The way in which we understand God has profound ramifications for the way in which we seek to live our lives. People naturally seek to emulate their role models and because God is the definitive role model, one's understanding of God ultimately determines the type of person that they will strive to be. This consideration should make think carefully about the way we think about God. Indeed, as Thomas Paine once remarked: "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man".
I believe that Christendom has created a cruel God. In Christendom, God has predominantly been depicted as the archetypal alpha male and the quintessential individualist. He is the Dominator and the Enforcer. Is it any wonder then that almost every sect in Christendom has blood on its hands because it has taken the attitude that imposing one's beliefs through force is right and good if those beliefs are perceived to be correct?
I should make it clear that I'm certainly not adverse to the idea of a God with a bit of mongrel in Him - it would certainly be even more mistaken to domesticate God in own our image. I'm simply questioning whether power and dominance (classically, we might call this "sovereignty") are the most important attributes of God, or whether God wishes for us to understand Him first and foremost through a different set of paradigms. I believe the Trinity proves to be particularly instructive in this investigation.
The Trinity is primarily a doctrine about God's existence as a community of persons. From this central mystery of the Christian faith we learn that God is an intrinsically personal and relational being. From this understanding we may infer that God wishes to relate to us on a personal level. Indeed, a heavy focus in Jesus' teaching was the idea that we can and should relate to God as "Abba", meaning "Father", or even "Daddy". To a Jewish culture that understood God as being almost unapproachably transcendent, this was a truly revolutionary notion.
I would like to suggest that Christianity is not about following a set of rules. Rather, it is about a relationship with an infinitely imminent God and the pursuit of becoming increasingly more bonded to Him. Indeed, the rules are now that rules have become a barrier to truly communing with with the God in whom we live and move and have our being. If you're worried that I'm advocating some kind of antinomialism - I am. Rules are passe - we have moved beyond all rules except for the rule of love.
The community of the Trinity also give us profound insight into the way we should live as a community of believers and more broadly in our relationships with the wider world. In the Trinity there is a real sense of interdependence and self-sacrifice. No person of the Trinity imposes his will upon the others and all persons walk together in perfect unity. But this is no co-dependent relationship. The persons of the Trinity do not give out of need, but out of surplus and abundance. There is a sense of submission in the Trinity, but there is no idea of heirarchy or subordination. The persons in the Trinity do not submit to each other out of a sense of obligation and subjugation, but rather out of the love that they freely share. It is this point to which I shall now turn.
It has always been the teaching of the Church that there is perfect equality between the persons of the Trinity. There is no heirarchy. And while there is submission, there is no subordination or subjugation, but rather a freely chosen form of submission in which each person of the Trinity submit to one another out of a sense of love, rather than obligation or necessity. This has profound implications for relationships within the Church. The dividing wall has been abolished and the stratification of the spiritual order has become obsolete. An elite class of priests and ministers has become no more, for we are all part of the royal priesthood. Furthermore, there are no longer any defined gender roles. Women may be ministers and women are no longer subordinate to the headship of men, but all are to submit to each other.
So, there you have it - my primer of Christian Anarchism. There are no roles, no rules and no rulers. As St. Paul tells us: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). It is God alone to whom we are accountable. Now excuse me while I await the firing squad of Christendom's Enforcers ...
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank you for saying this. Jesus said so much about turning the old order of leadership upside down, servanthood instead of power, yet the church still insists that they need to do it this way because ... sad, isn't it?
And don't get me started on a hierarchical trinity .. it's a whole topic in itself .. but how can perfect love and perfect wisdom have such division between them that one needs to subordinate their will to another?
David you write
There is a sense of submission in the Trinity, but there is no idea of heirarchy or subordination. The persons in the Trinity do not submit to each other out of a sense of obligation and subjugation, but rather out of the love that they freely share.
I can't help feeling that this is a bit loose for agreement or disagreement with. What exactly is the submission you speak of? How do you define hierarchy? Aren't you pre-loading the outcome with perjorative terms such as "obligation" and "subjugation"?
Surely our own relationship to Jesus Christ testifies that there is (or at least will be) a "hierarchy" that is not grudging or oppressive or "exacted" but joyfully rendered and mutually glorifying? And if this is possible even across such an immeasurable ontological chasm, might there not also be a possibility of hierarchy in the Godhead that encompasses these things too as John's Gospel so clearly seems to display?
Hey Anonymous - thanks for your comments.
Not to make to fine a point of this, but I usually prefer if people can attach their name to their comments (even if it is just their first name). I ask this for the sake of posterity as well as the fact that I like to know (or pretend I know) who I am engaging with. That said, I recognise that there are many valid reasons that people post anonymously and I respect the decision of people to do so should they so wish.
I do apologise if the use of my terms have been a little bit imprecise. So in the interests of clarifying:
(1) By "submission", I mean the voluntary decision of an individual to put their wishes below the interests of another person.
(2) By "hierarchy", I mean an establish system or structure of authority.
(3) I didn't use "obligation" and "subjugation" to pre-load my terms but merely to differentiate the terms "submission" and "subordination". As Christians, we are called to submit to one another and we do so irregardless of any form of hierarchy or compulsion to do so. "Subordination" only occurs within the context of a hierarchic relationship. In such a structure obedience is compulsory and the mere fact that we may joyfully obey does not diminish the non-optional nature of compliance.
Surely our own relationship to Jesus Christ testifies that there is (or at least will be) a "hierarchy" that is not grudging or oppressive or "exacted" but joyfully rendered and mutually glorifying? And if this is possible even across such an immeasurable ontological chasm, might there not also be a possibility of hierarchy in the Godhead that encompasses these things too as John's Gospel so clearly seems to display?
I would agree with you with the suggestion that we are subordinate to God. I guess it might then be logically plausible that a similar subordination exists in the Trinity and hence human relationships, but of course this is different from suggested that such subordination actually does exist. You bring up John's gospel, which does at least make this theological question (and a million and one others) an issue. While such a reading might be plausible, I'd suggest a few other possibilities:
(a) Jesus was not subordinate to the Father, but voluntarily chose to submit to Him during the Incarnation; or
(b) Jesus was subordinate to the Father during his earthly ministry in his human nature, but not in his divine nature and not in any eternal sense
Honestly, I don't know for sure - I feel that this enquiry travels into fairly abstract theological territory and I wonder how much of our musings are pure theological speculation. Still, I do thank you for your suggestions and the way in which they have provoked me into thinking.
Post a Comment