Like God Loves God

The whole story of creation, incarnation and our incorporation into Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the Trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this, so that we may grow into the whole-hearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves God. (Rowan Williams)

Losing the Self

Through the awful emptiness of absence, God is encountered. Slowly it dawns that losing the image is the prerequisite of finding the original. Losing your way is the very way of seeking God. This truth about the vision of God reveals another law we may not even be aware we are obeying: that to find our true Self we must lose our ego selves. To deepen a relationship we must let go of the other. Absence then imperceptibly transforms into the mystery of presence. (Laurence Freeman)

More Than a Feeling

Christianity disappears the moment it allows itself to be dissolved into a transcendental precondition of human self-understanding (Hans Urs von Balthasar)

Either/Or - Both/And

A task for Christian theology is to chart a course between the extrinsicism of blind faith and the immanentism of Gnosticism. We have to be able to perceive the revelation of God in Christ as a genuine revelation without reducing it to some kind of inner experience alone. The left and right of the church seem unable to hold this outer and inner together. In fact, I find that both the liberal extreme and the conservative extreme like to be either/or and find it very difficult to hold to a both/and. (This might seem surprising given how liberals like to think of themselves as open and comprehensive.) Another example of this either/or would be divine transcendence. Liberal theology dismisses transcendence as the God who is cold and distant, and the conservatives, in their well intentioned efforts to maintain the gap between God and creation, compromise the intimacy of the God-world relationship. Transcendence, correctly understood, holds both difference and intimacy together. This is not a call to create a theology that has no discernment of what should be included in it. More for a new effort to discover the traditional faith of the church which both liberal theology and the conservatives misuse.

The Superabundance of Salvation

This is why Paul (Rom 5:15-21) can say that the balance between sin and grace, fear and hope, damnation and redemption, and Adam and Christ has been tilted in the favor of grace, and indeed so much so that (in relation to redemption) the mountain of sin stands before an inconceivable superabundance of redemption: not only have all been doomed to (the first and second) death in Adam, while all have been freed from death in Christ, but the sins of all, which assault the innocent one and culminate in God’s murder, have brought an inexhaustible wealth of absolution down upon all. Thus: ‘God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.’ (Rom 11:32) Hans Urs von Balthasar

Sydney (and Others') Subordinationism

Anglicans in South Australia have an email list for news, events and some theological discussion. I recently put a link to my post on Sydney subordinationism
on sa-anglican and we had some good discussion. Here is my final reply:

Here is the theo-logic of the point I am making. [I understand you to be saying:]

· The relations are the being of God

· The Son is relationally subordinate to the Father

· And this is an asymmetrical subordination which you see as the consequence of the Father as source of Godhead

How then to prevent the subordinate relationship being predicated of the being (of God)? I know you don’t believe the Son is subordinate in being, but only subordinate relationally. But that is the point. Once the relations of Father and Son are separated from the being (your claim that relational subordination is functional not ontological) a fourth behind the persons is posited (the being of God, because being has been separated from the relations). Which is exactly why the Fathers said the relations are the being. It is not enough to say that subordination is divine. Of course, mutual subordination/ self-effacement/ and service are divine; that is not at issue. Within the Trinity if the relations of Father and Son are subordinate this has implications for the being of God. If what you are talking about is a mutual self-effacement within the Godhead, well, I wonder what all this has been about.

And finally, if the Son is eternally (and asymmetrically) subordinate to the Father, what are the implications for anthropology? Sydney is making the connections between doctrine of God and relations between men and women by claiming that, on the basis of the eternal functional subordination of the Son, women are functionally subordinate but ontologically equal. But my suspicion is that they have done it the other way. They have begun with their ideological oppression of women and played it back onto the doctrine of God. And that’s why it doesn’t work.

All those who believe the Sydney line should do this little exercise: make a list of the things that the subordination of women amounts to. Then apply this to the relationship between Father and Son eternally. And if the relations are the being, then how to stop these relations being predicated of the very being of God?

Depravity

A piece of traditional Christianity: Christianity believes that Jesus came to seek that which is lost, not that which has been destroyed.

