Traditionally, Christian theologiansrnhave made a distinction between ontologicalrnand economic subordination.rnOntology refers to being, and orthodoxrnChristian doctrine teaches that the Father,rnSon, and Holy Spirit possess all ofrnthe attributes of deit)- equally. Economyrnrefers not to the Person’s essendal nature,rnbut to His role. Thus the Father “gies”rnthe Son (John 3:16) and “sends” the HolyrnSpirit in the Son’s name (John 14:26) afterrnthe Son “prays” the Father (14:16); inrnthe next chapter, Jesus speaks of “thernSpirit of truth, whom I will send unto yournfrom the Father” (John 15:26). The Fatherrndoes not “pray” the Son; He sendsrnHim. The ontological coequalit)—thernequalih of nature of the Persons of thern1 rinih—is affirmed in the Niceno-ConstantinopolitanrnCreed of 381 and strong-rn1- stressed in the so-called Quicumquernviih or Athanasian Creed of perhaps tworncenturies later.rnIt took the Christian Church severalrncenturies to understand that the Personsrnof the Trinity can be equal while two ofrnthem submit to the third. Today, somernChristian feminists argue that submissionrnis not possible behveen equals, andrnthat it therefore cannot be found withinrnthe godhead. Of course, this implies thatrnthere can be no roles or tasks reserved forrnone sex, or denied to the other.rnThree spheres in which roles and responsibilitiesrnha’e been defined differentlvrnfor men and women within Christendomrnare the family, the militarv, andrndie church. Because a male cannot be arnmother nor a female a father, we droprnthat sex-specific language and say “parents.”rnWithin both Judaism and Christianity.rnindeed almost uniersally in all humanrnculture, the militar- profession hasrnbeen reserved for males. The passage inrnEphcsians mentioned above continuesrnby saying that Christ loved the Churchrnand gave Himself for her, strongly implyingrnthat husbands should be prepared torndie for their wies rather than vice versa.rnAnd within both Judaism and Christianity,rnthe rabbinate, priesthood, and ministryrnhave been restricted to men. Thisrnis breaking down among both Jewsrnand Protestants, while Orthodox Jews,rnCatholics, Eastern Orthodox, and conser’rnative Protestant Chrisdans retain it, atrnleast for the time being.rnhi personal correspondence with thisrnwriter, philosopher Steven Goldberg, authorrnof Why Men Must Rule, expressedrnthe conichon that, if the Chrishan ministn-rnis an authority position, few womenrnwill be attracted to it; if, however, largernnumbers of women are brought into it byrnthe setting and enforcement of quotas, itrnwill cease to be an authority position.rnThus the feminization of the Church isrnrendering her increasingly impotent tornexercise moral or even spiritual authority.rnAccording to biblical doctrine, the humanrnpredicament is the result of the Fallrnof Man. Even though Eve first disobeyedrnand ate the forbidden fruit, Christian theolog-rnattributes the Fall and our consequentrndamaged nature to the sin ofrnAdam, according a sad preeminence tornour male progenitor. Thus, as there wasrna certain “order” in rebellion, there hasrntraditionally been a certain order in restorationrnand submission. This order doesrnnot entail or even suggest a difference inrndignit}’ or worth behveen man and woman;rnwhen it is assumed that it does, andrnthat it must be rejected for that reason,rnthe ministr-, the Church, and ultimatelyrnthe way of .salvation are all damaged.rnInterestingly, one of the great fourthcenturyrntheologians, St. Gregory ofrnNazianzen, uses the imagery of submissionrnfound in Ephcsians 5 in the reversernsense: Just as both the wife and her husbandrnare equal in dignitv’ and honor, andrnshe ne’ertheless submits to her husbandrnin marriage, so the Father, Son, and HolyrnSpirit are equal in dignit)’ and being, yetrnthe second and third Persons submit tornthe Father. Gregory’s argument is interestingrnbecause it reveals hvo things aboutrnthe relationship of husbands and wives inrnthe early Church: First, equalit)- of dignityrnand honor was taken for granted, forrnotherwise the argument could not havernbeen used; and second, equalih- behveenrnpartners is compatible with the “economic”rnsubmission of one partner to another.rnhi our own day, the idea of personalrnautonomy is so compelling and the idearnof submission in any form so repugnantrnthat even among conservative Protestantrntheologians, some feminists, such asrnGilbert Bilazekian, insist that there is nornsubmission witiiin the Trinity, not evenrn”economic” subordination, for if there is,rnit is possible to argue that the principle ofrnwifely submission implies an ontologicalrninequality between the sexes, and inequalih’rnbeheen the human sexes is tliernone thing tiiat absoluteh- cannot be. Althoughrnthe non-theologian may not secrnthe significance of this feminist readingrnback of the principle of non-submissionrninto the relationship behveen the Fatherrnand the Son in the Trinih’, it shows thatrnthe principle of non-subordination (insubordination?)rnis so fundamental for thernfeminist that it requires a redefinition ofrnthe godhead itselfrnMust all offices in the church becomerncoed? There mav come a time when itrnwill be so, when pope and patriarchs,rnMissouri Synod Lutherans and OrthodoxrnJews, will fall in line and accept it. If andrnwhen that happens, we may assume thatrnChurch and synagogue will forfeit thosernvestiges of authorih’ that remain to them.rnAnd indeed, if God Himself must be “restructured”rnto conform to the human demandrnthat equalih’ equal equivalency,rnhow can the Church claim immunity?rnHarold O./. Brown is religion editor forrnChronicles, a professor of theology andrnphilosophy at Refonned TheologicalrnSeminar)’ in Charlotte, North Carolina,rnand the editor of the Religion & SocietyrnReport.rnMUSICrnExcuse Me, I ThinkrnI’ve Got a Heartachernby ]anet Scott BarlowrnOne sure sign of adancing age is arntransition in our perceptions of unchangingrnevents: What was once onrnsome level interesting or amusing is nowrnsimplv irritating. As a few things becomernmore important, nian things becomernmore boring; while tiiere’s more to love,rnthere’s less to like. Time robs us of—orrnfrees us from —certain degrees of patience.rnSo allow me to introduce myself I amrn55 ears old, and 1 will be known hereafterrnas That Crank. As I survey one ofrnlife’s major diversions and influencespopularrnculture —I find 1 hate just aboutrnall of it. As I furtiier survev my own personalrncorner of pop culture, i.e., countnmusic,rnI realize that 1 am one bitter, defeatedrngal. Follow that trail of tears dov nrnto the river of memories, and there you’llrnfind me, cranking for all I’m worth.rnBy definition, popular music is fluid.rnWere it not, v’e wouldn’t ha’e had Elvis,rnso tjiat’s reason enough right there to celebrate.rnBut the flitidit} of countr- musicrnhas always existed within a self-prescribedrnFEBRUARY 2000/43rnrnrn