weather is the independent variable: because it exists despite seed growth (or the lack thereof).

According to the definition of “function” given above, then, the function is a dependent variable, not able to exist without another factor. In this case, function would not exist without essence (think about it: if something does not exist, then it cannot function!). I think that it’s pretty easy to conceive of something that does not exist as having no function or purpose. After all, no one sits around and talks about imaginary objects as part of everyday life, do they?


Now, let’s talk more about Jesus and the Father. I have made the point here at the site that essence and function are opposites. If they are, and function is dependent upon essence (essence being permanent), then the function of something or someone must be temporary. If we use this in regards to Christ, He is ETERNALLY EQUAL in His essence, but TEMPORARILY SUBORDINATE in His function.

Why is Jesus’ function “temporarily subordinate”? Because it follows the meaning of function. Function is dependent upon the essence. If Jesus had not been God, He COULD NOT have been the Savior of the world (for the only one who could save mankind was God Himself). If one wants to debate about function, ask yourself this: “Could Jesus have been just a mere man AND the Savior of the world?” I think we all know the answer to that question (of course, it’s “NO WAY!”).

Now, to test this theory out of essence and function, let’s examine the view of the complementarians regarding Jesus:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in essence [but] ETERNALLY SUBORDINATE in function


Now, according to our definitions above, function must be dependent on essence. Function cannot be permanent if essence is, because function cannot exist without essence. Since this is the case, subordinate function cannot be “eternal.” Why? because “eternal subordination” implies that subordination is a permanent factor. In other words, complementarians, when they label subordination as “eternal,” imply that function can exist without essence (which it cannot!)...

We see this in everyday life. Take a student for instance: if that student were to lose his humanness, could he still be a student? No. Where have you ever seen a monkey go to class, sit, pay attention, answer questions, and take examinations, pass them, and function as a human being? I will boldly confess that I’ve never seen that sight before! And chances are, you haven’t either---which means that humanness is essential to the function of “being a student.” However, a human doesn’t have to function as a student---he could be a recording artist, for example, and still be human! “student function” is not necessary for a person to be human---“humanness” is!

I’ll give a real-life example of essence and function. In World War II, during the Holocaust, Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and learned that Hitler killed all the Jews who seemed to be elderly and of old age. Wiesel writes in his book that he and others would run for some time before their doctor appointments, in order to show up “red” in the face and give the appearance that they were “young-blooded.” If they looked old and tired in any sense, the doctors would sentence them to the concentration camps, where they would die. Hitler reasoned that if a Jew could no longer function in hard labor, then that Jew was no longer human (and thus, no longer worthy of human life). Hitler advocated much of Darwinian biological evolution into his practices; and Darwin himself believed that man is just a machine: take away his function and he is no longer human. This explains eugenics and death in the cases of the paralyzed, comatose, and handicapped (whether mental or physical).

But this has also become the reasoning behind abortions. Have you ever wondered why abortions are so popular over the United States? Abortions have become the “new fad” of conception because they presuppose a Darwinian view: that man is just a machine, and without function, nothing at all. So if a fetus is present within a woman, but cannot function like a person, then the fetus is no person at all (just a bunch of biological raw material)---and can be “done away with.” And why? Because function, in the minds of humans, has become EQUAL to essence. I believe, however, that the fetus is still a human being (even if the fetus cannot “do” anything). And I believe the fetus remains human because essence is over function. Regardless of the human’s function, the human is still a human (even a fetus!).

I have one more thing to say about Jesus’ subordinate function, but I’ll save it until next time.

Essence and Function, Part One: The Importance of Philosophy

I’ve been thinking over the series on the Trinity that I’ve been doing here at the blog the last few days...and it has occurred to me through dialogue with others via e-mail that it is important to spend some time explaining the simple philosophy behind the Trinity and the men-women debate.

Now, some may say, “Well, this is a theological issue...let’s just stick to the Bible.” When I was younger, I believed the exact same thing----even until I was a seminary student, I believed the exact same thing. But my time at seminary (in addition to the countless pages of reading I’ve done) has convinced me, via historical theology, that debates in the church are not as much an issue of the Bible as they are of philosophy. In the debate on the Trinity, for instance, everyone will marshal their proof-texts to sway you to believe what they do; however, what happens when you arrive at an impasse? What happens when your opponent has just as many passages for his view as you do yours?

