This apathy for doctrine has far-reaching harmful consequences.
For this reason I challenge you to carefully read the following article as it reveals a doctrinal debate within the Southern Baptist Convention that has direct consequences on our Convention’s attitude and behavior towards women.
Let me repeat the last sentence for clarity: There is a current doctrinal debate within the SBC that directly affects our Convention’s attitude and behavior toward women in general.
The Arian Controversy
Arius was a Christian who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt (250-336 AD). He became the leading proponent of a heretical teaching that would later be identified with his name. Arianism is the belief that God the Father and the Son did not exist together equally and eternally, but that Jesus was created by God the Father and is eternally subordinate to the Father.
In plain English, Arianism teaches Jesus is inherently inferior to God the Father.
Some Christians wrongly confuse Arianism with Aryanism. The latter is the belief that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive, superior race. Hitler was an Aryan, but not an Arian. Aryanism is a belief in human racial superiority. Arianism is a belief in divine patriarchal hierarchy.
In 325 AD, Christian leaders gathered in the city of Nicaea (modern-day Iznik, Turkey) and debated the doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Nicaea convened on May 20, 325 AD with around 300 pastors present to discuss the Arian Controversy.
After meeting for a solid month, these pastors issued on June 20, 325 AD what we now call The Nicene Creed.
The Nicene Creed is the clearest and most accepted statement on the divinity of Christ in the history of the church.
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, believing this to be the biblical and traditional Christian teaching handed down from the Apostles.
The Nicaea Council believed that Arianism destroys the unity of the Godhead, and makes the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one" John 10:30).
The Council of Nicaea ended with the Christian pastors declaring Arius and his followers heretics.
A Resurging Semi-Arianism in the Southern Baptist Convention
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person.
The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call “the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” as a basis for their anti-New Testament, patriarchal view that the female is always to be subordinate to the male.
Women’s subordination to men, according to the teachings of CBMW, is established because it reflects the truth of Trinity. Women will always be subordinate to men and wives will always be subordinate to husbands because Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father.
That is the scary doctrine being promoted by leading Southern Baptists, a doctrine deemed heresy by the church nearly two millennia ago, and a doctrine that has disastrous consequences for women in the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Bible calls man's desire to "rule over a woman" a sin. The notion that God designed leaders to be males, and that He designed women in the role of submissive servants to men, is a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
"Jesus called His disciples together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord their power over people, and their high officials exercise authority over others. It shall not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must serve." (Matthew 20:25-27)
The false doctrine of men's hierarchal authority of women |
For this reason, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood proposes that God’s unchanging ideal is the permanent subordination of women.
Their teaching is in error, and it contradicts the teaching of the New Testament.
The New Testament teaches that followers of Jesus Christ - regardless of gender - are to submit "one to another" (Ephesians 5:21). It is as natural in a Christian home for a man to submit to his wife in selfless, humble service as it is for the woman to submit to her husband in selfless, humble service. In fact, the great leaders in the Kingdom - male and female - are those who are servants to all (Matthew 5:27).
While there is no denial that there are differences between men and women, to base the “subordination” of women to men on the alleged eternal subordination of the Son to God the Father borders on an Arian view of the nature of Christ.
The very word “ordination means “to order by virtue of superior authority.”
To say Christ is “subordinate” to the Father means he has lesser (sub) authority, lesser (sub) superiority, lesser (sub) ordination.
There is a great deal that will be said in the Southern Baptist Convention and the evangelical world as a whole in the coming months and years about the role of women in society, the church, and the home.
Sadly, there is a tendency for those who hold to the hierarchical view of a man’s authority over women to label those who disagree with them as liberal. I've come to believe that those Christians who truly believe the teachings of Jesus Christ and who truly hold to the infallibility of the New Covenant Scriptures are at the forefront of empowering and encouraging women.
Those who follow Arian's teachings more than Christ's teachings refuse to let a woman teach Hebrew to men because of her lesser "spiritual authority" They refuse to allow a woman to hold a supervisor’s position in the International Mission Board because of her need to be subordinate to men and receive orders from men, not give them. They advocate that women staying out of the work force because of their subordination to men in society, and call "liberal" those who oppose their alleged non-sinful "roles" of men and women. To these Southern Baptist modern Arians, women are viewed and treated as the “lesser” in terms of “authority” when compared to men, and anyone who dares disagree with them is considered a "liberal" Christian or a pagan.