The authentic Christian tradition has always condemned the doctrine that man (sic) is totally depraved as a heresy and a blasphemy. (E. L. Mascall)

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 4

Another irony of the contemporary church is the way in which a traditional faith is rejected by both right and left wings of the church. My theologically liberal friends know that I am anything but liberal. We have different theological methods, very different in fact, but end up in the same place on some of the big issues. I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, as well as in the efficacy of Christ’s death and bodily resurrection, and that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. I also support the full participation of women in the life of society and the church, and support the full integration of non-celibate homosexuals in the life of the church, which includes the office of bishop. My theological reliance on the traditional faith makes it harder to connect to the liberals, but because of my support of women and homosexuals I am suspect in the eyes of the right wing of the church too.

The problem for the reactionaries is that they think that all those who come up with different answers to the ‘great’ moral questions like homosexuality and sex outside of formal marriage are liberals. In comparison to some of them I suppose even someone as traditional as I am would seem liberal! This reminds me of an article in a Sydney evangelical newsletter about one of the bishop election synods we had here in Adelaide a few years back. The author, a Sydney evangelical here in Adelaide, was explaining to the folks back ‘home’ why the evangelicals in Adelaide vote with the Catholic conservatives at Synod. He said the reason was because the conservative catholics believe in the traditional doctrines of God and Christ, the bodily resurrection, the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross and the authority of Scripture. But hang on, I believe in all those things, but I’m not one of the catholic conservatives. Ignoring the strange and pragmatic understanding of truth here (the reason he was justifying that temporary alliance was because good evangelicals of the Sydney brand know that Catholicism is popery), it is important to realize that similar traditional theological methods can (and often do) come up with different answers. I suspect the reactionary wing of the church likes to class everyone who disagrees with them as ‘liberals’ because it is so much easier to dismiss your interlocutor if you believe their methodology is flawed. Reactionaries say things like “Liberals (read those who don’t agree with them) don’t believe in the Bible/bodily resurrection/etc.” But the real world of the church is unlike the picture promulgated by either left or right wings of the church.

The problem for the liberals is that thy do theology in reaction to the reactionaries, allowing them to set the agenda. The reactionary misuse of the tradition is no reason to reject it. It is in fact, a better reason to use it properly.

Most people are suspicious of the extremes, and rightly so. The problem is that those of us somewhere more in the middle don’t seem to be able to present an attractive alternative to the extremes. Perhaps being in the middle somewhere is like that, or perhaps we live in a society tending toward extremes. But I also suspect that those of us in the middle have to start to work harder at presenting the believable middle in a dynamic way and make plain the craziness of the extremes. The natural home for most people is that kind of dynamic middle.

Reciprocal Conversation

Please forgive the dated masculine language, but a quote from the great man:

“Man is God’s partner, and their reciprocal conversation ends with God himself becoming man.” (Hans Urs von Balthasar)

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 3

Another irony of the contemporary church is the way in which the liberal wing of the church is so utterly saturated with the core outcomes of the traditional faith, yet rejects the traditional superstructure of belief and doctrine that produced these core outcomes. The liberals want to say that justice is key to the Bible, that God, Jesus, life, the church and ministry is all about love, the church must be involved in the world, that judgement is more than meeting a fork in the road with two equally weighted alternatives, and that the God-world relationship is dynamic and relational, and that God is not distant and uninvolved (they call this distant and uninvolved God transcendent!). But all of these beliefs are the result of the traditional faith of the church. The problem with liberal theology is that it is never writing its own theology, just reacting to the right wing reactionaries. Liberalism loves to put up straw figures that are easy to blow down, claiming that the straw figure is traditional Christianity. (Bishop Spong is the great exponent of this methodology.) And then, having dispensed with the traditional superstructure, thinks that its innovations are the true interpretation of the faith. The funny thing is that so much of the innovation is cultural residue from the triumph of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity won the battle of the religions and philosophies in making love the very being of God. This is why today almost everyone in the West thinks love is the most important thing in life. The doctrine of the Trinity ensured that the West would take personal rights seriously. The doctrine of the Trinity made God’s relationship of the world dynamic and relational, fully involved, and did this by saying that love is possible because God is transcendent. The doctrine of the Trinity and the God-world relationship behind it allowed the rise of western science because it gave creation its own integrity and being. And you don’t need process theology to have a doctrine of God that allows for divine involvement, personal integrity and freedom of human beings, and a salvation that honours that freedom. The Incarnation and the Trinity do all of this and more, and do it better.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 2