This is where philosophy comes in. During the Middle Ages, philosophy was labeled “the handmaiden of theology” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871268,00.html) and, although the two fields have had their share of fights, I still believe the statement to be true: philosophy is still the handmaiden of theology. Because Scripture speaks of God as a logical God, a God of order, a God who does that which is just and right, it makes sense to study philosophy. The word “philosophy” literally translated, comes from two Greek words, “philos” (lover) and “Sophia” (wisdom). Put together, the word “philosophy” refers to “a lover of wisdom.”

Scripture testifies that wisdom is a blessing:

“Happy is the man who finds WISDOM, and the man who gains understanding; for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, and her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and ALL THE THINGS YOU MAY DESIRE CANNOT COMPARE WITH HER. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. SHE IS A TREE OF LIFE to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her” (Proverbs 3:13-18, NKJV).

Wisdom is more profitable than “silver,” “fine gold,” and “rubies.” Wisdom is worth more than “all the things” a person could ever desire. In other words, wisdom is the most valuable possession a person could ever own. Wisdom is even worth more than all my college and seminary training combined!

One of the most important things that Solomon wants us to see about wisdom is that “she is a tree of life to those who take hold of her...” Solomon labels wisdom as “a tree of life.”

Does the “tree of life” allusion here ring a bell? It should. This reference takes us back to Genesis, where Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by eating fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Someone could say, “well, they aimed for knowledge...so, why was it a bad thing?” It was wrong because they were disobeying God! The very act of disobedience itself showed that humanity’s first parents did not have a “fear of the Lord,” which is central to wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10, NKJV). To first have wisdom, then, we must first have a reverential fear for the Lord. God must be first in our lives, and we must long to please him with all our heart, soul, and might (which involves the mind). Once He is Lord over our lives, then and only then can we seek to love Him with everything we are and everything we have. Wisdom, then, is not just a tree of knowledge, but a tree of understanding. And wisdom gives life, prolongs days (“length of years,” Prov. 3—see above).

It is at this point that you may ask me, “Well, I realize that wisdom is important, that it’s more valuable to me than anything I hold dear. How do I get this wisdom?” James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, tell us:

“If any of you lacks wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

I have taken some time here to show the importance of philosophy in the life of the believer. The Lord desires that we please Him with our minds; but in order to do that, we’ve got to become “lovers of wisdom.” The only way to do this is to know what wisdom is—and that starts with “the fear of the Lord.” Once a person has the Lord as the center of their entire existence, then he or she can begin to ask God for wisdom. God desires that we know Him in a most intimate way, so He will give us wisdom if we ask for it. Our desire to study philosophy should be founded upon our desire to please the Lord with our minds, our intellect that He so graciously bestowed upon humanity. Let the wicked and lazy servant be an example to us that, to throw away our minds is to disregard the goodness of our Lord...and thus, make ourselves enemies of His Grace.

I will continue with a discussion of wisdom and philosophy in future posts.

Operation Giftedness: Resolving the Presumed Contradictions

It is through dialogue over the last few days that I have found the inspiration and idea to write this blog post.

I’ve been talking a lot at my other blog, the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), about contradictions and how to resolve them. In addition, I’ve also dealt with the contradiction here of “equal essence” but “subordinate function” as well when referring to Christ. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing concepts or things cannot co-exist in the same way at the same time. This means that “short and tall” cannot co-exist peacefully...unless we define “short and tall,” such as “she is shorter than her aunt but taller than her grandmother,” or “she is shorter than her aunt without heels, but taller than her aunt with heels,” etc. Either way, two opposing concepts or things must have “qualifiers,” more information in order to resolve the blatant contradiction.

And this concept of resolving contradictions is a good one to use when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I’m sure you all have run into the problem of what happens when someone says that there are two passages that “seem to be opposed” to one another. Complementarians have done this with regard to 1 Timothy 2 (see my post under the section “1 Timothy 2” titled “In The Name of 1 Timothy 2” for more information).

Here at “Men and Women,” we’ve been tackling the issue of Christ’s equality in essence and His subordination in function. What do you do when you find that, just as you emphasize the equality of Christ, someone else emphasizes the subordination of Christ? I initially tried to solve that thorny problem with the passage of Hebrews 5:8. The person I dialogued with conceded that I was right on that issue...but this still did not keep him from heaping up a dozen verses where Jesus exalts the Father above Himself.

I can’t promise you that attempts to reconcile Scripture will convince other people. In fact, I don’t think anything here at the blog is one-hundred-percent convincing to every single person! Complementarians, for instance, will most likely find none of my arguments appealing in any manner. Therefore, my goal is not to make you 100% convincing...but to give you sound argumentation and evidence so as to face someone who thinks that the egalitarian view is liberal and historically progressive with little to no backing...

