No wonder women flocked to serve Jesus. He's just like them!

If anybody's still out there reading this, then let me apologize. I hadn't realized so much time had elapsed since my last post. In my defence, I can only plead busyness: a new job that requires me to work longer hours than my last one, studying to become a lay minister with my church, and my home life with my husband. Add to that traveling back to the States in November to visit my family, and the Christmas holidays. Looking back, it all seems a blur. Anyway, I wanted to comment on an issue that seems to be rearing its ugly head lately.

It's called "structural subordinationism" (hereafter shortened to SS), and basically it's the headship teaching applied to the Trinity. Jesus is subordinate to the Father, therefore women should be subordinate to men. Of course, the advocates of this belief try to dress it up a little by saying that Jesus and God have different "roles," but, as we'll see, they're basically advocating the subordination of both Jesus and women. As the immortal Mammy said in Gone With the Wind, "A mule in horse's harness is still a mule."

Now, despite the fact that I'm studying to be a minister, I actually hate theology. Sitting around having arguments about abstract concepts that only a handful of people understand (and most people have never heard of), bores me. I'm a down-to-earth woman, who likes to get to the point. (Dare I say I have a masculine brain? Perish the thought!) If you'd like an in-depth theological discussion of the issue, then by all means, help yourself. Here are a couple of excellent sites.

http://blog.cbeinternational.org/

http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/grudemcbmw-and-the-trinity-part-two/

Now, where was I? Ah, yes. The basic issue is this: are Jesus and God equal to each other in the Trinity (as I and most people I know were always taught), or do they have different roles? Here are a few thoughts that popped into my head.

1. Assuming that Jesus does have a different role, did He assume it voluntarily? If He did, then you've got a problem. You see, the whole concept of headship teaching is based on the idea that women have no choice. They are to fill a "different role" simply by virtue of the fact that they were born women. Obviously, then, if you're going to link headship and the Trinity, then the subordination of Jesus has to be non-voluntary.

2. So, Jesus did not voluntarily take on this "separate role." He simply is different. Always has been, always will be. The phrase I've heard used to describe this is "eternal immutable submission of the Son [to the] authority of the Father." (As quoted in CBE's blog.) I looked up "immutable" in a dictionary and it said "unable to change."

Now think about this, folks. Step back for a moment, shake your head to clear the fuzzy thoughts, and think. What we are saying is that Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe, is unable to change something about Himself. Just like women, Jesus is involved in a submissive, subordinate relationship based on the simple fact of who He is. Does this sound right to you? That the King of the Universe, who could raise people from the dead, make demons tremble, and who could conquer death Himself, is unable to say, "You know, I'm tired of being submissive. I'd like to change that now." What would happen if Jesus did say that? Would the Father punish Him, just like women are told they're rebellious and sinful if they decide they no longer believe in headship teaching? Because of course, in order for SS to hold up as an exact analogy to headship on earth, that's exactly what would have to happen. Are you comfortable worshipping this kind of God?

3. I wish I could take credit for this next point, but I can't. It's so good, though, that I just have to repeat it. (The original is on The Scroll. See #7 and my response under "The Meaning of the Son's Submission".) One of the reasons given as to why there has to be an overall authority figure, both in church and in the home, is that somebody has to lead. Somebody has to make the final decisions. If not, chaos will set in and everything will fall apart. I myself have seen this argument advanced in more than one interview with headship couples. So...does this mean that if there is no submission between Jesus and God, then They'll be disagreeing with one another? That nothing would get done because nobody will make a final decision? Is that why Jesus has to be submissive? And of course that raises even more questions. What if God makes a decision that Jesus doesn't like? Does Jesus simply swallow His feelings and go along because He has to?

Just one final note since this post is getting long. Can anybody provide evidence for the SS theory that does not come from a contemporary souce? I mean, Gruden claims that SS is the orthodox teaching of the church. So, can anybody quote any mainstream, orthodox sources that outline this idea before the 20th century? Or, like the idea of submission being found in the creation account, is this simply an interpretation imposed upon pre-existing ideas?

Ok, this will be my final note. I'm sorry, but I just thought of this. Since Jesus is modeling the submission that women are supposed to be following, does this make Him a Her? Or like her? Does Jesus have feminine characteristics? That would make sense, since God is called the Father. And since the Trinity is supposed to be modeling earthly marriages....


p.s. I'll go into why "separate but equal" really doesn't mean equal at all next time.