[mtlmouth]

Originally Posted by Tony

Articles 1, 3, and 4 refer to an order of roles prior to the fall. Equal in dignity, but unequal in position. The endorsers of this statement would say the same about the Trinity, that Jesus will be eternally subordinate to the the Father. And because Jesus is always under the Father, woman will always be under man, even after this age.

Oh yeah, as a woman, I'm not down with this (especially the last bit) at all.

[IsaactheSyrian]

Okay, so:

Subordinationism is the notion that the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are unequal to the Father in their nature and being. It basically leads to a form of semi-Arianism.

This was explicitly denied by the holy Fathers of the Councils of Nicea I and Constantinople I who drafted the Nicene-(Constantinopolitan) Creed,

"...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages - Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made..."

The explicit denial comes in the clause "being of one substance (homoousious) with the Father". The classical Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God by virtue of sharing the same essence (that is, Divinity, which essence there is none else of anywhere in or outside of the Cosmos).

(Orthodox theology relies heavily on a further distinction between God's essence and His energies, which are themselves a part of God, an idea which was developed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and further refined by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, but that's another story and we're not talking about that here )

If you start claiming that the relationship between husband and wife is like the relationship between the Father and the Son, you run the risk of saying that the Son is not equal to the Father if you don't have a robust understanding of the equality of husband and wife.

I think there is a way to untie this Gordian knot, however, and a way that this hierarchy can be lived out that isn't toxic and doesn't descend into rank misogyny, as Patriarchal systems often are and do. As in the article I linked above, I think that the Tradition is fairly clear that the Father and the Son are equal in terms of their sharing in the same essence, but they stand in a kind of relational heirarchy in which there is mutual love, but the relationship is one of begetting of the Son (eternally begetting, in fact) and obedience of the Son to the Father. So, I think, in marriage there is a hierarchy within mutuality that makes it so that the mutuality will make it so that the hierarchy is (ideally) never one which violates the dignity of the other or coerces her, as the Father's hierarchy never violates the dignity of the Son. Man and Woman both share the same essence (namely, the image of God), and so are equal and mutual, self-sacrificing love is demanded of each other, but there's still a hierarchy within that mutuality just as there's hierarchy within the mutuality of the Father and the Son.

[Tony]

Here's a Google search for Eternal Subordination of the Son to view discussions on both sides of the issue.

And, honestly, I'm not enough of a scholar to wade to deeply into this. But I will say that I'm leaning toward a less binary view of gender and roles these days.

[IsaactheSyrian]

It's worth pointing out that the position I've just articulated, which I think is in line with the teaching of the Orthodox Church, is going to be couched using nuances that a Reformed Protestant probably would not hit.

An awesome Orthodox treatment of this subject, related to the original thread, is the article I linked to in my point-by-point response to the Statement:

https://publicorthodoxy.org/2017/08/...-gay-marriage/

[athanatos]

I disagree with ESS, but those who affirm it (Grudem, Ware, and others) would never call this an inequality of dignity or ontological difference. They would deny this is any illicit subordination, nor that it is akin to what you're worried about Ryan. Instead, they would say basically what you affirm in the last paragraph of post #17.

That said, I would hesitate to say that differences in sex reflect differences in the divine persons. Here's a blast against ESS by a guy at 10th Presbyterian church in Philly
Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination? | MOS - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

[IsaactheSyrian]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I disagree with ESS, but those who affirm it (Grudem, Ware, and others) would never call this an inequality of dignity or ontological difference. They would deny this is any illicit subordination, nor that it is akin to what you're worried about Ryan. Instead, they would say basically what you affirm in the last paragraph of post #17.

That said, I would hesitate to say that differences in sex reflect differences in the divine persons. Here's a blast against ESS by a guy at 10th Presbyterian church in Philly
Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination? | MOS - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Ah, see. This is where the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity as perichoresis (the 'divine dance' spoken of as being the purview of egalitarians) would put us in the egalitarian camp, according to this author. We'd still affirm that there are elements of submission to the will of the Father, the Source of all Life - this is also part of the reason we deny the Filioque.

Also, I was mostly describing historical Subordinationists, like Basil of Ancyra and Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century, who actually were semi-Arians. Grudem et. al, to their credit, are careful to adhere to Orthodoxy in this matter.

[Almost Enough]

I noticed that while they mention self conception there is a huge lack of mention of social construction, social conception, and how gender identity is different throughout numerous cultures all over the world.

Am I missing something? This sounds like an American Evangelical pastor stating this for Americans. Is that what this is supposed to be limited to?

[mtlmouth]

Originally Posted by Almost Enough

I noticed that while they mention self conception there is a huge lack of mention of social construction, social conception, and how gender identity is different throughout numerous cultures all over the world. Am I missing something? This sounds like an American Evangelical pastor stating this for Americans. Is that what this is supposed to be limited to?

Good point, I hadn't caught that.

(Also, I do appreciate everyone's thoughts and resources on complementarianism, I just don't have a fully-formed thought in response yet.)