Today’s topic is on “Operation Giftedness.” That’s right! I am writing another post where we are looking at two or more passages. 1 Timothy 2 will continue to be tackled here at the site because there are so many theologians and Christians alike who believe this chapter prohibits women from serving in the church. But, to counteract this passage, I will use other passages, such as 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12.

Let’s first place 1 Timothy 2 side-by-side with 1 Peter 4:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:11-15, NKJV).

“As each one has received a gift, MINISTER IT TO ONE ANOTHER, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:10-11, NKJV).

Do you see the problem? In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is prohibiting women from teaching, but in 1 Peter 4, Peter himself is giving license to those with spiritual gifts to exercise them in a godly manner. How do we reconcile both of these passages? Is everyone to use their gifts—-- or only men? Which is it?

If that doesn’t disturb the atmosphere a bit, read Romans 12:

“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given us, LET US USE THEM: if prophecy, LET US PROPHESY in proportion to our faith; or ministry, LET US USE IT in our ministering; he who teaches, IN TEACHING; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:6-8, NKJV).

This is even more disturbing to the text of 1 Timothy 2 than 1 Peter 4 is. Paul says here that if we have a gift, “let us use” it. But this poses problems for 1 Timothy 2, which Paul also wrote to the church at Ephesus. How then, do we reconcile both 1 Peter 4 and 1 Timothy 2?

I think the answer can be found in not so much the use of gifts as in the MANNER of how the gifts are used. Look back at Romans 12, and this is what you’ll find:

(a) “if prophecy, let us use prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH” (Romans 12:6; the manner in which prophecy is used).

(b) “he who gives, WITH LIBERALITY; he who leads, WITH DILIGENCE; he who shows mercy, WITH CHEERFULNESS” (Rom. 12:8; the manner of giftedness)

Someone might say, “Well, what about verse 7? What does the “it” of verse 7 refer to? the answer can be found in verse 6: “if prophecy, let us prophecy IN PROPORTION TO OUR FAITH...” Further back in the passage lies verse 3: “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one A MEASURE OF FAITH” (Rom. 12:3, NKJV).

In whatever gift we operate, let us use our gifts according to not only the grace we have been given, but our faith as well (Rom. 12:6).

What about 1 Peter 4? The answer of how to reconcile that passage with 1 Timothy 2 can also be found in the manner of how the gifts are used:

(a) “as each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as GOOD STEWARDS of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10, NKJV).

(b) “If anyone speaks, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD. If anyone ministers, let him do it AS WITH THE ABILITY WHICH GOD SUPPLIES, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ...” (1 Pet. 4:11, NKJV)

As demonstrated with the above passages of Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4, the issue seems to be “how” the gifts and abilities are being used, not the giving of the gifts or even types of gifts (although they are mentioned).

Someone could say, “Well, I’ve seen all your evidence above. But how do these two passages meet head-on with 1 Timothy 2?” The problem in the church at Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2 was the “manner” in which the church was operating:

(a) “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, WITHOUT WRATH AND DOUBTING” (1 Tim. 2:8, NKJV).

(b) In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel, WITH PROPRIETY AND MODERATION, NOT WITH BRAIDED HAIR OR GOLD OR PEARLS OR COSTLY CLOTHING, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, WITH GOOD WORKS” (1 Tim. 2:9-10, NKJV).

(c) “Let a woman learn IN SILENCE WITH ALL SUBMISSION” (1 Tim. 2:11, NKJV).

(d) “Nevertheless, she will saved in childbearing if they CONTINUE IN FAITH, LOVE, AND HOLINESS, WITH SELF-CONTROL” (1 Tim. 2:15, NKJV).

Notice that the men were praying with angry hearts (wrath and doubting); the women were dressing immodestly, which is why the emphasis is placed on “modest” apparel. In addition, Paul also wrote that they should do what is “proper,” which is “good works.” This is because what the women were doing in the church was anything but “good” work.

Then, there comes verse 11. Women are to learn “in silence with all submission.” This is the best way for learning to take place, but since the women need to know what “good work” is all about, Paul states it here: the women are to pay attention and submit to what they are being taught.

The question then becomes, what about vv. 12-15? First, let me point out that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.” Although the NIV has put out this definition, modern research shows the word to mean something “other” than “to have authority.” For instance, my “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament,” by Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey E. Miller, states that the word means “to give orders to”...this shows that the women in Ephesus were out of order, not that Paul simply was against them having a position of authority (Michael H. Burer and Jeffrey Miller, “A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008, page 398).