It’s time for conservative, evangelical Bible-believing Christians who believe in the equality of men and women to realize that the great error in this debate is not a denial of the sufficiency, the authority, and the infallibility of God's Word by those who hold to gender equality.
Rather, the great error in this modern debate is the promotion of semi-Arianism - and a denial of Christ's clear teaching in the New Covenant - by those who wish to force their hierachical views of male authority upon the church, the home and society.
Peter Schemm, a member of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, argues that there is room within Christian orthodoxy for the belief in "the eternal subordination of Christ." He argues that people like Giles (and me) who oppose "eternal subordination" and view it as semi-Arianism are simply speaking too harshly for "there is room for both views within evangelicalism."
It is ironic that those who have an affinity for calling conservative evangelicals who disagree with them "liberal" are now proposing tolerance and acceptance of their unique views of the Trinity.
I do believe that we should accept our brothers (and a few sisters) in Christ who are arguing for "eternal subordination," and we should always treat them with Christian love and respect, but we should never be shy to challenge their unorthodox views of the Trinity.
Arius lost the debate in 325 AD, and I predict semi-Arianism will eventually be on the losing side of this current debate.
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211perhaps the Father and Spirit are subordinate to the Son in Evangelical evangelism.
At the end of a sermon, any sermon, the preacher proceeds to offer an invitation. He may actually step from the pulpit and walk off stage to stand in front of the congregation in the same way a lawyer will approach the jury up close to press for a decision.
He will say "come to Jesus". In doing this he has stepped into the place of the Father and Spirit in offering a call. At this point he is a pseudo-trinitarian. The sinner's decision is his basis of regeneration.
In fact the Son is subordinated to the preacher. This "Jesus" may be an invention of the preacher and not "the Jesus"
Peter,
You just may have, with your sarcastic last comment to "Not Bill," come in last again.
Bill
Cheryl,
I'm so glad that you brought up this point about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know if sensitivity to these concepts comes from experience in the trenches with JWs, but I have had probably more experience with this than most people. When I first heard these teachings a little more than a year ago, the first thing that I thought was that no JW would ever take a Christian seriously if they presented this Jesus to them.
Bruce Ware does not argue against "same substance" and states that Jesus is just like the Father, save for the distinction of authority. I understand that he even argues that the Son is just as omnipotent as the Father, but the Son is just not permitted, by means of authority, to fully exercise His power. From the authority issue, it also bleeds over into worship, and Ware claims that the Father always has the preeminent status in the Trinity. It starts out with a limitation on power, yet it seems to bleed over into other areas that concern ontology when you look at all that Ware has written on the topic. It weakens Ware's claims that it is not an ontological subordination (that of essence).
That is like saying that I am capable of driving a car and very good at it, but if I don't have a license to drive, car insurance and registration for the car, I really am not a fully qualified driver. The law does not recognize my ability, and that does not really qualify me as a fully capable and free driver. You could say the same of strength. I think of the old story of an elephant who is bound by a rope and has spent his live walking around where he has been attached to a pin in the ground. The elephant only has ever walked in a radius around the pin. As he grows, he could easily break the rope and free himself, but he has learned the rules that keep him bound. How free is that elephant and how strong is he if he is never permitted to exercise his might? His body might be strong enough, but his will and his freedom have been broken.
I think these pictures describe something very much like what a Jehovah's Witness thinks about Jesus. How fully God can Jesus be if he is not as fully free and powerful and as much God as the Father is? And what on earth did Jesus empty himself of when He became incarnate, if it was something He did not already possess?
These things are subtle, and I'm so pleased to see them discussed.
I would like to know why, if a semi-Arian Trinity is applied to husbands and wives who are NOT in a parent-child relationship, that it is not applicable first to male sons and their fathers. Are not male sons obviously eternaly subordiante to their fathers when a semi-Arian Trinity is applied? Wouldn't it be obvious that fathers are to command their sons for eternity and sons are to obey their fathers eternaly.
It's a big stretch to call the council Arian for these statements. I think you've confused some people on the teaching they have of the trinity. I don't think that any of them would advocate in any way that Jesus is less God than the Father. To say there is a subordination does not mean that.
