Spiritual Eugenics and COVID19

The Rodrigues Family and COVID 19

The Patriarchy Workshop 
       (Please scroll down at that link for Bibliography and rigorous discussion of the topic.)
Ethics Daily


Discussing Spiritual Eugenics on YouTube   
(It's apparently a 'real thing' now.)

• Ex-Christian.net
• Tri-State Freethinkers

Spiritual Eugenics in 'Multigenerational Faithfulness' in Patriarchy

• Ersatz Calvinist Replacement Theology
• More Social Darwinism (God only wants Christians and Dead-end Daughters)

Tweet

Corresponding with Voddie Baucham

Earlier this week, I received a very brief and pleasant email from Voddie Baucham, stating that he realizes that I did not mention him in my workshop in March 2008, declaring his apology. See this previous post. For me at this point, it seems to be a blanket apology that is very nonspecific and does not actually repent of the primary aspect of his online statement that I found offensive. I am grateful that the correspondence has been cordial and that I’ve been honored as a sister in Christ and not Jezebel, I cannot help but to also consider the potential that some of what has been written thus far might be damage control. Let me walk you through my journey thus far. Though I continue to correspond with Dr. Baucham (I think?) who has graciously invited me to call him Voddie, I actually find myself more offended, and it’s odd because the initial apology was more offensive than his online statement was for me because it does seem quite broad.

EDIT:  The original post in question which first appeared on Baucham's site can be read HERE, as someone felt it was worth preserving.  I cannot find it on the internet archive anywhere.

Tweet

Just to Be Certain about Voddie Baucham and the Patriarchy "Rant"

The more that I consider this quote from Voddie Baucham, the more I am amazed at his unfounded claim regarding my apologetics workshop, “The Development and Practice of Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease,” that I presented in early March, 2008.

This, coupled with the release of Family Driven Faith, and planting Grace Family Baptist Church, set off a chain of SBC events that would culminate in the SBTC Youth Ministry Forum, and (some would argue) the recent “Patriarchy” rant at xxxxxxxxx Seminary by Cynthia Kunsman. [Blog host note: Link to the complete video HERE.]

Just to be abundantly clear about the content of my workshop and to be certain that I’d not forgotten any material that may have referenced Voddie Baucham or his book, I just completed a more extensive review of the transcript of the workshop itself, the powerpoint presentation and the bibliography. My findings are detailed below for anyone so interested.

Tweet

Southern Seminary Guilty by Association or a Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

I recently received some indirect feedback from a reporter regarding the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s response to the patriarchy workshop I presented in March ‘08 at an unnamed Southern Baptist Seminary. Because the apologetics organization for whom I spoke would not disclose to me who protested the lecture, I told the reporter that I had absolutely no information to indicate that anyone at SBTS had any knowledge of me or my lecture. I was told by a reporter they were well acquainted with the workshop and had reviewed the online video. I was also made aware that Russell Moore and Bruce Ware offered a whole litany of purely personal ad hominem abusive comments against me that had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the presentation.

Tweet

Theological Name Calling?

When Spiritwatch Ministries notified me that they had revised my Video Lecture on Patriarchy, I checked to see if the tag at the end of the video had also been altered. Scanning to the end of the video, I stopped at a point where a gentlemen (the president of the unnamed apologetics organization) makes a comment that caught my attention in a way that it had not previously.


When the organization became "concerned" about the video and the ramifications of the material contained therein, the term "name calling" entered the discussion at two specific points. Though I have strong opinions about the nature of these teachings, and especially in that forum, I assume that people perceive that I have called certain teachers and organizations "heretics" as this term was a major point of discussion in the Question and Answer Session following the lecture.

Tweet

Disappointing Lack of Accountability in Christian Apologetics

I’m amazed at the technology that we now have available and how difficult it is to erase history from the internet.

A Google web alert notified me of a comment by John Morehead, an apologist with a special interest in new religious movements. In a past blog post, he alludes to the writings of Douglas Cowan and his criticisms of what Morehead describes as “form of reality maintenance” in counter-cult apologetics movements.

Tweet

Militant Fecundity in the Southern Baptist Convention?