Burer and Miller both put out a definition that I think in some ways would work, but I don’t think fits the context. However, I’ve actually done some research on this subject (search for my posts on “Authentes” and “Authentein” in my section labeled “1 Timothy 2.” My word study will prove particularly helpful to those who desire to know more on this subject. In addition read Katherine Kroeger’s study of the word “Authentein” as well. She has some interesting insights. If you have any further desire to read on the subject, I suggest you read “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by Pierce and Groothuis. Linda Belleville has done quite a study there and, while I disagree with her conclusion, she demonstrates (as do Burer and Miller) that the word “authentein” does not mean “to have authority.”

Next, what about verses 13 and 14? Do they appeal to some inherent “creation order”? Or is Paul just upholding the Law? My answer: the latter----Paul is defending the Old Testament Law from the heretical interpretations being tossed around in the church.

Someone may easily object and say, “Wait! How do you know this?” well, this is where context comes to the surface. Look back at 1 Timothy 1:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia— remain in Ephesus that you may charge SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:3, NKJV).

The problem in the church involved the teaching of “other doctrine.” This is Timothy’s whole reason for staying in Ephesus and not going to Macedonia with Paul. They were also paying attention to “fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification...” (1 Tim. 1:4)

In verse 7, we discover that there are those “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm...” these believers want to teach the truth, but they confirm by their very words that they don’t know it themselves.

But verse 8 ties this passage with that of 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12:

“But we know that THE LAW IS GOOD, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY...” (1 Tim. 1:8)

So the law is good “if one uses it lawfully.” What Paul was saying to Timothy here is that the law is good when it is used in a GODLY MANNER. Teaching, then, like the other gifts mentioned in 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12, is a good thing when it is done in a godly manner, in a way pleasing to the Lord. When it is abused, however, it then becomes a tool for evil and wickedness, and must be suppressed. This is the reason for why the women of 1 Timothy 2 are being told they cannot teach. Unlike the complementarian view, women are not told they can’t teach because of a creation order, but because they do not understand what they are saying (1 Tim. 1:7) about the law. Paul has to defend that “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam WAS NOT DECEIVED, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul is only defending the events as Genesis records them--- not prohibiting women to serve because of some “creation order” in Genesis that automatically disqualified them from serving.

I will continue to use 1 Timothy 2 in relation to other passages to show the folly of those who base their view of women in leadership on one passage. Proper hermeneutics demonstrates that, when context is examined, reality is not what it seems to be at first glance...

The Hermeneutic of Hope

“As a growing body of theologians is demonstrating these days, there is no such dogma. Reformed theology at least attempts to interpret the whole counsel of God in view of the principle that SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE. In other words, that which is clearest and is treated with the greatest significance in Scripture interprets those passages that are more difficult and less central to the Biblical message. At least THE GOAL is to say what Scripture says and to emphasize what Scripture emphasizes” (Michael Horton, “God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology.” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006, page 12).

I’ve been investing quite a bit of time in the last six months to issues on my other blog, called “Center for Theological Studies.” In so doing, I’ve been reading on the debate between Calvinists and Arminians (for those who wanna see the research, click on the link at the top of this page, on the right). To be brief, covenantal theology attempts to unify all of Scripture around a common theme, which covenantal theologians believe to be covenants. Now most people believe that Christ serves as the unifying theme of the Scriptures, but there are other related themes like the covenant. For instance, if you read Paul’s words in Galatians 3, you will understand that the Spirit desired that salvation would come to not only the Jew, but also the Gentile, through Abraham (“in you ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH will be blessed,” Genesis 12:3). When God told Abraham that “all the nations” would be blessed, He was referring not only to Jew, but Jew and Gentile. Christ serves as the fulfillment of other covenants as well, but there is no time to discuss this further here.

In any case, Horton’s quote above from his book intrigued me about two days ago while sitting in a salon waiting for my sister to get some kind of nail treatment (I am so inept in these things..) The principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture” is one to which the Reformers held to (Luther, Calvin, and others), and one which we should hold to as well. If God has revealed Himself in His Word (which He has), and if He desires to make His ways known to us (which He does), then surely, something in the Bible can help us understand that which we do not!

It is my belief, however, that we apply this little hermeneutical principle to everything else EXCEPT the issue of women in ministry. Have you ever heard contradictions on this subject? Someone will say, “a text means what it means in its context”; and then, he or she will turn around and say, “but the text of 1 Timothy 2 regarding a woman says what it means” WITHOUT REGARD FOR CONTEXT! I’ve heard this before and wondered whether or not the person understood that he or she contradicted himself/herself in two sentences, one right after the other!!

1 Timothy 2 is a hard text to interpret. In all the numerous reading I’ve done on the subject, every writer struggles with how to interpret this passage, and thus, how to apply the passage in the contemporary church. But we are not alone! 1 Timothy 2 is only one passage of a host of passages located in the 66 books of the biblical canon. Using what we know from those other passages, we can interpret 1 Timothy 2.
I could point out the biblical examples of Deborah (prophetess), Miriam (prophetess), Huldah (prophetess), Euodia and Syntyche (fellow laborers with Paul, Philippians 4), and Junia the apostle (Romans 16). While all these examples are valid ones, I will not approach an example of a person in this post, but a Scriptural passage instead. Which one will I choose?

I will choose a passage that I think gets to the heart of women in ministry and leadership in the church—1 Corinthians 12.

In verse 7, Paul writes, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all...” Everyone receives a gift from the Spirit. The gift itself is the manifestation of the Spirit—it is the way that the Spirit testifies to a person being a child of God. It is the Spirit’s presence made known not just to the person, but to everyone in the body of Christ around them. Verses 8-10 lists the various gifts that the Spirit gives to His church. Verse 11 gets to the heart of this post:

“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS” (1 Cor. 12:11, NKJV).

I think this is where the rubber meets the road. In most discussions on women in ministry, there is always an appeal to 1 Timothy 3, which states that the pastor (or bishop) should be “the husband of one wife.” This phrase has been taken to say that only men can be preachers, pastors, elders, and so forth. And I’ve even read material on this subject where theologians will interpret 1 Timothy 2 in light of 1 Timothy 3 (which comes after the text in question)—and yet, they do not seem to mind leaving off the material BEFORE 1 Timothy 2 (which is 1 Timothy 1), where we read that the problem in the church at Ephesus involved “myths and endless genealogies” and that Paul told Timothy to stay at this church specifically to put down the false teaching in the church. It seems that even the context is “proof-texted” these days...

Back to 1 Corinthians 12. Notice that the Spirit gives gifts “as He wills.” This is a guiding principle for the church today. The Spirit is the one who decides who gets what gift. But we have forgotten this today. In today’s church, when we set aside who gets to operate in what office in the church, we don’t set aside believers ON THE BASIS of gifts, but on the basis of gender! If the church decides to set aside preachers in the church, those who have an ability to proclaim the word of God, the next thought in the minds of the church is “we have to find men.” Even if there is a woman who is faithfully teaching a Sunday school class, and knows the Word of God, we turn our backs and focus on selecting men to aid the Pastor. No matter how many degrees the woman may have, her level of education and seminary training, we will look for men to aid the Pastor. It seems that, in our minds, “maleness” is the first gift to the church, and all the leadership gifts hinge upon “maleness.” But where is that in Scripture? “maleness” or “femaleness” are not gifts given by the Spirit to the church in 1 Corinthians 12—yet, we act as though they are. Why is this so?

In response to my question just asked, someone would say, “Well, men are to lead in the home.” That is true, and as a conservative evangelical, I will agree with that statement. But my next question would be, “How does leadership in the home GUARANTEE leadership in the church? And how does submission in the home GUARANTEE submission in the church?” And to this, I would wait in vain for an answer. General revelation shows us via everyday experience that every man in every family does not go on to work in a leadership position in the church. But when it gets to women, we ASSUME that every woman is to have a submissive role in the church. But where is that in Scripture? Even Paul allowed women to serve as deacons in the church in 1 Timothy 3. If you’ll notice, the only leadership called in Acts 6 were “seven men.” Paul, however, breaking with tradition, made room for women to serve. There’s a lot I could say about that, but I won’t address it here. The point being here, nonetheless, that there is no one passage of Scripture that ties leadership/submission in the home with leadership/submission in the church. And yet, we claim to be “biblical”...

The church today operates with an asymmetrical standard: when it comes to “men,” men are allowed to work anywhere in the church that God has gifted them to serve; and when they come into our churches, they are welcomed and embraced. But when it comes to women, our gender ELIMINATES many of the positions of church giftedness before the Spirit even manifests in us where He desires us to serve. Once our gifts are narrowed down to “five,” for instance, NOW, THE SPIRT CAN GIFT US TO SERVE IN ONE OF THOSE! Isn’t it funny how we hamper down the Spirit, who, by the way, is GOD? What is it gonna take for us to understand that, by tearing women and their giftedness down, we are SLAPPING GOD IN THE FACE? How much more clearly can this be illustrated?

