Dubbed “Heretic” on Twitter by Rachel Held Evans

I had an interesting exchange today on Twitter with popular blogger and non-divisiveness guru Rachel Held Evans.

twitter2

Now, let’s lay aside the fact that the eternal economic subordination of Christ to the Father has been recognized by all orthodox theologians since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A. D.  My first thought at being called heretic on Twitter by Rachel Held Evans was confusion.  I mean, I thought we were just supposed to love and not divide over doctrine?  It’s only angry, conservative, evangelical, racist, misogynist, homophobic white men with entitlement complexes who throw around the “H” bomb!   (She has since tweeted me to the effect that she did not call me a heretic.  She only said that I was communicating heresy.  OK, semantics.)  “Dude”, certainly not something you would expect from the post-evangelical, progressive, millenial spokeswoman.

Moral of the story?  Snarky rebel bloggers like Rachel Held Evans should leave theologizing to the theologians, and they just might learn something.  (Yes, even complementarianism.)

Advertisements
Categories: Doctrine | Tags: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “Dubbed “Heretic” on Twitter by Rachel Held Evans

  1. What is wrong with the position that Jesus (the second person of the trinity) is equal to the Father in essense while being subordinate to the father in His person? To deny such seems to move towards modalism where each of the persons are identical. If you are comfortable with saying that there are differences between the Persons of the trinity then why is it a problem having Jesus being Eternally submissive to the Father?

    • Again, I was speaking economically here, not ontologically.

      • My issue is that you seem to be saying that the ontological trinity is not what determines the economic trinity. The persons of the trinity are part of the ontology of the trinity. Because the persons are what they are outside of/before creation, we experience/know them in a certain way (economically).

        Jesus (the second person of the trinity) would be subordinate to the Father even without creation because that is simply the order of the Trinity. This is also why Jesus was sent instead of the Father, etc.

        Such however does not deny that the three persons of the trinity are equally God.

    • The Athanasian Creed forbids this view where it says, “And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: