Right, so tonight I'm going to have a bit of a theological splurge and talk about the idea of 'ontological equality and economic subordination'. Sounds fascinating huh? Well it is! This sentence has managed to shed light on an issue I have been puzzling over since I first became a Christian, and I thought I'd write something about it to help me process my thoughts.
Perhaps, like me, you have had qualms at times when reading verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, which states that "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ". Now, the reason why one might have a problem with these verses is probably apparent to most of you reading this (especially if you're a woman), that is that it seems to imply that men are in some way superior to women, or else that perhaps that men are better leaders than women, or something along those lines. However, I believe that the concept of 'ontological equality and economic subordination' sheds light on another interpretation that doesn't justify a chauvinistic imposition of 2nd rate citizenship onto the fairer sex.
In Corinthians Paul uses simile to compare the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, with the relationship between a man and his wife. Now, we know that the Father and the Son are both fully God, that they are ontologically (in their being) equal, and that one is not greater then the other, either in terms of inherent value or in terms of power or ability. Yet, in terms of economics (and I am using 'economics' in the old sense meaning "ordering of activities"), the Son is subordinate to the Father without being even the slightest iota less then the Father. You might then wonder, "If the Son and the Father are equal in both ability and inherent value, then surely which one of them is economically subordinate is a mute point, arbitrary, doesn't matter? Could not the Father just as easily been subordinate to the Son?". To this I would point out that if that were the case, that is if the Father was indeed economically subordinate to the Son, then He would no longer be the 'father' and the Son would no longer be the 'son'. Implicit in the titles given to either member of the Godhead is the idea that it is in their very nature for the Son to under the authority of the Father. Therefore, the relationship between the Father and Son is not a grudging subordination of the lesser to the greater, but a joyful expression of the inherent nature of both parties.
This analogy is obviously not perfect, as the relationship between a father and son is not completely analogous with the relationship between a husband and wife. However, implicit in the analogy is an affirmation of the ontological equality of men and women, both in terms of inherent value and practical ability, and also and affirmation of the differences in the nature of men and women. In order to understand what this verse is saying we need to completely do away with a cultural or worldly mindset which equates authority with superiority and, once we have done that, delve into the mystery of what it really means to be a man or a woman. Anyway, that's my theological rant for the night, I need sleep!
Selamat malam!
CJ
Since writing this I found out that the word for "head" used in this passage actually means something like "origin", and is never used to describe a person who has authority over a community.
ReplyDelete