An acquaintance of mine recently contacted the unnamed apologetics organization that issued a recent disclaimer about my presentation, asking why their comment was so vague. Apparently, I was expected to speak only about the individuals within the formal so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement, and that my citation of a few Southern Baptist seminary professors who hold to these same views as an influence on the patriarchy movement was "misinformed, unwarranted and faulty." Actually, they called my statements "accusations." (I was quoting the professors and other authors who critique them, so I fail to see how such amounts to an accusation.)

Tweet

Drawing Lines in the Sand Regarding Trinity and Gender

I’ve received all kinds of email today from a variety of people alerting me to two Dallas newspapers that have written about my patriarchy workshop and the unnamed apologetics organization’s disclaimer.

I find it ironic because I solicited none of this attention. I’m not sure if this article appeared in print or not, but the Dallas Observer published a web article by Julie Lyons entitled “Baptist Seminary President Says Women Shouldn’t Teach Men.” (Please visit and note a clarification that I make in the comments section. I am attributed with stating that contraception is never prohibited, but I have only ever stated that it is the official and formal position of Vision Forum Ministries that birth control is “strongly discouraged.” Please refer to the video presentation for clarification as well.)

Just this morning, Jeffrey Weiss of The Dallas Morning News posted a religion blog article entitled “Is Jesus subordinate to God and if so, how, and if so, does that mean that women are subordinate to men?”

Approximately thirty minutes later, Denny Burk of the CBMW posted this response:

I am the editor for the Journal of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, so I follow these discussions pretty closely. The issue of women's roles is inextricably bound up with how we view the Trinity because the Apostle Paul likens male headship to God's headship over Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3). Thus when you read evangelical literature on the "women's issue," debates about the nature of the Trinity abound. 

There are two views that prevail among evangelicals: Complementarianism and Egalitarianism. Both of these group believe in biblical inspiration (and in some cases inerrancy), but they differ dramatically over what the Bible teaches on this question.
For an overview of the two viewpoints, you can get oriented here: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions. 

Thanks,
Denny Burk

I wonder why Denny Burk didn’t mention the more specific points of his belief system in this comment? As was once available on the CBMW website, Denny Burk gave an address to the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003 where he argues that though found in the form of God, Jesus was not equal with God: From Denny Burk’s address

to the Evangelical Theological Society, 2003:

Clip One "I would like to propose an interpretation that allows for equality with God to be a reality that is distinct from the form of God. What I mean is that although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not want to grasp after being equal with God. That is, although He was in His essence, God, he did not want to become equal with God in every respect…" 

Clip Two “The form of God is something that Jesus possesses by virtue of His deity while the equality with God is not.” 

Clip Three “In His pre-existent, Trinitarian fellowship with the Father, Jesus decided not to go after equality, but to go after incarnation.”

Denny Burk and other speakers and contributors to CBMW do not just maintain that gender roles are inextricably bound to the Trinity, but many of their contributors believe that Jesus is of lesser authority than the Father. Denny Burk takes this further actually state that Jesus is not equal to the Father, and that Jesus was essentially “growing” into His Deity through time. Equality with God and the incarnation are mutually exclusive attributes that required a permanent choice on the part of Jesus.

Thanks to Cheryl Schatz for providing these audio clips of the pertinent statements from an ETS lecture that CBMW removed from their downloadable resources.

Tweet

"Eve the Destroyer"

I was recently contacted by Ethics Daily who asked me to comment on my response regarding the request of the unnamed apologetics organization to take my presentation about patriarchy offline. I commented about my thoughts and reaction to the whole matter. Feel free to read more about it at Ethics Daily.com.


Apparently more than a few people have read about this issue before I was asked by the unnamed apologetics organization to remove their name and the name of the unnamed seminary that hosted the conference. I agreed to take down these names from my writings, but unfortunately for those who would "like to pretend as though the workshop never occurred," I did not agree to remain silent about the greater issue and what one has called the "jackbooted thuggery" to which I've been subjected. (The disclaimer offered by the unnamed apologetics organization deemed me "misinformed," a statement that others and I myself believe lacked Christian charity and integrity given the context of the situation.)

But Why Not Concern over John MacArthur?There has been much concern over my citing of Bruce Ware's beliefs about the Trinity and how the ETERNAL Subordination of Jesus relates to women (versus the functional/economic subordination as was necessary for the unfolding of the kenosis of Christ). But.


