Paula

Donna, let me answer your points, but first make one of my own: that “misrepresentation” is a very common charge on this topic and many others. When Christians disagree, it seems to be the first reaction. The problem is that this charge is rarely proved but only asserted.

Wayne Grudem has stated that even God is subordinate to a male when he helps him:

Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped.

In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).

This is the sort of thing that makes us seriously doubt Grudem’s, and thus CBMW’s, commitment to Biblical accuracy over the point they wish to prove, that being the permanent subordination of one equal to another. So rest assured we take care in quoting them.

1. If one person willingly submits his will to that of another person because they are of one will in the first place, is that person’s being diminished in any way?

This is a logical impossibility. If they are of one will in the first place, then one cannot “submit” their identical will to the other. As God, both the Father and Son (and of course the Spirit) have one will. That makes eternal subordination of any of them impossible.

Only in the case of two different wills can we ask whether the submitter is “diminished”. If both beings are equal in being, then permanent and involuntary submission would indeed be a case of inequality and thus “diminishing”. In other words, it is impossible for equal beings to be permanently unequal in role, when one role has authority over the other. One being cannot be in a state of permanent and involuntary subordination to an equal being.

2. What does the phrase “the Father SENT the Son to be the Saviour of the world” say about when the Son began to obey the will of His Father?

It is well known that in the culture of the time, the one sent was considered equal to the one being sent; there was no hierarchy implied. But we also know that Jesus volunteered to save the world (Phil. 2:5-11, esp. v. 7-8: he made himself nothing, and then after being found in human form, humbled himself). If they were of one will in eternity past, then there was nothing for the Son to “obey”.

3. The very words “Father” and “Son” show that they are in a hierarchical relationship, but one that does not diminish them in any way. God chose to reveal Himself as the eternal Father who has an eternal Son. Christ’s sonship did not begin at the incarnation and end when He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Strong disagreement here. It is impossible for a father not to precede his own son in time, yet “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God”. The father/son relationship did indeed begin at the incarnation, as proven by the Philippians quote above, and ended with his return to heaven (except as concerns only his humanity, ref. to the hypostatic union). In Hebrews 1:5 we read, “You are my Son; today I have become your father… I will be his father and he will be my son“. “Have become” and “will be” indicate chronology and disprove an eternal sonship.

A father and son have a subordinate relationship, but it only begins when the son is born and only lasts until the son grows up. They remain (not always were) father and son but the hierarchy is gone.

Then, may I make a friendly suggestion. Some of you seem to be clueless as to what feminist theology is and what hermeneutic is being used.

Very insulting and demeaning… not “friendly”. We are not clueless, and that’s the problem for you. We read comp. material and give references when we quote it. We are not “feminists” but egalitarians; two different theologies. It appears you are confused between the two. Feminism, like male supremacy, seeks a dominant and a submissive; egalitarian seeks equality. Very distinct, very opposite theologies. And we do in fact know our own hermeneutic… and yours as well.

You also display ignorance of our hermeneutic concerning “head”. The meaning “boss” is not a part of it, in spite of Grudem’s contorted arguments to try and make it so. So with that understanding of the Bible’s meaning of “head”, you will be able to see that egalitarians do not deny that Christ is the head of the Church and man the head of woman. Christ is the source, the sustainer of the Body; the man is that as well for the woman. No one denies that Christ has authority over the church, but this is not in view at all in the passage Paul wrote; it’s all about unity, about Christ “leaving his father’s house” to join to his wife and become “one flesh”. So a man does not share in the authority of Christ, but only in Christ’s example of love, sacrifice, and joining to her.

When you condescendingly say “you really should know where you are coming from, and where your ideas are coming from”, you call us stupid and ignorant. We do know where our ideas (as opposed to the ones you try to assign to us) are coming from: the Bible. When you call us “ignorant” of feminist theology, you still confuse us with them and insist we are the ones who don’t know the difference! Amazing. That truly is a case of what you call “shot-gun theology”, aimless and random.

Yes, you offended, in many ways.