Is it a modern heresy with some very ancient echoes or am I in error?
I've posted a comment at Peter's blog, with a link to the debate in America, which at some point soon I hope to reflect on as part of a college project.
If anyone has any other resources which would inform this debate, please let me know.
It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first.- J.I. Packer in Knowing God (1973)
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth hasbeen given to me. …”- Matthew 28:18 (TNIV)How do we square this?
Women and men are complementary, this I am very sure about. They are equal. But does subordinate mean inferior? This is what I am wondering. Now, maybe inferior is the wrong word. How do terms employed like ontological, functional, eternal etc work in this debate? Can anyone fill me in on exactly what, in a nutshell, is proposed by Grudem, Packer, Ware etc?
The reason I think subordinationism, in its practical outworkings, feels like inferiority is that when I was doing research on the theology behind women bishops, I looked at Grudem and Rainey’s ‘Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood’. They describe how the ‘Biblical View of Submission …requires her to submit to him…, while no passage indicates that a husband should be subordinate to his wife.’ I think that in the casual exchange of the word submit for subordinate, significant problems lie. These two words are not synonymous because the former is theological and about ‘dying to self’, the latter is worldly, denoting inferiority.
I have no problem with the idea of Christian submission but I am a little suspicious about the idea of Christ’s subordination - something doesn’t add up because of what becomes its logical extension.
For example, John Piper has a list of jobs that are suitable for women and some that really are not - I find this very difficult and I don't think it's because I'm post-modern.