Does the Father reveal the Son negatively or positively

So I'm working on some thoughts from John 5:16-30, especially around verse 19, the Son can do nothing by himself, only what he sees the Father doing.

This passage should be favourite for those who want to emphasise the functional subordination of the Son. After all, Jesus seems to determined to emphasise that the Father has given him life, judgement, honour...

But what does the functional subordination of the Son reveal about the Father.
If verse 19 is correct not just of Jesus actions in the economy, then doesn't it mean that the Son cannot submit unless he sees the Father also, in some way, submitting?
Isn't the whole point that there is a correlation between the action and will of the Father and the Son (and a positive correlation!)


And doesn't the Father in fact do this? By handing all judgement to the Son, by granting for the Son to have life in himself, by, in a sense giving up his identity to the will of the Son, since the Son gives life to whomever he pleased to give it.

Because of the gender debate, those who push functional subordination seem to want to posit a negative correlation between the action of the Son and the action of the Father (i.e. Jesus' submission shows us that the Father commands, rather than showing us that he Father also, in his own way, submits)Is this in any way related to the kind of crucifixion division of labour in popular evangelical piety, ie the Son is loving and forgiving and the Father is wrathful?
Wasn't it Arius who had the problem of asserting a negative correlation between the Son and the Father?any way related to the kind of crucifixion division of labour in popular evangelical piety, ie the Son is loving and forgiving and the Father is wrathful?


So I want to propose that asserting a functional subordination of the Son only avoids a Arius-ish mistake when it notes a positive correlation between the action of the Son in submitting and the action of the Father in giving him all things.

Not very useful for a gender debate though

Do people think you like to think?

My son likes to get up early in the morning. Really early.
Every now and then we head off to a local cafe which has two distinct advantages. It opens at 7 am, and has what I like to call 'a baby cage', and others call a play area.
So this one monday morning I take in what I've been reading, Barth's Church dogmatics, 3/3. as I stumbled in bleary eyed, the owner of the cafe looks at the book in my hand "what on earth are you reading?"
I hand her the book
"Oh, theology. Are you studying?"
"No, I'm a minister with the Anglican Church"
"So it's for work, a sermon or something"
"No, I just like to think"
"Really? I get loads of ministers in here. They look stuffed on a Monday. They're pretty good looking too
((I don't know if I should be offended by this comment))
Lots of students too. always with their theology assignments. But you are the first I've ever met who reads it because you want to. Most ministers don't like theology because it raises questions. Ministers don't like questions".

Now we had a good conversation about this and all sorts of other Jesus stuff. But it did get me thinking.
Did we really study all that theology just to pass exams?
Are we committed f to thinking and learning and listening. Or is that only for four years and then it becomes just another job.
Do thou read theology for the pleasure of thinking about god?

A Climate (and environmental) solution

It is increasingly clear that humans are having massive and devastating impact on our environment.
This includes (but is not limited to) climate change.
This damage seems to be to the extent that the world will become increasingly hostile to human living, and may reduce the carrying capacity of the earth.
Part of the problem is levels of consumption, especially in wealthier countries.
Part of the problem is an expanding population, which aspires to live at levels closer to those in wealthier countries.

It has become increasing clear that the people in wealthier countries are extremely unlikely to give up the power and comfort involved in their levels of consumption, even if it means hurtling headlong into a situation where the environment becomes exceedingly hostile.

In all likelihood, it will be the poorest who are affected the most by climate change and other environmental degradation.

So it is with a heavy heart that I propose a solution hinted at by the Dead Kennedys in 1980, the year of my birth

Of course, nuclear weapons cause their own problems, but a simpler solution could be found. Perhaps if a particularly destructive virus could be released, and then the vaccine sold at a high enough price that only the wealthy could afford it. This would have the added bonus of removing some money from the economy (hence lowering consumption) which could then be put into adaptation programs for survivors.

I know there will be some moral recoil to this proposal, but it must be remembered that killing the poor is what we are going to do anyway. This will simply speed things up a bit, and those who remain will hopefully be left with a far more habitable world. Life would not necessarily be easy for those who remain (who would make our shoes??), but the wealthy are obviously going to be far more adaptable anyway.