For whatever reasons, the West (not just the church) has for at least a couple of millennia seen sex as either the great point of salvation or the great threat. Obsessively so. Most of us would agree that sex is a powerful force in human society and the individual. Of course. But the West has obsessed over sex’s potential to destroy or bring fulfillment to the extent where sex becomes the panacea for all ills or invariably the point of destruction (eternal or otherwise). For example, the alleged bourgeois repression of sex in nineteenth century Europe was nothing of the sort. People, or should I say men, obsessed over sex. Whether it was the sexuality of women or children masturbating, sexuality was seen as the great source of corruption of the family and society as a whole.

This leads me to the second great irony of the contemporary church. Many Christians, and most churches, have capitulated to this cultural norm. The church is obsessed with sex. On one end of the spectrum we have those who think sex is the panacea of all ills. This takes many forms: a spiritual director whose standard approach is to enquire about the directee’s sex life; or the priest who ignores his own self-indulgent sexual habits because they are irrelevant (allegedly) to ministerial integrity. On the other end of the spectrum the self-appointed guardians of sexual propriety within church and society, consigning gays, fornicators, etc., to hell, and while that destiny is cooking, at least kicking them out of the church after a satisfying witch hunt.

The irony deepens for those on the witch hunt end of the spectrum. Those on this end of the spectrum lambast those of loose sexual morals in the church as capitulating to the culture. That might be true, but what is certainly true is that they themselves, in obsessing over sex, have capitulated to one of the great cultural norms of Western society. Now that’s a bit funny.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 1

It is one of the ironies of the contemporary church that churches suspicious of, or that flatly reject, the traditional structures of the church have a tendency toward their own particular version of the straitjacket they believe they have rejected. The irony lies in the claim that they eschew the traditional structures to give voice to the freedom of the gospel or Spirit, yet can end up a good deal more narrow and exclusive. Traditional structures, for all their problems, often have embedded in them ways of including those who might otherwise be forced out, and provide sensible ways for participatory decision making and conflict resolution. For example, take many of the self-designated ‘Spirit-filled’ churches. These churches are often characterized by features antithetical to the Spirit. I include here the tendency toward uniformity and exclusion. And having leadership that is 'charismatic' seems to have just as much chance (if not more) of attracting and embedding craziness in leadership as traditional structures. Nepotism is virtually non-existent in traditional structures, but not so amongst Pentecostal churches. Recent church surveys suggest that pentecostal and charismatic churches that eschew traditional structures lack the means for sensible conflict resolution. It is more the case that if you disagree with the pastor you are out! The Spirit, contrary to this impulse of uniformity and exclusion, forced unanimity and erratic leadership, is the Spirit that gives diversity for the unity of the body and provides for the life of the church through structures that facilitate good decision making and inclusion. Well, sometimes anyway!

A Joy Deeper Than Misery

Victory, however, it is, and a real victory. The joy of Easter after all is founded on Christ's dereliction on the Cross and his abandonment in hell. For his abandonment was like the final testing of the unity of the Trinity, which as such is the fullness of joy. Not that the joy of the Divine Persons is an idle, self-indulgent kind of joy that they share in while the creature suffers; their joy penetrates deep into all the world's suffering; they share the expereince of its misery, but their joy proves deeper than all sense of abandonment. For God's action on behalf of lost humanity is so final that every reproach levelled against the providential ordering of the world is put to silence. (Hans Urs von Balthasar)

From Hospitality of Abraham and Sarah to Hospitality of God

Sermon for Pentecost 5, Year A, August 15, 2008, preached at Belair.