Here are some examples of John MacArthur's statements about women and sin entering the world through Eve:


High Calling of Women, pt 4

“The weakness of a woman is that she needs a head.”
“No daughter of Eve should follow the path of Eve and lead to tragedy by entering into the forbidden territory of rulership that was intended for man.”

“And the intent of what the Word is saying here is that a woman needs protection, that she has a certain vulnerability. She was designed with the need for a head. She was designed for the need for a leader. She was designed with the need for a protector and a savior.”


The Creation of Woman

“So that the male was given the dominion and authority over God’s created world, and by that fact is the reflected glory of God. In other words, he bears the role of ruler in this world. The fall didn’t change any of that. The man still bears the authority after the fall.”


The Subordination and Equality of Women

“The woman is the submissive one by creation and by virtue of her weakness in the fall that she confirms her submissive role.”

“It’s because of creation. It is the way God intended it from the beginning.”


The Role of the Godly Woman

“The origin of woman and her need for being is God’s clear statement that man is in authority and she is in submission.”


The Curse on Man: Part 1

MacArthur says that God blamed Adam for sin entering the world because he was the head, although the source of sin came from Eve. (this contradicts ! Tim 2:14)


Confrontation in Eden

“Eve was created to be led by Adam”

“She was created by God for a wonderful purpose, to be his true helper.
She became his destroyer. She was created to be lead by Adam.
She became Adam’s leader with disastrous results,”

God’s Pattern for Wives, Part 2

“A woman is saved from the stigma of having lead the race into sin as Eve did.”

Who exactly is it that I am misrepresenting? Exactly how have I misrepresented them? For citing a book author and another seminary professor's estimation of these teachings? For saying that "I have a problem" with these teachings? It appears that I am not the only one who finds some inconsistencies in the manner in which this matter has been addressed.

Tweet

Contemplating the Trinity

[Revised February 2019]

Please visit the new Under Much Grace companion site which presents an apologetic for the Trinity, demonstrating that I am not misinformed and have not made unwarranted statements against Bruce Ware and other notable subordinationists.  Such was the opinion of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions when the Southern Baptists decided that they didn't like what I had to say when I delivered the peer reviewed presentation in March of 2008.

I would think that with a simple reading of Bruce Ware and others who are affiliated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would build my case for me, but I am apparently mistaken. I expect Biblically literate Christians to quickly identify the problems with these teachings that claim that Jesus has less power and authority by stating that God the Father has supreme authority which supersedes that of the Son.

I have listed some recent Blog Articles and have begun to work on refuting problematic passages from Bruce Ware's work, but this will take some time for me to get through due to time constraints and due to the frustrating nature of the topic. It is very emotionally disturbing and makes for much grief as I go through these things. Currently, in the section pertaining to Bruce Ware's book, I only display the passages that are problematic for me in terms of sound Bible doctrine. I hope to revisit this and add my observations and refutations. It seems that Augustine has done all my work for me, but it is just a matter of typing these things out and evaluating them. But it is quite frustrating and will take some time.

There is a new web directory at the very bottom of the archive site called "Against Subordinationism" which contains several single pages in that subdirectory addressing different aspects of this debate. Most are still in development but have some information.

Please review the index here and follow embedded links to the archive site:

Introduction

When I last spoke to the President of the ENMR apologetics organization in April of 2008, I was told that I should consider posting information online that corroborates my information concerning my citing of Bruce Ware's teachings on the Trinty within a Workshop I presented at MBTS in March of 2008 concerning the Patriarchy Movement.

At the time of this writing (Mar 09), Dr. Ware serves as a theology professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and is an avid advocate for the Theory of the Trinity NOW known as the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS). Ware argues that the Father has a supreme position within the Trinity, the logical conclusion or understanding of which suggests that Christ the Son would by necessity have a non-supreme position within the Trinity. Ware also teaches that the Father has supreme authority within the Trinity, and as a consequence, the Son is constrained by virtue of the Father's greater will, therefore because of the hierarchical structure perceived within the Trinity, Christ must always do the will of the Father.