I’ve written all this to say that Horton is right: we need to return to the principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” When it comes to this debate, we need to remember that, no matter what you or I think, God’s Word is what decides the standard, no matter how right or wrong it “feels” to me. And if it challenges tradition, so what? Jesus challenged tradition. And if I will challenge tradition, and by so doing, become more like Christ, then I’ll do it...I’ll continue to uphold the hermeneutic of hope.

The Trinitarian Order: First, Second, Third?

“The common order in which Christians usually express the names of the members of the Trinity is Father, Son, and Spirit, and this is supported by the order in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28. However, Warfield points out that THIS ORDER IS BY NO MEANS INVARIABLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT...” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 56).

In today’s post, I am covering the idea of “taxis,” or order within the Trinity. I have finished covering the Gradational-Authority View (which states that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father in function). Now, I will begin the study of the “Equivalent-Authority View,” beginning with B.B. Warfield. In his above statement, he recognizes the baptismal formula in Matthew 28, which states the following:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT” (Matthew 28:19, NKJV).

Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield makes the case that, if the Father were really superior (and the Son and Spirit subordinate), then we would see this order consistently repeated throughout the New Testament. However, this is not what we see:

“In the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the order is ‘Lord, God, and Holy Spirit.’ In 1 Peter 1:2, the order is ‘Father, Spirit, and Jesus Christ.’ In Jude 20-21, it is ‘Holy Spirit, God, and Lord Jesus Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3-6, the order is ACTUALLY REVERSED COMPLETELY, which may be a rhetorical device. Again, Warfield’s statement is cautious: ‘If in their conviction THE VERY ESSENCE of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?’” (56-57)

I think that the interchangeable order of the Trinitarian members shows us their equality—that one is no more God than the others, that no one member is “less God” than the others. But I think this equality also demolishes the idea of the Son and the Spirit as “subordinate.” After all, Paul tells us that after meeting Christ on the Damascus Road, he went to Arabia (Galatians 1:17) where he was taught by the Lord concerning the law and the Scriptures. It seems that, if he was taught by the Lord in all matters (which he states he was), then, if there was an important “one order” to the members of the Trinity, that the Lord would have revealed that also to Paul? The fact that we see Paul using the members interchangeably without being labeled a heretic testifies to the fact that using them interchangeably does not “humiliate” God Himself.

Warfield does acknowledge that Christ is sent by the Father, and that He takes on a role of submission to His Father. However, his reason for why this occurs differs greatly from that of the gradationists:

“It may be natural to assume...that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these references to subordination in modes of operation (functions) MAY JUST AS WELL BE DUE TO A CONVENTION, AN AGREEMENT, BETWEEN THE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY—a ‘Covenant’ as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED by each” (57).

I know what you, my readers, are thinking at this point: here goes an “invented” scheme as a way to deal with the submission of the Son to the Spirit (and the Spirit to the Father and Son). However, there is biblical warrant for Warfield’s assertion:

“LET US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” (Genesis 1:26, NKJV)

“Come, LET US go down and there confuse their language...” (Gen. 11:7)

These are two instances in Genesis, but I think it shows us the collaboration of all the Trinitarian members in regards to creation of man (Genesis 1) and the confusing of the language of mankind (Genesis 11). It shows that all of the members had one mind and were in unanimous agreement regarding divine action. This is what we know biblically. While we do not know if there was a Trinitarian agreement regarding Christ’s role as Savior and His Crucifixion, we do know that the Trinity members agreed on everything. If this is so, then we can make the connection between the creation of man (and the world) to the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit before the foundations of the world.

We’ve seen in this post that, while the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 shows order, we see that the order was interchangeable throughout the New Testament. In addition, we’ve also seen that the distinguished roles are very likely to be the result of a pre-creation covenant amongst the Trinitarian members. While we can’t be one-hundred percent sure of a covenant, details within Scripture itself give us hope. The gradationists, on the other hand, don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that the Spirit and the Son were subordinate before the foundations of the world...and this hole in their argument is what tears the gradationist view apart.

An Important Theological Question...

“He [Bruce Ware] believes that the egalitarians have a problem here in terms of their inability to answer an important theological question: ‘It appears that contemporary egalitarianism is vulnerable also to this criticism. Since NOTHING IN GOD grounds the Son being the Son of the Father, and since every aspect of the Son’s earthly submission to the Father is DIVORCED ALTOGETHER FROM ANY ETERNAL RELATION that exists between the Father and Son, there simply is no reason why the Father should send the Son’” (Bruce Ware, quoted by Millard Erickson, in “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, page 42).