Jesus clearly submitted Himself to the Father, yet was fully God. The subordination that exists is a functional subordination, not one concerning their nature. In the same way the wife should submit to the husband not because they are unequal, but that is the functional role she is given.
For those of you who want to seriously engage what is being taught by CBMW on the roles of the Persons within the Trinity, I suggest checking out a debate tonight at Trinity Evangelical Seminary. Justin Taylor says on his website:
Tonight Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware square off against Tom McCall and Keith Yandell to debate the question, "Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?"
It should be much more scholarly than accusation and I am certain that McCall and Yandell will treat Ware and Grudem with more respect than to call them Semi-Arians or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Maybe Burleson would consider a debate with Grudem? What do you say Wade? Are you serious enough about this to actually debate a world-class scholar like Grudem?
Here is the link to the article about it:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/10/trinity-debate-at-trinity.html
Dear Wade: Judging from this most interesting discussion above, much confusion still exists among thinking Christians about the theologically-ordered doctrine of the Trinity. The biggest problem in the above discussion is a persistent failure to recognize the difference between the Ontological Trinity of three eternal persons in the one Divinity in Eternity (before the Creation), and the Economic or revelational Trinity as seen unfolding in time as the drama of redemption develops. This distinction is absolutely essential lest we violate the Creator-creature distinction in Gen 1:1, the fundamental presupposition of all rational predication about the world, which is necessary for understanding both orthodoxy and its many Arianizing variants. No doubt the Baptist heretics who want to suppress women and retain power over them (that's the real motivation stemming from the sad prediction that male supremacism would follow the Fall, as found in Gen 3:16), will be glad to modify the doctrine of God in order to justify their sin, but clear-thinking believers will note that before the Creation, the Eternal One-and-Many was not distinguishable in the functions of the Persons. Each Person exhausted the Being of the Godhead in the "incommunicable" attributes, and apart from the distinction of the Persons (or centers of consciousness, so that they could think "I" as distinct from "Thou") no further attributes can be predicated of them considered separately. We only call the Second Person "the Son" because he is the one who became incarnate in time, the Third Person "the Spirit" because that is the name given him by the others in the unfolding temporal drama of redemption. Clearly, the Second Person as the Son of his Father in heaven, was subordinate on earth as Man to God, but it doesn't follow from this that he was eternally subordinate, whatever that wierd notion might mean. The habit of pushing back the many temporal relationships of the Persons acting in time onto the eternal ontological Trinity is the cause of much confusion. That there is a Deity of "one substance" and "three Persons" in eternity behind the temporal revelation of God's nature (attributes) and acts in history, is the main result of the Church's extraction of the various elements from the Bible that make up the doctrine of the Trinity, and is essential to the survival of the orthodox Faith. The history of the influence of both Arianism and its post-Reformation version, Socinianism, demonstrates this clearly. Confusing eternity with time is the continuing root of unending confusion, and the original cause of such heresies as the "eternal generation" of the Son (a flat contradiction invented by Origen which does not become reasonable or even possible by calling it a "mystery") as well as both Arianism and semi-Arianism. As for those souls above who are upset with people who think that heresies (false doctrines) should not be strenuously and unambiguously opposed and their propagators condemned in the standard biblical language provided by Scripture, I can only say that if the semi-Arians do not repent of this nonsense, they will all likewise perish.
Love In The Lamb,
R.K. McGregor Wright
UNfortunately Wade, i do not find your argument convincing.
First of all, you would do better to expand your description of Arianism. You highlight the term 'subordinate' yet neglect their teaching that Jesus was created. This is your first fallacy.
Second, you criticise the 'liberal' argument (and rightly so), yet continue to label those who support ESS, as Arian or Semi-Arian. You have done the same thing, many do to you. Put 'labels' un-fairly on those who disagree.
Thirdly, Dr Giles, fails to give good arguments. Many of his works are helpful, yet so many run on unfactual arguments. For example, in DIscovering Biblical Equality he argues early on that no-one pre comp/egal debate (60's or 70's) has described the trinity in terms of equal in essence, yet subordinate in roles. However one can clearly see this teaching in Berkhof, or even Hodge. I think Giles recognises this, as later on he discloses that the past 200 years are 'bleak' in Trinity theology. SO which is it Giles? It is only 'bleak' becasue it supports the ESS doctrine and not his. Point is, much of his argument and historical research is questionable.