Ware maintains that this relationship was not a function of the kenosis and Christ's incarnation, but was the Son's ETERNAL state from before time and for all eternity: the Father commands and the Son obeys, and thus there is a template for human relationships found within the very Trinity itself. Notably, Dr. Ware mantains that only the Father hears and has the authority to answer prayer, so it is a point ambiguity and of some error if we pray directly to the Son who only has authority to deliver prayers to the Father. Subsequently, the Holy Spirit follows hierarchically and is subordinate to the will and authority of the Father and the Son.

An author, Kevin Giles, an Anglican Vicar and Bible Professor in Australia has written two books critiquing Bruce Ware's teachings, arguing that by requiring a lesser authority than God the Father with the related constraints as specified in the theory, Ware has inadvertently fallen into a type of Arian heresy. Giles argues that the subordinate role that Ware assigns to Christ defines the Son as ontologically subordinate, of lesser essence, than the Father. Christ then becomes something of a lesser God which is inconsistent with Biblical orthodoxy.

The issue became an interest of my own related to the patriocentricity and the patriarchy movement because the advocates of this movement appeal to the this hierarchical view of the Trinity in order to support their hierarchical view of gender. As God the Father rules and reigns over the Son within the Trinity, so human fathers and husbands should likewise reign over and care for their familes, particularly over their wives. Women are to likewise look to Christ as an example, submitting unto their husbands in a manner like unto the Son's submission to the Father. Women are also defined as ontologically subordinate to men, because the advocates of this belief system maintain that woman is only the "indirect" or "derivative" image of God, because the substance from which she was created came from man and not from the earth. From this foundational belief, many aberrant beliefs spring including "militant fecundity" (a type of "spiritual eugenics" by which Christianity advances through demographics), physical discipline of wives, and other rigid limitations on vocations, occupations and roles for women.

During the 2008 counter-cult apologetics workshop I presented, I cited the ESS theory and Bruce Ware as the individual I identified as the most vocal advocate of the theory, very briefly mentioning Giles general argument as a matter of record. I also spoke critically about the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as the other most active vehicle for advancing the concept of the ontological subordination of women and an hierarchical view of genders as opposed to mutual submission within marriage. Dr. Ware is also quite active within the CBMW organization. The Southern Baptist Seminary community reacted quite intensely and negatively to my citing of these teachings as contributing factors to the abuses within the patriarchy movement, intensely offended that I found their teachings to be remotely related to the patriarchy movement, something a member of the press related that Ware and Dr. Russell Moore (Dean of Theology and SBTS) described as a "fringe" group.

The board of the apologetics organization, despite much ongoing requests for guidance from the president and the Board's approval which included the material addressing both CBMW, Ware, and what is now commonly referenced as ESS (it was not an accepted term at that time), they would no longer stand behind those aspects of my presentation or work. The Board declined to review any of Ware's abundant materials regarding the teaching, and I was advised to post a defense of my beliefs online.

So I am in the ongoing process of doing just that, though I originally planned only to present the sources, but I fear that people will just read them and have no change of heart. I also plan to add additional information concerning the implications of ESS, as I was cited for criticizing Ware later in 2008 for a June presentation he made in Denton, TX wherein he argued that men resort to domestic violence because of lack of submission on behalf of wives so that men have little other recourse.

I will continue to post additional information here pertaining to both the ontological subordination of women as well as ESS. I’m not doing so because I believe that I must “prove” myself in the wake of being unjustly maligned regarding the apologetics workshop, but because I wish to expose these teachings for what they are. I would have done so prior to the lecture that I delivered in March of 2008, but I never anticipated that the powers that be would have taken any issue with what I presented as it is factual, true and abundantly clear from the material!

 

~  CMK
updated 28Mar09

SECTION B:

Eternal Procession Does Not Equate To Eternal Priority

(A critique of Bruce Ware’s CBMW audio mp3 entitled “Tampering with the Trinity: How the Trinity Relates to Gender Roles,” a good overview of the problems with the view)

SECTION C:

Bruce Ware's "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" Book

(Long review of 2 chapters in Ware’s book on the topic with my own responses and quotes from several sources that conflict or contrast with Ware including James White, Calvin, Cary of CBE, Giles of CBE, and Augustine)

SECTION D:

Thoughts on the Theories of the Trinity

(Very thorough review of the theories of the Trinity from sources like Moreland and Craig’s “Philosophical Basis for a Christian Worldview,” an examination of the differences between Social and Antisocial Trinitarianism, A review of Leftow’s Trinity Taxonomy, and some correspondence with Robert K McGreggor Wright)

SECTION E:

Critique of the Concept of Divided Power and Authority Within the Trinity

(An article by Kevin Giles, hosted on the CBE website)

Tweet

Feedback About This "Jackbooted Thuggery"

Concerning the Patriarchy Workshop

and the (Very Few but Powerful)

Voices of Dissent:

I am overwhelmed at how kind everyone has been to me through this whole "disclaimer" process. I am very much at rest in the truth and at peace with what I have presented, though I am sorely disappointed in the lack of academic and just plain Christian integrity that I have seen as a result. I have been told by the spokesman for the unnamed apologetics organization that he himself cannot act as my advocate (neither for nor against the claims of the unnamed apologetics organization's politically motivated Board) because he has no personal knowledge of the teachings of Bruce Ware, the individual upon whom this controversy focuses. As he is overwhelmed with the investigation of the emergent church issue, he does not have any available time to review the teachings regarding gender and the Trinity. There are also political battles that certain individuals decline, and in the process, I have been declared to be in error without any evidence for that assertion.

Tweet

"Biblical Patriarchy" Controversy in the SBC?

COMMENTARY ON DISCLAIMERS Republished here from the Grace and Truth to You, blog of Wade Burleson Friday, April 18, 2008

And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?

For the last couple of years I have observed what I perceived to be professional mistreatment of women within the Southern Baptist Convention, all in the name of biblical patriarchy. Though I have no personal disagreement with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement that declares the office of pastor to be reserved for men, I have been puzzled by the removal of female chaplains and other women supervisors on the mission field, the lack of promotion of women to administrative positions in our SBC agencies, and the termination of SBC trained female Hebrew and history professors at our Southern Baptist seminaries. 

I have truly wondered about the root cause for such actions. What is the philosophical or theological premise that would lead some to exclude women from Southern Baptist positions for which they are either gifted, trained, or eminently qualified to hold? Cindy Kunsman offered a possible rationale when she spoke at the 2008 xxxx Conference, hosted by the xxxxxxxx Seminary. The leaders called this year's conference “xxxxxxxxxx” and gave to Cindy Kunsman the opportunity to examine the rise of extreme patriarchal behaviors within groups claiming to be both evangelical and Christian. Her lecture, entitled The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?, included a pre-approved handout, a power point presentation, and a question answer time which followed. Cindy is a complementarian herself. She states her personal beliefs on her blog where she writes:

Personally, I hold to a traditional, complementarian view wherein women . . . do not meet Biblical qualifications to be senior pastors or elders . . . but they certainly can minister as a members of pastoral staff(s).

The above statement is consistent with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. However, it is what Cindy said about the views of Southern Seminary's Dean of Theology Russell Moore, highly esteemed theologian and Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, The Council on Manhood and Womanhood and Paige Patterson that caused any reference to her presentation to be removed from the unnamed apologetics organization’s website, a change in the Executive Director leadership at unnamed apologetics organization, and a demand for disclaimers and retractions from Cindy.The press release distributed by the unnamed apologetics organization reveals the specific complaint against Cindy Kunsman:

Several people have contacted us regarding a presentation on "Christian Patriarchy" by Cynthia Kunsman at the unnamed apologetics organization’s national conference, held at xxxxxxx Seminary in March 2008. After reviewing her presentation, the board of unnamed apologetics organization and the administration of xxxxxxx Seminary concur that Mrs. Kunsman made unwarranted and misinformed accusations against Christian teachers and ministries, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention. While several aspects of the "Christian Patriarchy" movement (exemplified by Vision Forum) merit study and correction, in this instance the speakerʼs criticism of alleged "influences" on this movement was faulty.

Cindy said in her presentation that the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically Russ Moore, Bruce Ware, Paige Patterson, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have influenced the statement of faith, church practices, and strategies of Vision Forum Ministries and her controversial patriarchal pastor and leader Doug Phillips and the emphasis on Family Integrated Churches.

