The Gender Blog (if you can call it a blog since there are no comments) is beginning a series on the Eternal Sbordination of the Son, examining why this is an important doctrine and why it is not heresy. In general, I’m uncomfortable with the eternal aspect of this doctrine. But I’m also uncomfortable with some of the wordings in their introductory post as well.
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).
Now if this paragraph was worded just slightly different, I’d be much more comfortable. I don’t like words like this part:
[T]his 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.
I’d feel better if they didn’t say “this doctrine . . . tell us much abuot the nature of God.” They’d be on less shakey ground if they had instead written, “This doctrine is derived from texts that tell us much about the nature of God.”
A doctrine only tells us as much as its texts do. I’m interested in the series. We’ll see how they do in articulating the texts from which this doctrine is derived – especially since they’ve already mentioned Ephesians 5.
By the way, note that I used a singular “they” throughout this post. And I also understand why they don’t have comments, there are a good number of angry and loud people out there.