Share

Viola Rejects Church Authority, but Misses the Trinity

Another instance of Viola making a false distinction in Reimagining Church is his take on authority in the church, possibly the most abused doctrine in the history of Christianity.  Viola helpfully tries to chart a “middle path” through the gung-ho attitude of institutional authority and the anarchy of much of the emergent movement, but his rejection of eldership is still a problem because it creates an either/or fallacy between leaders as "church overlords" and (his own preference) leaders as "organic spiritual advisors."  

Since Viola traces this lack of authority to the “non-hierarchical” nature of the Trinity, that’s where we need to follow him to rescue the rightful place and nature of official church authority.  Viola says that scripture passages that describe a hierarchical relationship between the Father and the Son “refer to His temporal relationship as a human being who voluntarily submitted Himself to His Father’s will” (295).  He also cites “historic orthodoxy” which “rejects the eternal subordination of the Son of God” (296).  The conclusion that Viola seems to draw from this view of the Trinity is that since the Son and the Father are now on completely equal authority terms, all relationships within the new covenant (believers) should be on completely equal authority terms. 

Therefore, Viola says, the key commandment is “mutual submission” (Eph. 5), which he presents as the only valid alternative to the “lording” which Jesus and Peter explicitly forbid. 

I am not the one to reject historic orthodoxy, but I do believe that Viola is misapplying the doctrine of the Trinity here.  Jesus may not be eternally subordinated to the Father, but the scriptures make it clear that He is still subordinated to the Father right now—and will be at least until the restoration of all things. 

What this means is that our current Trinitarian model for one-another fellowship IS a model of loving submission under loving authority. Like the temporary submission of the Son to the Father, we live in temporary submission to those in legitimate authority over us (more on that later).  That is, though the kingdom of God has come "already" ("it is finished"), it is also "not yet" fully in force in all areas.  There are temporary measures that are in force until the fullness comes in, including the temporary spiritual gifts, the temporary institution of marriage, the temporary existence of worldly authorities (which will ultimately be abolished), and the temporary need for non-lording, but official, elders in the church.

Also, that submission—to authorities both inside and outside the church—serves a purpose.  In the church, it demonstrates in a visible way the heavenly dynamic of godly submission to godly authority—it lets people see what “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” looks like.

Is Jesus Subordinated to God the Father?

But first, why do I think Jesus is still subordinated to the Father right now?  Wasn’t Jesus exalted back to his place of equal authority with the Father?  Oh, wait…Jesus was exalted to the right hand of the Father.  That metaphor does tell us that he is the most exalted authority in the universe—right under the One who is actually on the throne. 

Also, Paul tells us that when God “put all things under [Jesus’] feet,” that “He [God] who put all things under Him [Jesus] is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:26).  Paul is writing about the exaltation of Christ, and he could have left the authority relationship intentionally vague, at least, if the Son and the Father were on equal terms.  However, Paul takes pains to explain that the “all things” under the exalted Son does NOT include the Father.  That is, the Father does NOT submit to the Son.  What’s more, this passage looks forward to the eschaton, “when all things are made subject to Him.”  Even at that specific point, the Son will “be subject” to the Father. 

The role of the Son and the Spirit as Intercessors is also a subordinate role, just as is Jesus’ role as our High Priest.  Even the texts that Viola gives us in his Q&A (at the end of Reimagining) speak to Jesus’ current role as subordinate to the Father—and how that relates to us in our relationships.  If the “head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God,” stated after the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, then God is still Christ’s head.  What’s more, this authority relationship does have implications for our human relationships—specifically that “the head of woman is man.” 

Are Any Authority Relationships Biblical?

Now, of course, I’m in trouble.  I’ve been “outed” as someone who believes in that kind of authority relationship, definitely out of favor since modern currents of thought dictated reinterpretation of these passages.  Just one more thought, though, along these lines.  It has been said that the “husband/wife” section of Ephesians 5 should be interpreted in the light of the verse that comes before it—“submitting to one another in the fear of God.”  Biblical feminists say that this means husbands should submit to their wives as much as wives submit to their husbands.  However, that’s quite a stretch for the logical flow of the text. 

What’s much more likely (especially given the other explicit texts on this issue in Paul’s thought) is that after Paul had given his general “one-another” prescriptions for the church, he turned to a special case and gave very specific directions.  That is, lest the Ephesians read about “submitting to one another” and mistakenly apply it to marriage, Paul gave more specific instruction there.  His directions bear that out since he explicitly and consistently prescribes submission for wives and love from husbands.

Paul also ties this submission relationship, by analogy, to the relationship between Jesus and the church.  Since Paul consistently refers to Jesus as "the Lord Jesus Christ," and all the scriptures prescribe obedience to the Lord Jesus, then it seems clear that husbands are Lords over their wives as Christ is Lord over the church.  The "how" is developed at length by Paul in Ephesians 5, and gives us a great picture of what "Christian Lordship" (as opposed to Gentile "lordship") looks like.  That is, official authority is not discarded but reimagined, redefined, and reimpowered.  

Why is it important that the Father is “officially” an authority over the Son, that husbands are “officially” authorities over their wives, and that elders are “officially” authorities over the local church?  Because it breaks down the worldly, cynical “either/or” that says any official authority will lead to an abuse in power.  Official authority of any kind = unbiblical “lording,” says Viola, so he stretches the Trinity to be non-hierarchical and he stretches the texts on elders to paint them as “unofficial” leaders, the non-specific “good old men” of each church. 

(In the process, by the way, Viola plays the classic preacher’s game of “find the helpful Greek definition,” many of which are applied inappropriately.  For example, part of his argument about elders not being specific officials is that the Greek word for elder just means “old man,” ignoring, of course, the connotations and social meanings that get added in context to any word, regardless of its “literal meaning.”  I would like to know, personally, how these elders felt when Titus “appointed” them as “old men” in every city (Titus 1:5).  You know you’re getting old when you’ve been appointed as old.)

Godly Authority Glorifies God

The real problem with all this stretching to eliminate hierarchy is that it attempts to take away the pictures God wants to establish—in this world—of godly authority and submission done right.  As Viola points out, we have many examples in church history of authority and submission done wrong, but the problem is not with the concept of hierarchy itself; the problem is that unspiritual people in the Church have often modeled the Gentile model of authority and submission instead of the Jesus model of authority and submission. 

The watching world has a hard time watching us submit to our unseen head, or to His Father, but when our elders and husbands show the same gentleness, the same understanding and love, the same wooing in their “lordship” as Jesus shows in His Lordship, then the watching world sees something of the Divine Kingdom.  And when the not-yet-elders and the wives show the same respect, the same listening ear, the same yieldedness as the church does to Christ, then the watching world gets to see the other part of the Divine Kingdom. 

Part of the question of salvation is repentance—that is, submission—but one of the stumbling blocks for unsaved people facing the call to submission before an alien God is whether any kind of submission to authority is safe.  All submission they’ve ever seen was a trap.  We have to live the kind of authority and submission that shows them what kind of authority God has and what kind of submission he requires—and we can’t do that if we cut out of scripture the venues God has set up for that kind of witness. 

A Brief Conclusion

I’m glad that Viola has written this book.  I know it took a lot of courage, and he probably has lost some sleep wondering whether he stumbled in his words at all.  For the sake of this budding revolution, however, I hope that the hungry readers will listen to the prophets who are judging the prophets (I Cor. 14:29), both in the service of the King and the kingdom.