“Superior and Inferior”: Recovering the Vocational Language of the Westminster Standards

In modern discourse, the words “superior” and “inferior” are often given a connotation of morality or are used in an evaluative sense. To call someone superior is to suggest excellence, and to call another inferior is to imply defectiveness. But this was not always the case. 

Historically, these terms had a connotation of position or station. “Superior” meant someone who held a higher office or place of authority, while “inferior” referred simply to one who was under such authority. The terms described relationships, not worth.

This shift in language has serious implications for how modern readers understand historic theological texts, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. When such documents use the terms “superior” and “inferior,” they do so within the older hierarchical framework, where the emphasis is on roles and responsibilities, not value or dignity. The growing disconnect between the traditional and modern usage can cause significant misunderstanding, especially in an age growing more egalitarian. The Westminster Standards reflect an older, hierarchical worldview rooted in Scripture and the natural ordering of society. This is evident in Westminster Confession of Faith 23.1, which states:

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good…

Here, the magistrates are described as “over the people,” superior in office by God’s design. The statement is theological and structural, not personal or moral. The magistrate is superior because of vocation, not because he is more valuable as a person. This understanding is reiterated in WCF 20.4:

…And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty…

Liberty does not negate hierarchy; rather, it flourishes within a proper one. Christian liberty respects the structures God has ordained.The Larger Catechism provides an even more detailed articulation. In Question 124, we are asked:

Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?” “By father and mother… are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

The term “superior” clearly denotes office and responsibility. It includes civil rulers, pastors, and elders, as well as those older or more gifted. The reference is vocational and relational. There is no implication of moral superiority or ontological hierarchy.

Question 125 continues;

Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them…

This is crucial. The language of superiority is immediately tempered by a command to act with parental affection, not with domineering pride. The use of familial language reinforces the mutual obligations embedded in hierarchical relationships.

Further catechetical clarity comes in WLC 126:

The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.

Notice the word “mutually” here. Everyone, at different times and in different spheres, inhabits all three roles. A teacher may be a superior to his students, but an inferior to his elders at church. This framework prevents abuse and contextualizes authority. It is not an unqualified exaltation, but a matter of stewardship.

In Questions 127–130, the Standards outline the reciprocal duties:

Inferiors owe to their superiors all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior… Superiors ought to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors…

Again, the vocabulary does not denote dignity or value, but office and responsibility. Both roles are accountable to God and to one another. The moral worth of a person is not located in their position in the hierarchy.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism echoes this in Question 64:

The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honour, and performing the duties, belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.

The simplicity of this statement underscores the same point: social and ecclesiastical order require an acknowledgment of relational roles.

Contrast this traditional view with modern usage. Today, the word “superior” is synonymous with “better,” making it a claim about excellence or inherent worth. Likewise, to be called “inferior” is to be diminished. The hierarchical language has been eclipsed by a moral-evaluative framework. The shift reflects broader cultural changes involving egalitarian assumptions, suspicion of authority, and a flattening of roles into a language of power dynamics.

This semantic drift is not harmless. It invites misreading of theological texts and distorts our understanding of ecclesiastical and civic relationships. When a modern reader encounters the word “inferior” in a catechism, the immediate assumption may be that the author believed some people were worth less than others. That is simply false. The Westminster divines were clear: the language is vocational, not ontological; descriptive, not evaluative.

The church must respond with clarity and care. One way forward is to reclaim our theological vocabulary while clarifying it more effectively. Pastors and teachers should take time to unpack historic terms, helping congregants see the goodness of biblical order. When using a term like “superior,” we should specify the nature of the superiority: vocational, not ontological. Denominational statements should be consistent and use the same language as our forefathers. 

Beyond the church, this is a lesson in the dangers of semantic drift. It is natural for words to change meaning over time. But when words with theological or ecclesial importance shift, the consequences are not neutral. Historical-linguistic literacy becomes essential for faithfulness. Without it, we risk attributing to our theological ancestors views they did not hold, or misapplying their teaching in the present context.

Conclusion

In sum, the vocabulary of “superior” and “inferior” in the Westminster Standards is part of a rich and coherent theological anthropology. It acknowledges authority, mutual obligation, and dignity for all. These terms were never intended to imply personal value or innate worth. They are the language of vocation, not valuation. Reclaiming this understanding will help us read our confessional heritage more faithfully and engage today’s cultural debates more clearly.

The church, particularly in an age suspicious of hierarchy, must be both bold and careful in its speech. We need not fear the language of our forefathers. But when we do use it, we must be sure our usage is consistent with our foundational documents.