In “The Trinity: Good News For Women” series, I have covered quite a bit so far. We have seen Bruce Ware’s arguments, among others, for the eternal subordination for women. Here in this post, Bruce Ware poses a question: if there is no eternal submission in the Trinity of the Son and the Spirit, and if there is no hierarchy within the Trinity itself, then why does the Father send the Son?

This question makes it seem as if hierarchy and submission are the ONLY reasons why Jesus would be sent. But to emphasize these two factors downplays what Scripture has to say about why Jesus came. In truth, Jesus came to die for the sins of the world (both Jews and Gentiles). For proof, we have the following verses:

“And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God WILL GIVE HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID. AND HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER, AND OF HIS KINGDOM THERE WILL BE NO END” (Luke 1:31-33, NKJV).

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!’” (John 1:29, NKJV)

As is demonstrated with the verses above, Jesus’ mission was not to show “who the boss is,” or to show Jesus taking orders from the Father. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to give His life for the sins of the world. Jesus tells us this Himself in John 6:

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; AND THE BREAD THAT I SHALL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).

His mission was to be Savior, which is why He was given the name “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” means “Savior.”

So, contrary to Ware’s belief, the Incarnation was not done to show submission or the authority of the Father, but rather the love of God for the world (John 3:16-17). In the same way that Abraham sacrificed his son and received him back as a foreshadowing (Hebrews 11:17-19), so the Father sacrificed His Son out of love for the world.

As I’ve shown in this post, Ware’s emphasis on submission and authority demonstrates his own perception of the Father sending Jesus. However, it isn’t supported by the biblical text. And Paul’s concern for the church as a congregation was that they mutually submit to one another, seeing the Father and Christ as the example of submission (Christ) and exaltation by the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

"Houston, We've Got a Problem": The Thorn of Temporary Submission

“Ware spends considerable time on the topic of taxis, or ordering, within the Trinity. Because of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and this distinction is not in terms of any difference in essence or attributes, it must be found in this ordering. Ware describes it: ‘The order is not random or arbitrary; it is not the Spirit first, the Son second, and the Father third, nor is it any way other than the one way that the early church, reflecting Scripture itself (Matt. 28:19), insisted on: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.’ So the Son obeyed the Father in all things, not only during his earthly ministry, but also in eternity past, just as he will do so in eternity to come. Similarly, Ware traces the role of the Holy Spirit, who submits himself to both the Father and the Son. He acknowledges that the Spirit directed the Son at certain points in the Son’s life and ministry, but HE REGARDS THAT APPARENT SUBMISSION OF THE SON TO THE SPIRIT AS BEING RESTRICTED TO THE SON’S EARTHLY MINISTRY” (Millard Erickson, “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate.” Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009, pages 38-39).

I’m back to continue my discussion of Millard Erickson’s work. For those who haven’t bought this book, you need to buy it. It will prove to be one of the best books regarding the subordination debate that you could ever own. I also think that Erickson was fair to both sides of the debate, while still being honest with his readers and stating his advocacy of the equivalent-authority position.

We’ve seen here at the site just how adamant Bruce Ware is about the ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND SUBMISSION of the Son to the Father. And we’ve also noted that Bruce Ware believes that the Spirit is eternally subordinate to both the Father and the Son. However, in the quote above, Ware finds himself entrapped: in discussion of the Son’s subordination to the Spirit, he now states that the submission of the Son to the Spirit is “restricted to the Son’s earthly ministry.”

Funny, but we don’t read anything of this sort in Scripture! We read nothing of the Son submitting Himself to the Spirit, but we see this in the Incarnation (as Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit), as well as the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness (Luke 4, among others), and Jesus’ miracles with the Spirit’s power. Even though this submission is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, Ware seems to “assume” that this submission is temporary.

But if the submission of the Son to the Spirit is temporary, why not then the submission of the Son to the Father? In the thought of Bruce Ware, the Son has to eternally submit because He is subordinate, BELOW, the Father. However, Ware’s need to keep the Father as always “superior” to the other members of the Trinity sounds like part of an underhanded agenda to me.

Apart from Bruce Ware’s material on the Trinity, I do read other material of Ware’s. And last night, I found myself finishing Ware’s discussion of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability (which basically teaches that God changes nothing about Himself, except in relationship with His creation). This doctrine teaches us that emotions like God’s anger really existed—that God was angry with us while we were enemies of His. When we were sinners, we were “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” to use a Jonathan Edwards sermon title. Once we accepted Christ, however, we became “friends” of God...which means that now, God’s anger is no longer kindled toward us. Instead, God’s anger has now been appeased in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is why Romans 3 and 1 John 4 refer to Christ as “the propitiation for our sins.” The word “propitiate” means “to please, to appease,” and Christ’s sacrificial death was the “appeasement” of God’s wrath. This is why when Jesus is born in the Gospel of Luke, for instance, the angels proclaim, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Peace came in the form of Christ, who is our “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9).