One of the Sunday readings yesterday was Genesis 18:1ff relating the visit of three figures to Abraham and Sarah to announce that God's promise to them that they would become a great nation would begin with the birth of a child in the near future. The visitation by these three figures was quickly seen in the Christian tradition as a biblical prefigurement of the Trinity. But many people find this a long bow to draw. But maybe not.

The birth of Isaac is the beginning of the fulfilment of the promise that through Abraham and Sarah all the families of the world would be blessed. Abraham and Sarah offer hospitality to the three figures, and hear the announcement. Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of this promise. In Jesus' life, death and resurrection we become children of God, brothers and sisters of Jesus, able to cry out "Abba, Father", enjoying an intimacy of union with the Father through Christ and the Spirit. God makes us part of the household of God, to enjoy the love of Father and Son in the Spirit. Through the ultimate fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and Sarah, God makes real an eternal and unimaginably intimate hospitality.This is why thinking of the three figures as trinitarian is not far from the mark.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why some icons of the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah have shrunk to picturing just the three visitors.(Compare the icon above to Rublev's Trinity.) The hospitality of Abraham and Sarah has become the hospitality of God because the promise to them is ultimately fulfilled through our incorporation into Christ through the Spirit.

The Essence of the Trinity is Nothing Else Than the Trinity Itself

… the essence (of the Trinity) is nothing else than the Trinity itself. (St Augustine)

It is common for the Western tradition to be accused of a kind of modalism because of discussions about the substance of God, and these discussions preceding discussion of the Trinity. It doesn't seem that way to me, although it is true that the idea that there is a being of God behind Father, Son and Spirit is very much alive and well in the western church. (A sort of fourth behind the three.) I suspect that this is how many people understand the Trinity, and reject or accept it on this basis. St Augustine is often cited as an example of this error. But not so. Augustine thinks that the substance of the Trinity is the Trinity itself. The divinity of Father, Son and Spirit is held in common and is not a sort of fourth person or 'stuff' behind the three. This is perhaps one reason why St Augustine is loathe to answer the question, 'What are these three?" He wishes us to avoid thinking of some kind of 'stuff' of which Father, Son and Spirit are three examples.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Trinity, but they are only one God; not that the divinity, which they have in common, is a sort of fourth person, but that the Godhead is ineffably and inseparably a Trinity. (St Augustine)

There is no divine substance apart from the relations of the three. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are the Trinity, and there is nothing missing from their co-equal divinity and nothing 'ontologically' behind them. Without the personal identities in the relations of the three there is no God, no divinity, nothing, literally. This means that, if we include some characteristic within the eternal relations of Father, Son and Spirit, we cannot avoid this characteristic's inclusion into the very being of God. If we do posit a characteristic of the eternal relationship between say, Father and Son, like subordination, and we wish to avoid subordinating the Father and Son in their being (that is, ontologically), then we must separate the being of God from the relations of the three. And that is heresy.

What Would Be Left?

If the Word were removed from Jesus, what would be left? If your answer is 'his flesh/body', please read on. The right answer is 'nothing would be left'. This is because it is the Word who becomes flesh. (John 1:14) The Word doesn't just take on an outer suit of flesh, or is the soul bit in Jesus. God became human.

Say it to yourself: God became human. Is it plausible? How can God become flesh and still be God? The trendy answer is that God can't be human and God. (But that is really only the case if humanity and divinity are in competition.) And this trendy answer ends up in one of two places: a kenoticism whereby God is divested of divinity in becoming human; or making God's true identity dependent on us (E.g. Moltmann). But God can be utterly human and utterly God. This speaks to us of a "compatibility" (I think I read this from Rowan Williams, but he means this without in any way denying the complete otherness of God) between God and humanity. But it also tells us something of the true transcendence of God: God is utterly transcendent, which is to say not that God is utterly remote (that is the false interpretation given to transcendence by those wanting a straw figure to blow down), but that in God the usual rules of intimacy and identity (a tension between them) don't apply to God. God can so unite Godself with flesh and still remain fully God, and in this union bring this flesh into existence. And this without in any way compromising the integrity of the flesh. Or, to put it crassly, God can 'make' that which is not God precisely by uniting Godself with it. (Only God is so surpassingly free to be able to do this, and this is what true transcendence is about, and the significance of God being somehow else.) This flesh is then God's own flesh. And so, to return to the original question, if the Word were removed from Jesus, nothing would be left.

