Hierarchy in Heaven

There is a theology that suggests that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity which is supposed to be reflected in human relationships. In particular, the Son is seen as being 'under' the Father, lending authority to the notion that wives are 'under' their husbands. Now, it should be stressed, that in both these cases, there is no suggestion that being 'under' role is less significant than being 'over', nonetheless, this is a reflection of the Godhead and not  therefore open to cultural interpretation. 

Adherents to this view, point to the way in which Jesus submitted himself to the authority of the Father; only saying what He gave him to say and only doing that which he was given to do, ultimately resulting in his obedience to death on a cross. These examples of behaviour demonstrating that Jesus understood and was faithful in the execution of his role as subservient in his relationship within the Trinity. By extension, a simple reading of Ephesians 5 shows a similar pattern in that wives are called to submit to their husbands. 

From this, other things are implied: that the members of the Godhead not only exist within a heirachy, but that they have distinctive roles - and again these are intended to be played out on the human stage as a representation of who God is. Thus, husbands are the provider just as the Father is, they are the source of direction and wisdom, they have authority, just as the Father has. Meanwhile, wives choose to obey their husbands, submitting to their leadership just as Jesus did with the Father. Similarly, they raise godly children and nurture in the way the Holy Spirit nurtures the believer on behalf of Jesus.

There are many in the church and in organisations that I love and respect who hold such a theology - and indeed teach and minister on the basis of it. Whilst wanting to honour my brothers and sisters in Christ who hold these views and practice them diligently, I want to suggest that this is not what God intended.

As ever, context is the key to understanding scripture and the context for Jesus' work on earth is summarised beautifully by Paul in Philippians 2 (my paraphrase): "Though being in very nature God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but rather, emptied himself and being found in human form, humbled himself, becoming obedient, even to death on a cross" 

When God come to earth as our Last Adam, He took on human form and in so doing emptied himself of that which was his by right: omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience. (The very things First Adam grasped at when tempted by Satan) That meant that he couldn't just access his own divine wisdom when choices had to be made. He couldn't heal people using his own divine power- to do so would have been to fall in the same way that First Adam fell. Instead he must choose; to live solely by human wisdom and power, or by trusting the Father. Being in human form, choosing not to exercise his rights as God, he must now either live independently from God (as first Adam chose) or in loving relationship with God, trusting in His wisdom, His power, His reach.

Relying on the Father and the Spirit in this way, wasn't the result of a built-in heirarchy, it was the result of the changed circumstances that Jesus had willingly chosen. It was the result, not of Him being in nature God, but because He had taken on full humanity.

Let's be clear, in learning to hear the Father's voice, learning to trust and respond to it, learning and choosing to be obedient to it, Jesus is demonstrating what First Adam could and should have done, what we, today, can do. He isn't doing what He must do as a subservient member of the Trinity. This isn't an expression of hierarchy; Jesus was there in the beginning, as together, the Father, Son and Spirit contemplated the possibility of creation he then became the author of creation, the one who spoke the universe into being, and it is his word of power that now sustains the universe. Even whilst on earth he declared "I and the Father are one"

Far from it being an expression of hierarchy, it is a demonstration of how Adam's race could and should have lived all along - not relying only on our own wisdom, power and reach, but on the goodness of God. Because Jesus' work was for all people, whether male or female, it is a demonstration to all of Adam's race, not just to the men or the husbands. And this is important because it disconnects any thoughts that this is a model for the relationship between men and women, husbands and wives. 

Finally, on hierarchy, let's just suppose for a moment that all the above is disregarded. What would that then look like - is it compatible with what else we know about God? Well, Jesus modelled this so called hierarchy by listening to the Father and speaking and doing only that which he heard the Father say. If this is to be our model, then husbands would hear from God whilst wives would only hear from him through their husbands. They would not have a relationship with God directly, it would only be through their husband who would be to them a kind of priest. In which case a woman would be far better off remaining single - at least then she could have a direct relationship with God! Now, thankfully, I don't know of any mainstream churches that espouse such a thing, but logically, that's the real conclusion to the theory. 

So, what's the real deal about husbands, wives and submission? Again, we need context. The passage in Ephesians has the context in verse 21 where we are all told to be subject to one another. The rest of the passage provides examples of how that works out in specific cases. The examples chosen are those that were commonly abused at the time - Paul gives the familiar a twist in the tail to emphasise the new way of the Kingdom. 

So, at a time when children were commonly used for adult sexual gratification, Paul insists that even where it was right for children to submit, such submission shouldn't cause them distress. At a time when women were often treated as little more than slaves, Paul places requirements on husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially. And to a society whose economy relied on slavery, Paul lifts their status to that of co-worker, of sibling.

Now, you might well ask why Paul didn't just come out and condemn all of these practices outright and there are good reasons for that - comment on this if you'd like a separate blog on the subject - the key for us here is that these are examples of the general point, that we should all be subject to one another: Yes, wives should be subject to their husbands, but in the Kingdom, husbands should also be subject to their wives. Yes, children should obey their parents, but loving parents will make themselves subject to the needs of their children too. Yes, slaves will work hard for their masters, but the masters must treat their slaves as if they are their equals.

And this is what Jesus modelled - King of Kings and Lord of Lords, subjecting Himself to our cruel choices, to nails, to a cross, to death. In the same way: "For this reason a man shall leave his home and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one" Not the "two will enter into a master - subordinate relationship" but the two shall become one. Just as in the Trinity, multiple are yet one; one God in three persons, one marriage from two people.

  

What then about roles? Unsurprisingly, the ministry of Jesus provides the answer. If it is a God given role for men to be the providers, how come Jesus, the archetype for men, relied on women for the support of his ministry? If women are supposed to receive their wisdom, their teaching from men, why did Jesus wait until he could be alone in the garden with Mary in order to reveal to her the greatest truth of all time - that he was risen? Why avoid the opportunities to meet and tell Peter and John when they came to the tomb? Why then would he tell Mary to go and inform the men? Of course, in any marriage, different roles will develop - but they can be based on gifting and calling rather than on some presupposed eternal formula.

Of course, much of this, much of the Biblical passages use marriage as a model - in a culture where most were married, it was something most would relate to. In our society that is less true - but the principles hold: everyone can have the same relationship with God that Jesus had, everyone can enjoy the safety of mutual submission, everyone can exercise the gifts and call that God has on their life - irrespective of gender or marital status.

No hierarchy, no prescribed roles, just loving, mutually submitted relationships with one another and with our extraordinary God of love.