Now, back to Bruce Ware. I was reading on the above doctrine, and I noted a statement Bruce Ware made that I think works perfectly for this discussion on the Trinity:

“What is it like to be in relationship with one who is infinitely wise, powerful, holy, truthful, and good? Perhaps from God’s side of the picture, this relationship is summed up with the words, ‘he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust’ (Ps. 103:14). The disparity between us and God is impossible really to imagine. Analogies fail, because the disparity here is between what is infinite and what is finite and, at present, fallen. WHY SHOULD WE THINK THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE LIKE ANY OF OUR OTHER RELATIONSHIPS?” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 156).

Notice the statement I capitalized above in Ware’s quote? I think it is fitting. Ware says that our relationship with God is unlike any other relationship that we have. And I would say that he’s right—it is “the infinite” interacting with the “finite,” and “the finite” (us) interacting with “the infinite” (which is God).
However, if our HUMAN relationships are BELOW our relationship with God, then how do we characterize the intratrinitarian relationship of the Trinity? Since all the members of the Trinity are “fully and equally God” in their own right, and yet, are in relationship with one another, where does this fit on our scale of relationships?

Ware tells us here that the Trinity has a hierarchy within itself, QUITE LIKE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:

“An authority-submission structure marks THE VERY NATURE of the eternal Being of the one who is three. In this authority-submission structure, the three Persons understand the rightful place each has. THE FATHER POSSESSES THE PLACE OF SUPREME AUTHORITY, and the Son is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As such, THE SON SUBMITS TO THE FATHER...and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. THIS HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY exists in the eternal Godhead even though it is also eternally true that each Person is fully equal to each other in their commonly possessed essence” (Bruce Ware, “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationship, Relevance, and Roles.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005, page 21).

But this contradicts what he said above; if the God-human relationship is ABOVE human relationships, and the intratrinitarian relationship consists of the three persons as God, then doesn’t that place the intratrinitarian relationship ABOVE the God-human relationship? And if analogies fail with the God-human relationship (Ware states this above), then how much more do they fail when it comes to the members of the Trinity!!

We see the difference in the God-human relationship from human relationships in the book of Hebrews:

“Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He FOR OUR PROFIT, that we may be partakers of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:9-10, NKJV).

The God-human relationship is above all human relationships! On this, we would all agree...

Next, the Trinitarian relationship.

“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’
But to the Son He says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.’
And:
‘You, LORD, in the beginning LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Hebrews 1:6,8,10).

The Trinitarian relationship is such that each member of the Trinity recognizes the other members as “fully God” and equal to Himself.

If this is true, then what about Jesus’ submission?

“though He was a Son, YET HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8, NKJV).

If we listen to Bruce Ware, the Son had already “learned obedience” in heaven; however, this contradicts the biblical record. If Christ was already “subordinate” in heaven, then why would He need to learn obedience on earth? It is at this point that we should part ways with our good friend, Bruce Ware.

And, because of the Son’s temporary submission to the Father, we can conclude that the Son temporarily submits to the Spirit. But, if this be the case, then there is a mutual submission amongst all the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In the case of the Spirit, this can be seen with the fact that the Son foretells of
the Spirit:

“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment...when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:8, 13 NKJV).

However, we find that the Spirit also foretold of Christ’s coming:

“Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHO WAS IN THEM was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:10-11, NKJV).

The Spirit of God that was within the prophets foretold that Christ would suffer and die for the sins of the world.

Now, let’s look at this interaction. The Spirit announces Christ’s coming through the prophets; but in John, the Son also announces the Spirit’s coming and His mission in the world. In both cases, we have the Son and the Spirit recognizing and introducing one another. This is the case of a relationship among equals, not one wielding power over the other.

Our friend Bruce Ware is at a disadvantage: he wants to affirm the “temporary” subordination of Christ to the Spirit, while affirming Christ’s “eternal” subordination to the Father. What we find in the Trinity instead is a mutual relationship among equals. Jesus tells us this when He requests of the Father to “glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5), stating that He had glorified the Father on earth (John 17:4). This, then, is mutual submission.

Sounds like Ware’s playing theological mind games with the evidence; however, to affirm the Son as “temporarily” subordinate on one hand and “eternally” subordinate on the other shows more of the mind of Bruce Ware than it does the testimony of the biblical evidence.