This is all about unity in distinction, which God is very good at. Think of the Trinity: Father, Son and Spirit, each with their own identity precisely in their complete unity, and in complete unity precisely because of their distinct identity. This is the point of the eternal Fatherhood of God: 'Father' is a distinct identity, but implies a relationship to be 'Father' in the first place

Or should I just say that God is love, and we know this because of Jesus Christ? Love is about union and distinction at once, and both to their fullest degree. This is the point of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and tells us our ultimate end in God (Christian hope does not dissolve our identity into some more basic lava of 'being' called God, but hopes in a union of personal love), the God who is Love.

On the Ordination of Women Part IV(ii): Headship

(Continuing some thoughts on how thin the headship thing is as an argument against the ordination of women.)

To my knowledge, the only other passage which refers to headship is to be found in the household code of Ephesians (5:21-33), where it is explicitly stated that the husband is head over his wife as Christ is head over the church. Notice it is husband and wife, which seems not irrelevant to the debate. And notice that no attempt is made to connect the headship of husband over wife with ministerial leadership in the Christian community. Indeed, when Ephesians speaks of the ascended Christ's gifts to the church, the ministries mentioned are ones we know women held.

It is not only the headship idea that is thin. There is only one text in the whole of the NT that actually forbids women to teach men (1Tim 2:2), although, again, this might refer only to husbands and wives. There is another which commands women to be silent in church (1Cor 14:34f, although remember in 1Cor 11 Paul acknowledges that women are praying and prophesying in church, and safeguards this ministry through what he writes), while none of the passages around the submission of wives (not women in general) in the household codes and in Titus (Col 3:18f; Ephes 5:21-33; 1Peter 3:1-7; Tit 2:5) make a connection between the subordination of wife to husband and ministerial leadership in the church. On the other hand the NT is full of women's ministry that gives them authority within the church. Junia is a good example, the woman apostle mentioned by Paul. (Rom 16:7) There is also a woman deacon named Phoebe (Rom 16:1), and women prophets (Ac 21:9; 1Cor 11:5), as well as various other female workers Paul mentions inhis letters. (Rom 16:3, 6, 12; Phil 4:2f cf 1Thess 5:12f)

And one final point: those who think that a woman cannot have spiritual authority over a man, what about the Queen's role in the CofE? Many of those against the ordination of women seem also to take seriously BCP's acknowledgement of the monarch's spiritual authority in the church. Seems a bit odd.

Reading Genesis 12

Pentecost 3, Year A, June 1, 2008. Preached at Belair.

Tomorrow we read Genesis 12:1-9 at Holy Communion. It is a crucial passage in Scripture. Genesis 1-11 is what could be called myth. By this is meant a story that tells us something that is applicable to all. So we begin with the creation story, "and it was good". Then comes the Fall, and the spread of sin. This is narrated in the murder of Abel, the evil of the human heart unchanged after the flood, Babel, etc. This is the universal human predicament, the cul-de-sac that all people, of all times, in all cultures, face. And it is characterised in Genesis 1-11 by the human arrogance that seeks to be God and growing violence.(E.g. Genesis 4:23-25, a vengeance even greater than God's! Cf Genesis 4:15) This is the predicament from which we all need to be saved.

And what is God's response to this cul-de-sac of human history? Genesis 12 and the call of Abraham and Sarah. They are to leave this cul-de-sac and live rough because God promises that through them a great nation will arise, and that through them all the families of the world will be blessed. (See Hebrews 11:8-12) They believe God and are obedient to the call. And from there the rest of the Bible unfolds. And all people are blessed in Christ, son of Abraham and Sarah. (Matt 1:1)

A couple of points:

• Those who try to maintain the historicity of the events of Genesis 1-11 are missing the point. It doesn't matter, truly, because Gen 1-11 is not to be thought of history as we usually think of it. That is Genesis 12 and following.
  
  
• In fact, by trying to switch the focus to whether Adam and Eve existed etc, these funny Christians are blunting the Scriptural witness. I am Adam. I live in Babel. This is the point.
  
  
• Genesis 12 begins what we might normally think of as history, and we can ask of it all of those sorts of questions. That this is not myth in the sense of Genesis 1-11 does not mean it is without universal importance. It is. Jesus, the offspring of Abraham and Sarah, is of universal import, but he is this precisely in his particularity. He is not 'me' in the mythic sense I just called myself Adam. He is the Word made flesh. He is not symbolic of something already true if only I could reach into myself (some kind of pagan salvation myth), he is God's interruption of the cul-de-sac in the flesh.
  

The Unity of Creation and Redemption

In Irenaeus, too, the larger theological context of the Christological problem is apparent: the unity of Godhead and humanity in Christ also involves the question of the unity of creation and redemption, of God and world. Jesus Christ is not understood simply as a great exception, but rather as the new beginning. (Walter Kasper)

In Search of a Human Jesus

The search for the historical Jesus makes interesting reading. It is a problem, though, when it is undertaken with a competitive notion of God in the background. Humanity and divinity will compete within Jesus and his ministry. The more human we make Jesus (the liberals), the less room there is for an incarnate God. The more we want Jesus to be God-directed (the conservatives), the less human Jesus becomes. Liberals say the conservatives are docetists, and the conservatives call the liberals adoptionists. Liberals evacuate his ministry of supernaturalism and the conservatives try to find bits of his ministry that prove his divinity. Both have a competitive understanding of God; a God whose essence is defined over-against the rest of us. We must remember that because God is transcendent there is not a competition between creation and divinity. Jesus can be fully human and fully divine. Jesus can be truly human and have God as his source, which is just to say what the ancients have said before us in affirming the Word's assumption of his humanity. And because of this assumption by the transcendent God, we are not to look for bits of Jesus' ministry that prove his divinity, or divide his ministry between those parts that are divine and those that are human. He acts always as the incarnation of the Word. The divinity of Christ is invisible, by which I mean that it is the human Jesus we see. But his divinity is discerned invisibly in his human acts, not alongside them or behind them. In other words, Jesus is indivisibly human and divine in such a way that he is God in the flesh, not God behind the flesh.

Feeling the need to choose between a fully human Jesus or a divine figure is an example of the problem affecting so much contemporary theology and the reaction against it, and partially explains the great divide between liberal and conservative theology. And surprisingly, the liberals and conservatives are closer than they think, at least in their common foundational theological error.

The Dogma of the Monist

In their doubt of miracles there was a faith in a fixed and godless fate; a deep and sincere faith in the incurable routine of the cosmos. The doubts of the agnostic were only the dogmas of the monist. (G. K. Chesterton)

On the Ordination of Women Part IV(i): Headship

Headship is used as an argument against the ordination of women. The essence of the headship argument is that women are not to have authority over men, and should be submissive because that is what the Bible says. This is a pretty thin argument, especially given how much weight some attach to it.

There are only two passages that speak directly of headship, and neither of them use it to prevent the ministry of women. In 1Cor 11:2-16 Paul uses the idea that man (or husband) is the head of woman (or wife) to enforce the practice of women (wives) wearing veils when they pray or prophesy in church. This is not about ministerial authority in the church. Indeed, upon reading the passage again we can see that Paul's intention is to safeguard and affirm the right of women to pray and prophesy in the church, and highlights the interdependence of men and women in the Lord. (See also 1Cor 7:3-5) If this passage is seen to be important in the debate it seems to me it could only be used to require appropriate head wear on the part of women priests (seems like an argument for the consecration of women bishops!, or perhaps only those women priests who are married (and whose husbands are present).

As an aside, it is said by opponents of the ordination of women that the headship of men over women cannot be a cultural accretion because it is based by Paul on the order of creation. So, for example, in vv 8-9 Paul uses the second story of creation in Gen 2:21ff to explain the need for women/wives to wear hats in church. But most of us would think that the wearing of hats is a cultural accretion that can be shed. So the argument that headship is more than a cultural expression because it is grounded in other parts of Scripture needs to be approached with discernment.

