October 30, 2006
-
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Prov 29:7
On Saturday morning, I was thinking about this verse and praying over it, asking God to give me more concern for social justice and praying that He would bring Freedom to the oppressed. I feel like my prayers continue to be answered -- as even just this morning, I came across a post about the rampant sex trafficking in San Francisco -- the article is long but worth reading because this sexual slavery is happening literally in our backyard. I encourage you to read it, as reading brings about awareness, and awareness is seeing, and seeing causes feeling, and feeling inspires prayer, and prayer is a catalyst for action.
As another answer to prayer, this morning, a contractor came in to inspect some water damage in our home, and on finding out that I am "God's scribe", he shared with me that within the last five months, he and some others started a nonprofit organization to help the poor of Uganda. It was so encouraging talking to someone who has taken pro-active steps of faith to carry out justice. Their website url is "HeWillProvide." His testimony reminded me that the Lord will provide a way to bring about justice, and the average joe like me can take steps to do it. (Perhaps the International Justice Mission may be of service toward that end.)
In the last few weeks, I have felt a very distinct burden for women who have no voice because they have been unjustly silenced. It all started when Sam & I watched a video sermon we got as a wedding gift called "Marriage God's Way." Sounds benign, right? Well, we didn't get very far into to the sermon when we were startled with the speaker's adamant, "Ladies, in the chain of command, your husband is God to you. He carries the authority of God and you are to submit to him as if you are submitting to the Lord." He quotes the Eph 5 passage and said, "You see, ladies, if you are obeying your husbands as if he were God, then you are giving reverence to your husband (and obeying the Scriptures)." To the husbands, "Men, in the marriage relationship, you are the Savior...That's what headship is." He proof-texts the following arguments by using 1 Cor 11:3 (conveniently forgetting v. 11&12, of course, not to mention Paul's original intention in writing that entire section): "So there's God the father, God the son, the man, the woman, the children in this chain of command. If you abuse this chain of command, if you neglect the duties of this chain of command, then you are stopping the flow from the top, because the flow of authority, command and blessing, comes from the top, from the father to the son to the man and then to the wife. In other words you are cutting your wife off from the blessings of God. See, God created her in this role of serving her man." In other words, according to Michael Pearl's theology, there's a chain of command that God the Father is above Jesus the Son, so Jesus submits to the Father -- just as Husbands are above their Wives, and Wives ought to submit to their Husbands. His theology for the subjugation of wives to their husbands is based on bad theology.
What 'bad theology'? The claim to hiearchy of men over women based upon the hierarchy of Father over Son (1 Cor 11:3). But don't we all believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal? That would be correct theology. Incorrect theology says otherwise. But this is what the Bible says: the Father is not above the Son. God is not above Christ. They are one and the same in power and glory and honor and authority (Phil 2:5-11) (although distinct in 'persons'). In the same way, the man is not above the woman. The wife is not subordinate to the husband. They are both to "submit" -- to cooperate and give in to one another -- out of reverence for Christ (See Biblical basis from the following articles: Submission, Headship, Testimony, Overview).
And while it's true that some people can go along happily all their lives applying bad theology (Michael Pearl's wife seems to love being subject to her husband), it's difficult for me to stand by and watch God's truth being distorted. For the sake of all the other women whose voices have been snuffed out due to abuse of the Scriptures, I am burdened to seek and discover the truth and reveal it to as many people as I possibly can.
Comments (8)
i LOVE that verse...that resonates so deeply with me. when i was in china, i walked down a few streets that were literally lined with brothels. it broke my heart...
God is doing something in this generation even among non-believers. while i was over there, i met up with some old friends who are not believers that are seeing the need to step out and reach out to those who are poor and oppressed. through this, they are seeing that there is something more to "helping" others physically and are being drawn to seek God. it's quite cool.
"The claim to hiearchy of men over women based upon the hierarchy of Father over Son (1 Cor 11:3). But don't we all believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal? That would be correct theology. Incorrect theology says otherwise. But this is what the Bible says: the Father is not above the Son! God is not above Christ. They are one and the same in power and glory and honor (See Phil 2:5-11)."
Not so fast, Mary Ann. You're mixing up your definitions by being ambiguous and as a result are in the danger of eschewing a form of modalism that sounds sweet in the ear but is not quite. So, for clarification, I should say: Jesus Christ is distinct and an attribute of the Father as God's Wisdom. Ontologically they are the same. Functionally, the Son is subordinate to the Father. Functionally, the Spirit is subordinate to the Father. Functionality says nothing about value of the essence, for the essence of Jesus/God/Spirit are not lesser than the other.
But agree with the rest of what you wrote anyway for the speaker's poor exegesis.
Err... my modalism comment is incorrect. I retract that. Just ambiguous.
I think what Mary Ann meant was that Jesus and the holy spirit are both distinct from the Father yet they are ontologically equal and functionally equal to the Father. Jesus was functionally subordinate while He was on this earth because He chose to do so, but He has always been and is now functionally equal to the Father. Whether you believe in subordination within the trinity or not, we need to admit that this doctrine is a mystery and it's something that worths wrestling with. I suggest that everyone approaches this topic with a dose of humility, especially when non of us have spent years of our lives investigating and reflecting on this mystery.
BTW, I read the article regarding sex trafficking in SF. I couldn't believe that it's happening here in CA! It's sooo sad. I hope I can do something about it.
Thanks, Cindy, for helping to clarify what I meant! Yes, there wasn't enough room in my post to write up my complete understanding of the doctrine of the trinity, and that was why I referenced Dr. Giles' article. But to expound -- I don't believe in modalism. I do believe there are three distinct persons. And I believe that the three distinct persons are absolutely equal in power and authority. This is why the early church fathers came up with the Creed in Nicea in 325 AD and then added filioque "and the Son" in the council of Toledo in 589 AD; it was to make it clear that the three persons of the trinity are distinct and yet none are subordinate to the others.
This is not to say that I don't believe that Jesus was 'subordinate' to the Father ever, but I ONLY believe this was true when He was incarnate, when He was on earth in human form, and He did that in order to be the perfect sacrifice for our salvation. But that was temporary, not for all eternity. That is why in Phil 2, it says that He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. If He were not equal with God, there would be no mention that being human was the emptying of Himself, the making Himself nothing. However, AFTER He ascended, He was exalted to the highest place, name above every name.
We also have to remember that the usage of 'father' and 'son' are only metaphorical terms used in order to help us understand intimacy. But the reality of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son does not have a 1:1 correlation to our understanding or our earthly definitions of fathers and sons. Furthermore, in Jesus' time, the meaning of "sent" is also different from today's. Today, we think that the one who gets sent is lesser than the sender; we think of gophers, errand boys, and assistants. However, in that day, the one who was sent has the same power and authority as the one who sent -- in the case of a King and His Son, the Prince. THIS was the meaning intended. So given this understanding, we know that even Jesus as "the Son who was Sent" was not less or subordinate to the Father.
(:
Love you and miss you, MA - please e-mail me your new address. =)
May you continue to walk closely with Jesus and fall more in love with Him every day,
Janette
Very interesting
hmm. thats really interesting.
Comments are closed.