Today, in Part II of our series on the eternal subordination of the Son, we begin making a biblical case for the eternal functional authority/submission structure within the Godhead. Again, this summary draws heavily on former CBMW President Bruce A. Ware's 2006 address at the Evangelical Theological Society national meeting, "Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles." The biblical case begins with three points from Ware.

1.  The subordinate relationship of the Son to the Father is seen in the Bible's use of the names "Father" and "Son." John 3:17 depicts God the Father sending His Son into the fallen world on a rescue mission to redeem it. Similarly, Heb 1:1-3 teaches that God the Father creates and reveals and redeems through his Son.

Most certainly, as Ware points out, these names are not merely a provisional arrangement for the incarnation, but they reveal an eternal relationship in which the Father is the eternal Father of the Son. Further, Jesus said often throughout His ministry that He came down from heaven to do the will of His Father (John 6:38); thus, a central part of the notion of ‘Father' is that of fatherly authority.

Malachi 1:6 indicates such a connection between ‘father' and authority: "`A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?' says the LORD Almighty." Writes Ware, "God as Father is rightfully deserving his children's honor, respect, and obedience. To fail to see this is to miss one of the primary reasons God chose such masculine terminology generally, and here the name ‘Father' particularly, to name himself."

2.  The Father exercises rightful authority over all things. It is God the Father, not the Son or the Spirit, who is said to have grand authority over all things. Some texts that clearly demonstrate this truth include Psalm 2, which displays God's rightful jurisdiction over the nations and over all human kings. Likewise, it is the Father who installs His Anointed One, His Son, as the final Regent to reign over the world.

The words that open the Lord's prayer in Matt 6:9-10 are also instructive: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus specifies that the prayer be made to the Father and asserts that the Father is over all.

Finally, Matt 11:25-27 specifies that the Father has determined to hide his revelation from the wise and intelligent and reveal it instead to infants. His authority, then, is supreme, including authority over those who will come to understand the teaching of His Son. It is also the Father who will give and draw all those who will come to the Son in salvation (John 6:37,44). Even in the last time when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus Christ as Lord, they will do it "to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:11). The Father, then, is understood as supreme over all, and in particular, He is supreme within the Godhead as the highest in authority and the One deserving ultimate praise.

3.  The Son submits to the Father in His incarnate mission. This is both obvious and generally undisputed. The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus lived His life in submission to the Father in his incarnate life and ministry. John's gospel demonstrates this truth, showing particularly Jesus's constant desire to do His Father's will and to obey His Father (John 8:23, 28-29). Jesus here says that He does nothing on His own authority. Ware writes in summary, "The level of Jesus' submission to the Father, then, is complete, comprehensive, all-inclusive an absolute. There are no exceptions to his submission and obedience, for he never once sins at any point throughout all his life."

Tomorrow: Part III of the biblical case for the eternal subordination of the Son.

For further study:

• Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles & Relevance (Crossway).
• Bruce A. Ware, "Tampering With the Trinity," audio address; print version.

What is the doctrine of the "Eternal Subordination of the Son" and why is it important for the gender debate?  How is this doctrine different than the heresy of "Subordinationism" that denied the full deity of all three persons of the Godhead and was rejected by the early church councils?  Most important, what does the eternal subordination of the Son show us about the character of God and what effect should this truth have on our hearts and relationships today?

This week, Gender Blog will examine the basic assertions of this doctrine from biblical/theological, historical and pastoral angles. Today, I want to briefly state the doctrine itself and argue that it is a crucial biblical teaching that must neither be shunted aside as "too cloaked in mystery to deserve consideration" nor rejected as heretical.

This series will make use of several sources, with the centerpiece being a paper on the topic delivered by former CBMW President Bruce A. Ware at the 2006 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society national meeting in Washington, D.C.

First, in the tradition of the best of the English Puritans, let us state the doctrine:

The eternal subordination of the Son means that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, equal in essence and in eternal divine nature with the Father, that the Father exercises eternal authority over the Son in function, and the Son eternally submits to the authority of the father. 

To quote Ware in summary, "There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son."

