by Andrea Elizabeth
Ambiguum 4 is much longer. First let me add to Ambiguum 3 more than I thought was implicit in what I shared in that post. I just wanted to make clear that in the Incarnation, the stronger nature was Christ’s Divine Nature, so it won out.
Ambiguum 4 has new information! Christ’s “obedience” was human and not divine! How can the giver of commands be obedient to them? So it’s not his divine nature that was obedient – remember the Monarchy post? – it was his human nature that he assumed. He assumed our experience of obedience. “He honors [our] obedience by His actions, and experiences it by suffering.” – St. Gregory.
Therefore the Father is the source of the Son’s deity, and that includes ruling, not subserving. But what about those headship comparisons like as the Father is over the Son the Man is over the Woman? We can’t blankly say that under this new angle that the husband automatically gives the wife her head (not that it’s like a person and an animal), but that they both be as unified and of one mind as the Father and the Son, so that they don’t act independently. Therefore they become one. Sourcehood is very interesting, and now encompasses, not independence, dignity to the sourced, and the hard work of perfect oneness, which since men aren’t perfect is a two way street.
Does he bear the responsibility? Or just the sourcehood like how Adam provided a rib? And what is it he needed a helpmeet for? In the puppet/puppeteer model women are off the hook as well as on it. I believe women bear responsibility if the husband is leading them into error. They can’t just be mindless pawns. Since he is stronger, and if in error while resisting her objection, then she may have to silently let things go his way to a point. But in some cases, I believe, she may have to claim distance instead of being a codependent accomplice. This is broken and not an equal option fix. It’s the lesser of two evils, imo.