FOLLOW THIS LINK

TO THE REST OF PASTOR BURLESON'S

BLOG POST....

Tweet

Eternal Procession Does Not Equate to Eternal Priority

From Bruce A. Ware’s

Tampering with the Trinity:

How the Trinity Relates to Gender Roles

An Mp3 audio download from CBMW

(Quotes from the audio are 

displayed below in blue text)

Speaker Bruce Ware:

"But is it not obvious that Jesus said over and again throughout His ministry that He was sent to do the will of the Father -- over thirty times in John’s Gospel, this is the case… " "Clearly a central part of the notion of Father is that of Fatherly authority. Certainly, this is not all there is to being the Father, but while there is more, there certainly is not less or other. 

[Blog Host says “????”] The masculine terminology used of God throughout Scripture portrayed in masculine ways had authority over His people. 

"While the early church clearly embraced the full, essential equality of the three Trinitarian Persons, nonetheless, the church has always affirmed likewise the priority of the Father over the Son and the Spirit.

[Blog Host says “????” This is a logical leap of presupposition and an all inclusive statement that the speaker’s own definition is not even true of the “egalitarian feminist church.”] 

"Since this priority cannot be rightly understood in terms of essence or nature, -- Why? – Why does the Father not have priority in terms of essence or nature to the Son or the Spirit? Whose nature does the Son possess? The identically same nature as the Father. Whose nature does the Spirit possess? The identically same nature as the Father and Son. So this priority cannot be in terms of essence, because they are equal in essence more than my wife and I are equal in essence."

[Blog Host says: Certainly if, by the speaker’s own profession elsewhere, women are the indirect image of God!]. 

My wife and I are both image of God – we are both equal in essence but we’re equal as “same kind of things.” We’re both human beings, image of God. The Father, Son and Spirit are equal in essence because of identity. They have an identically same essence. Not just same kind – Same. Same essence. Okay?" 
"So. The early church fathers could not speak of priority in terms of essence, so it must be in terms of relationship. Not essence, but relationship. As Augustine affirmed that the distinction of persons is constituted precisely by differing relations among them, in part manifest by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son. This is most clearly seen in the eternal Father-Son relationship in which the Father is eternally the Father of the Son and the Son is eternally the Son of the Father."

[Blog Host says: But this is not assumptive or inextricably bound to hierarchy or an eternal command/submission paradigm but is a description of relationship that might not be characteristic of a father and son at all ages. Is Christ eternally a young, innocent who lacks wisdom and the shrewdness of experience? This statement neither supports nor denies an eternal, vertical hierarchy of authority. This is a logical leap of presupposition.]. 

But some might wonder, does this convey and eternal authority of Father and the eternal submission of the Son?" "Hear how Augustine discusses both essential equality of the Father and Son and the “eternal-functional” subordination of the Son. This is Augustine’s words now, quote:"  

"'If the reason why the Son is said to have been sent by the Father, is simply that the one who is the Father and the other is the Son, then there is nothing at all to stop us from believing that the Son is equal to the Father and con-substantial and co-eternal.' So they are both equal in essence and yet that the Son is sent by the Father not because one is greater and the other less but because one is Father and the other is Son. So it’s the relational difference between them not their essential difference.” 

[Blog Host says: But their essential difference is not limited to nor need it be defined by an eternal hierarchy. This is a logical leap of presupposition.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETERNAL PROCESSION DOES NOT EQUATE

TO ETERNAL PRIORITY

This was my thesis before I found the writing of Giles and the cry of my heart. I offer it here for those who call me misinformed. Bruce Ware is making three Gods of the One by shoving God into his own finite ability to understand and comprehend the infinite wonder of God – He who is so beyond the capacity of the creature who can only see in terms of human relationship. We know in part and see through the glass darkly, yet we rest in faith – that faith which God imparts through the miracle of spiritual discernment. 

We understand the relationship of Father to Son and Son to Father, and through the limitations of the analogy of being. We can only comprehend that which we know, for that which is greater than us is beyond our comprehension. James Sire discusses this at length in “Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling.” 

We can only describe what we know and have already comprehended, like A Square in Flatland. In finite terms, like a small child describing the wisdom of his parent concerning the most complex tasks of the human understanding of the adult, we come to the Persons of the Godhead with the limitations of our being, like Job when God asked him “Were you there?” I place my hand over my mouth before Him. (I am not willing to do so before those who subordinate my Savior, however.) 

It seems that Dr. Ware cannot comprehend God beyond a relationship of hierarchy and a vertical order of succession, but love, compassion, empathy and sacrifice can easily replace these hierarchy and roles. He offers the example of roles and relationships as the distinctions, and the distinctions are in such human terms that they demean the Lord Jesus, making Him much like a human child of a “supreme” Father. Yet he claims also that the Divine Persons are equal in all respects while in terms of authority and primacy he describes them as not equal at all. 

I assert that these anthropomorphic limitations confine the infinite, bound by the limits hierarchy. They are the Three in One, they cannot be Three apart from the one --neither in authority nor in essence. Our Brother Ware offers arguments and paragraphs of many sentences and builds an argument, but always, there is a sentence that leaps back into the presupposition of a hierarchy, that which is unrelated to the arguments. In my reading, these topics all begin with the a priori assumption of hierarchy and they end with it. There are some lovely prose and rhetoric in between. 

The Divine Three are not in fellowship and harmony of fluid dance in his view but are only in a performance-oriented perception in very human terms. He quotes absolutely sound statements of Augustine that acknowledge the con-substantial and co-eternal relationship of the Father and the Son and repeats their relationship to one another, but this neither supports nor disproves an hierarchy authority of performance-focused and role-focused value. 

It as if, to me, he says “The sun is warm and the day is clear therefore this proves that the sun is golden and the sky is blue.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

Each separate morsel of evidence offered is lovely and true unto itself, but they neither proceed to nor support his thesis in my reading or hearing. Ware offers Augustine to validate his thesis of human hierarchy, and I would use this very same statement of Augustine’s to support the relationships of the Father and Son in their fluid, mutual submission dance out of love and honor and respect within the very heart of God (Themselves) as the very nature of the Divine Three. 

It is, oh, so subtle, but this is man’s sophistry to me. Dr. Ware’s arguments contain many Scriptural principles and many true statements, but he cannot escape the presupposition of hierarchy that weaves these things together to support his initial presumption. He has not proven anything with Biblical evidence but has built an argument that, for me, is full of holes of eisegesis. He might well say the same of my view, but I am not risking the Deity of Christ Jesus in the process. Augustine wrote at the end of his preface as he endeavored to understand the Trinity:

“Let us hold fast to this rule, that what has not yet become clear to our intellect may still be preserved by the firmness of our faith.”

I do not have all the answers and only finite boxes into which to put them. But I have sufficient grace through the Word that God has written in my heart and mind by the Spirit and through the study of my Love, the Word. As Augustine’s own motto declares, I have “faith that seeks understanding.” I do not have understanding that then seeks to find faith which is the dilemma of the Christian existentialist, so prevalent in the church today. 

This human analogy is certainly lesser than the full realization of the mind and perspective of God, and I am like a small child on the lap of my Abba, the Mind of the Ages. I will not, as I believe Van Til once described, dare to presume to crawl up on His lap and proceed to slap Him in the face. 

I offer here another quote of Augustine that transcends the anthropomorphic concept that Jesus is one with no authority to hear prayer, who by role and relationship is like a mere “special purpose God,” powerless to do anything other than that which He is hierarchy-bound to do. I fall prostrate and undone before the Holy, Holy, Holy Throne, in awe of Him, of That which is joyfully beyond my finiteness but yet still my substance and evidence through faith.

From Augustine's preface to Book 8 , De Trinitate

Thus the Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God;
The Father is good, The Son is good, The Holy Spirit is good,
And the Father is omnipotent, The son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; But yet there are not three Gods,
nor are there three goods,
nor are there three omnipotents,

But one God, one good and one omnipotent,

the Trinity itself.

Tweet

The Apologetics of Gender Hierarchy

Among the many odd things that I have heard recently regarding the patriarchy lecture, I am confused by the comment that I’ve portrayed all complementarians as being in favor of slavery. ???

Tweet