This doctrine is rejected by some scholars, including many who hold the egalitarian position regarding gender roles in the home and church, but it is has been affirmed among many evangelical scholars and teachers throughout the history of the church as will be seen later in the series.

But why is it important? Doesn't this idea fit into a similar category as determining the number of angels able to dance on a pinhead?

As Ware points out in his 2005 book Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles & Relevance (Crossway), this doctrine is crucial because it tells us much about the nature of God, which, in turn, demonstrates how God intends that His triune nature be expressed in our human relationships. There is both unity and diversity, authority and equality in the Godhead; these transfer to our relationships within both the home and church and paint a beautiful picture of Christ's redeeming love for His church (Eph 5).

Above all, the teaching is important because, as we will see in the following two parts of this series, it is taught in God's Word. Evangelicals cherish the Reformation principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") as their sole foundation for epistemology (how we know what we know), and thus, are bound to joyfully affirm all that the Bible affirms. That factor alone is reason enough to classify this doctrine as important for further study.

One of the primary goals of the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was to define the complementary roles of men and women.  In the evangelical gender debate this statement has delineated a defensible complementarian position based on biblical authority.  Twenty years later, people on both sides of the issue at least recognize that the battle lines are clearly drawn.

Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson is a distinguished New Testament scholar and explained his position in an article on homosexuality and the Church.  He teaches at Emory University, a theological school of the United Methodist Church, which has the mission to train church leaders "grounded in the Christian faith and shaped by the Wesleyan tradition of evangelical piety, ecumenical openness, and social concern."  Unfortunately, Emory rejects biblical authority, supports the ordination of women, and seeks to be at the forefront of institutions valuing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.

In the article, it is clear that Dr. Johnson understands his opponents, "For them, the authority of Scripture and tradition resides in a set of commands, and loyalty as a matter of obedience.  If the Church has always taught that same-sex relations are wrong, and the Bible consistently forbids it, then the question is closed."  He clearly understands the biblical text, "Accepting covenanted love between persons of the same sex represents the same downward spiral with respect to Scripture, since the Bible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrally about same-sex love."

Dr. Johnson is straightforward about why he supports same-sex marriage:

I think it is important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.  And what exactly is that authority?  We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.

He is also realistic about the basis for his position, "We are fully aware of the weight of Scriptural evidence for pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts."

I respect Dr. Johnson for his specificity in articulating the foundation of his position in favor of same-sex marriage, but I fundamentally disagree with his conclusion.  I am grieved for the Church and am alarmed by the deteriorating definition of marriage in our culture.  Nevertheless, I am grateful for God's sovereign control over history, for the pastors and scholars who labored to provide the Danvers statement to the church, and for the partners who are standing with CBMW for biblical manhood and womanhood.

Intentionality in raising boys to be men in accordance with Scripture has never been as crucial as it is in today's postmodern culture.

CBMW board member R. Albert Mohler Jr. recently examined this issue from a unique perspective on his daily radio show radio show: Mohler interviewed Col. Shane Blanton, who serves as president of Chamberlain-Hunt Academy, a Christian military boarding school in Port Gibson, Mississippi. Blanton is himself the father of four sons.

Established in 1879 on the bank of the Mississippi River, Chamberlain-Hunt Academy includes students from a spectrum of backgrounds across the United States. Boys are challenged with a rigorous academic program and learn military discipline.  The purpose is to train boys to become men who live out a comprehensive worldview to the glory of God.

Chamberlain-Hunt Academy is unswervingly committed to providing its cadets with daily structure. Students rise at 5 a.m. and participate in classes, chapel and physical activities until 9 p.m. Blanton said the cadets get 30 minutes of free time each evening, but even that brief time is used for substantive purposes. Structure is crucial for the maturity of boys, he said, adding that structure and accountability need to be instilled in boys from a young age. "We are men under authority under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and it needs to be reflected in everything we do," according to Blanton.

The dialogue between Mohler and Blanton provided keen insight into the importance of intentionally pointing boys to Christ and training them up in a robust, biblical manhood. Mohler pointed out that every Christian family, whether it includes boys or not, must be concerned about the manner in which boys are raised. 