Lastly, those who reject ESS need to show how the doctrine does not fit into the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed deals with the 'essence' of God, on which both sides agree is equal. A subordination of role is not contradictory to the creeds. The best people can offer is that unequal in role= unequal in essence, which is not a convincing argument.
Those who reject the ESS, need to be clearer in explaining what it is therefore that makes the persons of the Trinity distinct. This is the biggest downfall for egalitarianism as i see it.
Thanks
Wow. I am late to this party because I have only just come upon this post. Thank you for a clear and informative article on an important matter! I am not SBC (and not a true liberal, lol) but I see this belief creeping into other denominations too.
Too many Christians are willing to re-make God to fit their own agendas. Ugh.
1 Corinthians 15:28 says clearly that the Son will be eternally subject to the Father: 'Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject (ὑποταγησεται) to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.' What could be plainer than that?
Henry Alford comments:
'The refutation of these [he has just described a few of them] and all other attempts to explain away the doctrine here plainly asserted, of the ultimate subordination of the Son, is contained in the three precise and unambiguous words, αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός.'
Andrew
To AFFIRM that the Son just by virtue of His intrinsic (I shall not call it nature, or essence, because the Christian faith teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost have only one and the same nature, and therefore only one and the same essence) identity as the Son, or as one of the intrinsic distinguishing properties of His personhood as the Son, is subordinate and obedient to the Father (merely by virtue of one or more of the intrinsic distinguishing properties of the Father’s personhood as the Father) is to DENY that God the Son is Sovereign. For by definition, anybody who is sovereign, is supreme in power and jurisdiction over those things over which he is sovereign: and he is under NO obligation to obey anybody else in those matters in which he is sovereign. Whoever out of necessity (I do not mean as the result of coercion or fear of penalty, I mean as the good and necessary logical consequence of what one intrinsically and inherently IS, as opposed to his disposition or state with respect to all his purely accidental properties) obeys another being or person is by definition NOT sovereign in the matters in which this other being or person exercises the authority or jurisdiction.
By definition, God has supreme jurisdiction and rule in ALL matters: meaning that there is absolutely NO question or affair wherein is He under obligation to be obedient and subordinate to the jurisdiction of any other being or person.
This sort of Sovereignty is an ESSENTIAL attribute of the Deity: it is an attribute that Deity can NEVER lack and still be God!
The Father is God – Ergo: The Father is Sovereign in all things.
The Son is God – Ergo: The Son is Sovereign in all things.
The Holy Spirit is God – Ergo: The Holy Spirit is Sovereign in all things.
Yet these are not Three Sovereigns, but One Sovereign. This is the Catholic (and I don’t mean so-called Roman Catholic, I mean universal and uniform) Faith.
If God the Son out of necessity (I do not mean as the result of coercion or fear of penalty, I mean as the good and necessary logical consequence of what one intrinsically and inherently IS, as opposed to his/her disposition or state with respect to all his/her purely accidental properties) obeys God the Father, then there are certain affairs in which God the Son is subject to the rule and jurisdiction of another Person, namely, God the Father, and by this definition, God the Son does not possess the supreme rule and jurisdiction in all things: in none of the things in which He obeys the Father can the Son possess supreme authority and governance, but on the contrary, it is only the Father that possesses supreme authority and governance: and therefore by definition, the Son is NOT sovereign.
But because sovereignty is an essential attribute of the Deity, it follows that the Son would not be God at all!
But it is HERESY to deny the Deity of the Son. Such a heresy already has a name: it is called Arianism!
And we can prove the same for the Holy Ghost. Neither Person can be subordinate to or inferior to any one of the Other Persons by virtue of good and necessary logical consequence of what each of these Persons inherently and intrinsically IS, as opposed to His disposition or state with respect to all His purely accidental properties (and indeed NONE of their attributes are accidental) or else He is not God at all!
Now, where it concerns 1 Corinthians 15:28, we CAN interpret this, but only in terms of Christ's HUMAN nature, not His Divine nature: for a Divine Person is by nature sovereign, and a subject is by definition not a sovereign in the affairs in which others have the jurisdiction over him. As it says in the Athanasian Creed: Christ is "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood".
Post a Comment