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Tony

Articles 1, 3, and 4 refer to an order of roles prior to the fall. Equal in dignity, but unequal in position. The endorsers of this statement would say the same about the Trinity, that Jesus will be eternally subordinate to the the Father. And because Jesus is always under the Father, woman will always be under man, even after this age.

I printed it out so that I could read it over the weekend.

I must be dense because I don't see where it says man and woman are unequal. It definitely says that they are different but still equal before God. I don't see anything saying that woman will always be under man either. What am I missing?

I don't know what each of the different endorsers believe concerning the eternal subordination of the Son but there isn't any of that in this document unless I am totally missing something and I confess...I very well may be.

[Giuseppe]

Read it. I seem to be in full agreement with the statement

[Becky]

You are all arguing about things that get away from the point- the way this "statement" is written, each article can be interpreted through the lenses of your own church world view. I would guess that is on purpose.

The problem with it is not if you agree with what's here or not. You can agree with every article (I mostly agree myself, but with nuances).

The problem is the statement itself is in direct violation of Preaching only Christ and Him crucified

It is focused on winning a culture war, rather then healing brokenness.

And article 10 is the crux of Christian snobbery:


WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Why are we so focused on sexual sin? Where is the outrage at the number of people who leave the church each year because they've been wounded? Where is the outrage in how many people are still living with the rejection of family a d friends, who just can't love them because they don't fit in with their "christian morals". Think about it. This WILL be used as an excuse to stop showing love to people who are considered sexually immoral.

This statement does nothing to further the gospel. All it does is show just how much more christians care about getting their religious morality known, rather then talking about how to show love and compassion to those who are hurting and different and unwanted.

And we wonder why christianity is associated with hate- can't you understand its not WHAT we believe, but HOW we believe it?

[Almost Enough]

I've been thinking about this recently.

As a person who works for a non denominational missions organization and as a person who attends a pretty conservative Evangelical church I've been concerned that this statement will come up in discourse between my church sponsors (elder board) and myself.

I will not sign or adhere to this document. To me it's superfluous and counter productive to the cross-cultural ministry in which I am involved. While it is not directly applicable, it just creates a whole new set of problems I have to navigate in order to fulfill my ministry description.

I may or may not agree with any or all of the statements put forth in this document, but the statement itself seems kind of irrelevant to me in terms of practicality, but It seems hostile to me in terms of theology in practice. In other words, I feel like I'm going to eventually be put in the place of voting for the lesser of two evils, just like our last presidential election.

While I completely endorse arguments over matters such as this and will fan the flame so that difficult subjects will be approached by all walks in our faith, I question the timeliness and the priority in consideration of our current state of affairs as a nation and as a whole world.

[bravesfan007]

One of the things that concerns me in some ways is the constant argument of "how will those that identify as LGBT and transgender see us" and "churches have had people leave due to the stance" arguments.

How do we reconcile their leaving and their feeling like they have no place with Scripture? How does that sit against 1 Corinthians 5? What about 2 Thessalonians?

I'm not saying the statement or the timing was right or wrong, but at some point the church has become concerned with not wanting to stand out. The problem is that we are supposed to be peculiar.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

One of the things that concerns me in some ways is the constant argument of "how will those that identify as LGBT and transgender see us" and "churches have had people leave due to the stance" arguments. How do we reconcile their leaving and their feeling like they have no place with Scripture? How does that sit against 1 Corinthians 5? What about 2 Thessalonians? I'm not saying the statement or the timing was right or wrong, but at some point the church has become concerned with not wanting to stand out. The problem is that we are supposed to be peculiar.

Perhaps this goes to what culture we sre all in.

More importantly however, is that you miss understood my statement.

I am talking not about people who have left over disagreements in lifestyle choices and scripture. I'm not saying this stuff shouldn't be preached in the pulpit. I'm talking about pastors who leave faith because of burnout and lack of christians supporting them. I'm taking about families leaving because the christians at the church were jerks. You talk about not wanting to shallow our faith, then we need to start loving each other in a way that is real, not a fake hi on Sunday. This goes to how we teach each other about depression, about loss, about divorce. About kindness. We need to read Jesus's words to the Pharisees and internalize them. Because we have become them. We care far more about our political presence and keeping our outer faith clean, then we do about loving people. This IS caring more about observing the sabbath then healing people on the sabbath.

No where in scripture does it say "they will know them by their faith" or "beliefs" or "courage to boldly proclaim people as sinners".

We are to be known by our love. And yes Christians are associated with hate. And for real reasons. Because real christians do hate, and do shun, and do ignore. The world doesn't hate us for what we believe. They hate us because we're jerks who care nothing about people.

This document is not a private church document meant to strengthen the church privately within our selves. Don't kid yourself, this is a political statement, and has nothing to do with bringing the church closer to God's will.

Its not about changing or not sharing what we believe, its about the reasons we do it, and how we treat the people around us regardless.

[Leboman]

I guess the apostle Paul was guilty of preaching something other than Christ when he wrote:

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. - 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (NIV)

Was Paul being too focused on sexual sin?

There is nothing I read in that document that declares hatred towards anyone. If people want to interpret the declaration of biblical values as hatred then the problem is not with the ones making the statement.