Said Mohler, "If you do not make it an identifiable, prioritized, issue, then it is something that will fall through the cracks. Every family had better think about this. If you do not have boys but have girls, you'd better be thinking about the young men that they will date and marry. In your local church you had better be giving high profile attention to the raising of boys.

"In this day of broken homes, one of the most important things that churches can do is to make certain that we are fathering the fatherless so that there are some opportunities for boys who may not have fathers in the home to have fathers in the home of Christ and the church where they can find some leadership, some mentoring, some models. The difficult issue is the whole issue of discipline because we are reaping in this culture what we have sown for so long."

Blanton said the greatest dilemma facing boys today is the all-too-widespread reality of the absentee father.

"Where are the men?" Blanton said. "As Christians, are we doing what we should be doing? Are we praying? Are we in God's Word? Are we setting an example in front of our own sons, in front of the sons of other men? Are we leading by example?

"General Patton said that there is only one type of discipline and that's perfect discipline. We know that to be true because God says He disciplines those He loves. If we consider ourselves sons of God are we setting that example for young men to follow? I would say that it is lacking."

There is no substitute for a man's direct involvement in the life of a boy, Blanton said.

"Fathers must be consistent and be involved in the lives of their sons," he said. "I think we need men to be involved in the lives of boys. That is key. We need men to be involved, not that mothers are not important-they are an essential part of that family makeup-but boys need men to become men."

[Dr. Shawn Wright is a history professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and in this post is critiquing a paper that was presented by Dr. Mimi Haddad, the president of Christians for Biblical Equality.  You should also know that Shawn is an elder and teacher at Clifton Baptist Church (which he helped plant a decade ago), a humble husband and loving father of five sons.  -- David Kotter]

I have two responses to Mimi Haddad's paper which I was happy to hear at the most recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.  One of my points is positive, but the second is a critique of Haddad's argument.

First, I appreciated being reminded of God's remarkable work in the nineteenth century.  The 1800's were a period of incredible growth and activity amongst Evangelicals in America and Britain.  Missions agencies-both domestic and foreign-and benevolence societies of all sorts grew and prospered and dramatically impacted the world.  We should praise God for this advance of the gospel.  Among other things, we should thank the Lord that he chose to use many remarkable women to accomplish some of these things.  Haddad's paper was a helpful reminder of this fact.

Nevertheless, I think there was a severe weakness to Haddad's "Since A, then B" argument.  She attempted to prove that since women led in some important ways in the Evangelical movement in the past, we should encourage women to assume leadership in our churches and ministries today.  Without nit-picking about the details of the nineteenth century (What were the relative numbers of women leaders vs. men leaders anyway?  Lottie Moon impacted Southern Baptists without ever being placed in a position of leadership on their missions agency, right?), here is my major concern with Haddad's argument.

We must remember that the Bible is authoritative; history isn't.  We must always eschew the fallacy of looking back in time to follow the doctrine that our favorite theologian formulated or to adopt a methodology that "worked" at some previous time.  As a church historian I remind my students of this all the time, for this is the danger of those who love and value history.  "John Owen said it, so it has to be right."  "William Carey did it, so it must be biblical."  Right?  No.  We must humbly learn from sisters and brothers who loved Christ before us.  That is, in my opinion, one of the great reasons to study history.  But the only touchstone of our faith and practice is God's inspired word, the Bible.

All evangelicals should agree that the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is the only inerrant guide for our beliefs and church practices.  Haddad argues, though, that we should seek to base our ministries on the example of women's roles in the nineteenth century (which is not as strong an example as Haddad implies), rather than tackling the teaching of texts like 1 Tim 2:11-15.  This is a dangerous course.  If we follow it, we are in danger of abandoning the Protestant principle of sola scriptura in favor of Roman Catholicism's view that God guides us through both Scripture and as the Holy Spirit leads the church to fuller revelation in her tradition.  Protestants should value and learn from the tradition of the church.  But we must always critique that tradition biblically.  On the basis of the Bible's teaching on women's roles, I don't think that Haddad's arguments from the history of the nineteenth century are valid.