Also notice that in 1Cor 11 headship is first about origin. God is the origin/head of Christ, man is the origin/head of woman. (Again, Gen 2:21ff is in the background.) If Paul's purpose were to enforce a rigid order of ministerial authority, or intended that this passage might be a bulwark of such a notion, he is making a strange argument. He mentions the descending order of origin, but then says that , 'in the Lord', men and women are not independent, and that men come from women, and that in any event, all come from God. (vv11-12) His purpose is to safeguard the right of women to prophesy and pray at church, and is ensuring that the origin-authority nexus is not overdone.

And what authority are we talking about? Whatever it is, it is not ministerial authority, and whatever the theology, the submission of women/wives is achieved with a hat.

Theological Imagination

Arius’ religious imagination simply could not accommodate a God who did what Jesus Christ has done. (Anne Hunt)

On the Ordination of Women Part III: The Fatherhood of God

The early trinitarian debates gave the Fatherhood of God a quite specific nuance that cannot be ignored in the ordination of women debates. In the debate over the last few decades it is worrying when people make God the heavenly image of the patriarchal father-figure. It is also worrying when people extend this to some inherent connection between human fatherhood, the fatherhood of God and male priests. Or worse, a crass linear course from the maleness of the language of 'Father' when applied to God to the need for a male priest. The first and determinative meaning of the 'Fatherhood of God' should be derived from its trinitarian meaning. In the Trinity, the Fatherhood of God is about finding identity in relationship. This is not a patriarchal idea. And it is a long bow to draw to get from this to an only male priesthood.

'Father' is a naturally relational term. It makes no sense apart from reference to a child. This is why the orthodox maintained the eternal fatherhood of God. God cannot be considered apart from the Son. (There was never a time when God was not Father, implying that intra-divine relationship lies at the very heart of divinity.) Furthermore, the Father's eternal identity comes from the relationship with the Son. Identity and relationship are not related in inverse proportion. The more we pronounce the identity of the Father the more the relationship with the Son is affirmed.

If priesthood is about safeguarding the Fatherhood of God, then priesthood cannot be about representing patriarchy. The eternal Fatherhood of God is non-patriarchal despite the exclusive male terms of Father-Son (although not Spirit, but it is a bit amorphous granted). If we are to take this trinitarian meaning of the Fatherhood of God seriously then priesthood is not about maleness, not about patriarchal power, but about relationship-in-identity. This makes a lot of sense to those who are ordained. We are not submerged into a congregation or the wider church. We retain our identity, but we retain this identity precisely because we are related to the body of the church. We are not priests to the world, but priests in the church. (As far as I am aware, in the New Testament the word for 'priest' is applied to Jesus and the church, not to the ministers of the church.) Lose our relationship to the wider body, and so our identity as priests gradually dissipates.

Fudge this first meaning of the eternal Fatherhood of God in the theology of ordination and the whole Christian paradigm unravels. It undermines the Trinity for one thing, which is not good. But also our vision of salvation is transformed into an alien understanding. Christianity believes in a salvation that is both relational and personal, without in anyway diminishing our identity or our relatedness. The eternal Fatherhood of God ensures this understanding is rooted in our theology of God. The same goes with the diverse gifts of the Spirit that are given for the unity of the body. (See 1Cor 12) The diversity of gifts is not a hindrance to unity, but the instrument through which the Spirit brings unity. Again, without the eternal Fatherhood of God the basis for believing this is slender.

From this vantage point the ordination of women, at a minimum, is not prohibited. But let us not be so churlish. The ordination of women makes the priesthood more diverse by including both sexes of the human race. And with this diversity encompassed in the unified office of priest, the eternal Fatherhood of God is proclaimed. And this is utterly congruent with the cross (as it should be) as revealing of the Father ('those who have seen me have seen the Father'), for it is on the cross that the unity of humankind is achieved. That unity is expressed in a priesthood open to women and men.