[Vision2020] what the Bible really teaches (wasDouglasWilsononwomen)

[keely emerinemix]

Good to hear from you, Michael.

I think that your first paragraph, whose appreciation of childbirth and 
parenting I certainly echo, is still not an argument for biology as a 
determining factor, much less "the" determining factor, for the acceptance, 
administration and appreciation of roles of service and leadership in and 
out of the church.

More troubling to me, although not unexpected, is your assertion that the 
Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in the Trinity -- a position used 
by complementarians such as yourself to offer a paradigm for the eternal 
subordination of women to men.  The argument goes like this -- if Christ is 
co-equal to the Father and yet submits to him within the relationship of the 
trinity, then women, being entirely co-equal to men, can still then be 
ontologically created by God for eternal submisison (subordination) to men.  
Even if Christ were eternally subordinate to the Father, and I argue that is 
not the case and not what the Scriptures teach, nor what the Church has 
believed for two millennia, it is still a bit of a stretch to justify the 
denial of positions of leadership to women on that basis.  But, again, the 
Bible does not hold that Christ IS NOW and ETERNALLY subordinate to the 
Father, and the faultiness of this position weakens the entire 
complementarian argument.

(Note:  "Complementarian" here means those who espouse the inherent equality 
of women and men but believe that in the home, church and society there are 
Biblically-ordained "men's roles" and "women's roles."  "Egalitarianism," 
sometimes called "Biblical feminism," holds that the gifting of the Holy 
Spirit and the relationship of the believer to Christ Jesus, not gender, is 
the only Biblical basis of service, leadership, and positions of authority 
inside and outside of the church).

One of the most important books I've ever read is "The Trinity and 
Subordinationism-- The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate" 
by Anglican vicar Kevin Giles (IVP, 2002).  He traces the heretical and 
merely aberrant belief throughout church history that Jesus Christ, after 
his ascension into Heaven, took on a subordinate relationship to God the 
Father which remains eternally and is a proper model for understanding 
gender and subordination.  Giles argues convincingly that neither Scripture 
nor the Church has taught such an idea, and that it is, in fact, not an 
orthodox Christian belief:

"Evangelicals who speak of the eternal subordination of the Son have fallen 
into the very error of which (Karl) Barth warns: They have read back into 
the Trinity their prior beliefs about the sexes.  Instead of moving from 
relations in God to human relations by analogy, they move from fallen human 
relations to divine relations."  Continuing, "... the Trinity is to be 
understood as a community of equals who work together in perfect harmony and 
love; none is before or after; none is greater or less than another . . . 
all are co-equal.  Those who read the Bible otherwise, arguing for the 
eternal subordination of the Son, read the Bible in a way rejected by 
orthodoxy." (Giles, p. 110-111).

I recommend the book to you, as well as many other resources available from 
Christians for Biblical Equality, the egalitarian group to which Jeff and I 
enthusiastically belong.  You might not change your mind about Christ and 
eternal subordination within the Godhead, but perhaps you will come to 
understand that EVEN IF that doctrine were true, it is a very shaky 
foundation from which to argue for eternal female subordination, 
particularly in light of the clear, redemptive testimony of Scripture.  This 
is a case where bad doctrine results in bad practice, Michael, and the cost 
is and has been very high -- not just for women, but for the men who love 
them and, more strikingly, the men who hate them and think that a mere 
tweaking of the most glaring vitriol and violence is all that's necessary to 
  conform misogyny and sexism to the will of God.  It can't be done, and it 
ought never have been attempted.

Let's keep talking.  And for all of those brave Visionaires who are still 
reading -- please know that I'm aware that it seems silly, if not downright 
tragic, to be arguing for women's equality in 2006.  But the majority of 
self-identified conservative Christians in Moscow and elsewhere are not 
convinced of the egalitarian position of the Bible, and even when it's not 
really an issue to them, it's nonetheless an issue because of the 
pompousness and smugness of those hearty guys at the fieldhouse who feel the 
need to inject robust sexism into all sorts of places where clearer thinking 
often speaks too passively.  Thanks for reading and, Michael, thanks for 
writing.

keely


From: "Michael" <metzler at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] what the Bible really teaches 
(wasDouglasWilsononwomen)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:56:42 -0800

Keely,



Thank you for the well reasoned reply to my question.  For now, I'll focus
on what I consider to be the two primary theological issues you reference.
(The exegetical stuff can wait).



First, I'm not convinced that we should separate biology from ontology.  I
would think that our bodies are who we are, or at least an indispensable
part of who we are. Our biology is our ontology-at least to some important
degree.  Likewise, I don't know why we should separate our functional
'roles' in the world from our biological abilities and limitations.  It
would seem that God's design plan would have determined our role and
biological framework as mutually supportive.  The role design would be
dependent on biological design, and the biological design would be dependent
on role design (e.g. when designing a house the foundation plans and the
roof plans cannot be created independently; any determination in one will
determine the design in the other).  I'm also not clear why we should not
consider 'child bearing' an important role.  It is an amazing and long term
experience for a woman per child; at certain times in each child bearing
drama the woman is given totally to her 'task' of child bearing: new
clothing, learning more about her body, preparing for the birth, labor,
healing, breast feeding, etc.  And if child bearing is a gender specific
role, then why not suppose there could be more layers and modalities of
gender related roles? Is child bearing ability the only difference between
the body of a man and woman?



Second, although you do have equality in the Trinity, you also have
subordination of sorts.  The Son eternally proceeds from the father, and
when the Son became man, he submitted to the will of the Father. And the Son
did so not merely in His human capacity, but also in his role as Eternal
Son.  So the 'ontology' of the Trinity you mention would seem to evidence a
form of subordination between a man and woman; as the Father is head of the
Son, so is a man the head of a woman; in so far as 'head' means 'source,'
the woman comes from the man as the Son comes from the Father.  The eternal
dance allows one party to lead the first step.



Michael Metzler





_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement