pinklight

“If you say that because of one’s essence (their gender, sex, biology) they must be subordinate for life to another because of their essence (their gender, sex, biology), then you are also saying that their essence is not equal at all.”

Now why could I say it simple like that? ;P

I think this comes down to Choice and Sin as to whether or not one can be subordinate in function while not in essence.

God ordains gender roles, then a woman is not a free agent to choose to live outside of them since it would be a matter of sin. But if God has not ordained gender roles, then women can freely live outside of them and not sin in so doing.

Did Christ have a choice in his subordinate position?
Do women have a choice to be subordinate or not? Is it sin to operate outside of a subordinate position for either?

Now I got God’s prophecy in my mind from Gen 3, about the woman’s seed…

Sex makes a woman subordinate.
Flesh makes God subordinate.

Humm…

“The issue at hand now is if the Son can be subordinate in function but not in essence.”

The woman is subordinate in function but not in essence based on her femaleness (sex alone) rather than her “womanhood” (essence). The deal is the same here with the Son. There’s somekind of division of “nature” going on (intentional or not). The Son is subordinated in function based on him being human rather than his “God-Manhood or Man-Godhood”.

I’m trying to wrap my mind around all this…

“I do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, even during his earthly ministry. To be so would mean he would have changed in essence”

Haha! I should have kept on reading before making my last comment. Yes, the nature of humanity cannot change God or lower him down.

“I do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, even during his earthly ministry.”

Me neither. That idea was somewhere in the back of my mind as I was making my last comment.

“If Jesus still has his humanity now and according to egalitarians, that is the ONLY thing that makes him subordinate, how is he not then eternally in that position?”

Since when does the Word putting on the flesh make for an eternal subordinate? Does the nature of humanity bring God down? How can God be brought down, ever? How can human nature make God less in any way – into some hierarchal Trinity? The flesh can’t do that.

“In all honesty it seems like it is the egal attempt to discredit the distinctions made by some comps on essence/roles.”

I can see what you are saying, Mark. But, a role (based on sex – “male” or “female”) is different from essence (“womanhood” and “manhood” or “man” and “woman”). The terms “male” and “female” are used for not only humans in Gen 1 but also animals, as in the ones that boarded Noah’s Ark. So “male” and “female” as used in the bible, designate sex (whether human or animal), and so it’s not where it’s at since sex is a different thing from essence or nature. “Man” and “woman” mean humans either male or female, not just “male” and “female”. Femaleness (sex) cannot be seperated from womanhood (essence or nature).

So when MORE distinctions are made by comps between essence or nature (man or woman) and sex (male and female) then comps could see the egal view. Rather than discrediting the distinctions made by some comps on essence and roles, egals actualy make further distinctions between essence and sex. A role based on sex alone – “femaleness” – might as well be for the birds or a dog.

What is the essence of a woman? Does a woman have the same human power and authority as a man has? Since she is equal in essence to the man, then she has to. She owns power and authority in her very being as a man does. So if she has the same human power and authority as a man does, then why is a woman created with a different “role” from the man to not use her power and authority? If the woman were created with a different role to not use her human power and authority it would have to be because she is simply “female” (animal perhaps?) and NOT “woman” (human that is female).

Hope I made sense. ;P

Absolutely!!

Hahaha! You got it, truthseeker! Hahaha!

fyi, I live by truthseeking. 🙂

truthseeker,

You got it!!

It cannot be denied that the main scripture used to subordinate Christ to the Father (eternaly) is one verse, 1 Co 11:3 (taken out of context).

“Instead of a functional equality with the Father, it is now claimed by some hierarchists that Jesus as the pre-incarnate Son of God had to have permission to create the world since the authority even for creation rested on the Father alone. It is also claimed that the Jesus is so unequal in authority with the Father that we are not biblically allowed to pray to Jesus or have intimate communication with him. These claims more closely resemble the teaching of some well-known cults than they do of historic Christianity.”

These beliefs bring me right back to vv 12 & 13 of 1 Co 11. It seems the comp mind is interpreting “God” to be a reference to “the Father” in vv 12 & 13 if one is even using 1 Co 11 at all for a foundation of his beliefs on the Trinity which I’m sure is the case… So one might as well say also that man is made in the image of the Father and that the churches are the Father’s. Can one be consistent, please?

7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The case IS closed, but nonetheless, CBMW and other comps need to deal with the context. I won’t let this go…

Thanks Truthseeker!
I had never read about it either any where. It HIT me some time last week…the context can only support who Paul was refering to in v3 when he penned the word “God”.

I want to see CBMW ACTUALLY deal with the context of 1 Corinthians 11!

“In recent years, 1 Cor 11:3 has been used to buttress a complementarian model of sexuality (men and women are spiritual equals, but have different, complementary gender based roles). The relevance of this text to clarify gender role debates is patently clear. Paul gives us an instructional model for male leadership-the man is the head of the woman as God [the Father] is the head of Christ. The eternal functional headship or authority1 of the Father over the Son, often referred to as functional subordination within the Trinity, has been well developed by others.2 My concern is rather to build on this theological principle by teasing out some of the implications of functional subordination affirmed in 1 Cor 11:3 to correct misunderstandings and distortions of male headship.”
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-8-No-1/A-Corrective-to-Distortions-and-Abuses-of-Male-Headship

Poor Eve. All these built up accusations against here without a shred of evidence and even there being proof of her innocence! What a shame that she should be treated with such disdain.

He cannot see it that way because 1 Co 11 where the term kephale translated “head” is used is also used in Eph 5, so the two passages go hand in hand. If “head” in one means “authority over” then it also means the same thing in the other passage – according to gender hierarchalist thinking.

“I related to Bruce Ware that whether women are or are not subordinated to men does not reflect on the full equality of the Son. Ware does not see it this way.”

He cannot see it that way because 1 Co 11 where the term kephale translated “head” is used is also used in Eph 5, so the two passages go hand in hand. If “head” in one means “authority over” then it also means the same thing in the other passage. First though he needs to prove that “the Father” is the head of Christ in v3 rather than the Godhead as the passage does support.

The complementarian foundation for the subordination of Christ in the Trinity is the complementarian interpretation of 1 Co 11:3, that is, verse 3 as isolated from the rest of the passage and interpreted in hierarchal fashion, being that “God” in v3 (meaning the Father) is the “head” (meaning authority) of Christ, yet all the the other four uses of “God” in the rest of the passage (vv. 7, 12, 13, & 16) show that “God” in 1 Co 11 means the “Godhead” rather than “the Father”.

Man is the image of God (Godhead) v7, not the Father alone, everything comes from God (Godhead) v12, not the Father alone, Paul is asking the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether or not it is proper for a woman to pray to God (Godhead) v13, not the Father alone, and Paul refers to the churches as “the churches of God” (the churches of the Godhead) v16, not the churches of the Father!

And so it seems to me that complementarians have alot of explaining to do since the passage glaringly shows that the Godhead is the kephale (translated, “head”) of Christ showing that the idea that the Father is the head of Christ is a myth, something that is read into the passage by isolating one single verse – v3. I think then that complementarians have an impossible task at hand which is to show that all the uses of “God” in the passage mean the Father rather than the Godhead. I would love to see complementarians deal with this.

7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

“One of the flaws of the teaching about spiritual “covering” is that it makes the one under the covering weaker instead of stronger.”

This is a MOST excellent point!!

“But what about the teaching in the church today that a woman needs a spiritual covering? The term spiritual “covering” is really spiritual “control”.”

Indeed.

I’m still trying to figure out the difference in the usage of different titles…but I definately think that in 1 Co 11:3, the title “Christ” being used is no mistake and it means something different from the title “the Son of God” which shows a different kind of relationship. Hope I’m making sense lol!

Jesus is the Christ. In 1 Co 11:3, the title “Jesus” is not used. This title denotes his sonship, while the title “Christ” means Messiah/Savior therefore what I can only see in the passage is that the Godhead is the head of the Messiah. I think there is always reason why different titles are used because they all mean different things.

Thanks, Cheryl!

Thanks, Cheryl.

Think I’m done processing on 1 Co 11 for the night. No more serial posting for me now! I must say that ultimately I had left alot of 1 Co 11 on the shelf, but now I know the case of who the head of Christ is, in 1 Co 11 is closed. Glad I’m just moving right along…The kephale debate in relation to 1 Co 11 then, I can see now is irrelevant (as I don’t see comps arguing that the Godhead is the head/authority of Christ). Context changes everything!

The entire contextal use of the term supports that the Godhead is the head of Christ.

“I think that Paul is pretty consistent in 1 Cor. 11 when he uses the term “God” to mean the Godhead. Or should we see that women are in the image of the “Father”? Men and women are in the image of the Triune God.”

I think he’s consistent too. And now that I have looked at it with a careful eye, it’s seems obvious.

I was just wondering where Ware’s idea originated from.

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Is Paul asking whether or not it’s proper for a woman to pray to the Father uncovered or to pray to God (Godhead)?

Is this where Ware gets the idea that we should only pray to the Father??!!