Play begins with a group of CHRISTIANS milling around.
NARRATOR: (off stage) Once upon a time, feminism attacked the Fatherhood of God.
Enter FEMINIST, stage left.
FEMINIST: Christianity teaches that women are inferior to men, and that’s why they have to obey their husbands!
Most CHRISTIANS ignore FEMINIST. A few smart-looking ones confer together off to the left side, studying the Bible.
SMALL GROUP OF SMART-LOOKING CHRISTIANS: (To FEMINIST) First, no we don’t teach that women are inferior. They are made in the image of God, just like men are. It’s subtle, but the *order* of the sexes—man first, then woman—and the fact that woman came *from* man, mean that although they have the same nature, woman’s role is different. Second, you are wrong that obedience implies inferiority. The Son obeys the Father, and in no way shape or form is the Son inferior to the Father.
Some Christians breathe a sigh of relief and edge closer to the smart-looking ones. However, some other smart-looking CHRISTIANS separate themselves from the group and address the first smart-looking group.
OTHER SMART-LOOKING CHRISTIANS: Actually, only Jesus’ human nature obeys, which is inferior to the Father. You’re in danger of falling into old Trinitarian heresies.
FEMINIST exits stage left in disgust with half the main body of CHRISTIANS following. The other half stands there looking confused while the two smaller groups of CHRISTIANS mill together in a state of confused conversation and argument. Random Greek and Latin words are heard at times. A few punches are thrown. Various heresies are hurled as epithets. Dictionaries are consulted. Eventually they separate again, and each take a label as a name tag. The large group of remaining CHRISTIANS that haven’t followed FEMINIST is still in the middle, looking confused.
ETERNAL FUNCTIONAL SUBORDINATION GROUP: (after changing their name-tag three times) Actually, we believe the Son really has always been subordinate to the Father in some sense. After all, He obeys ad intra.
ANTI-EFS GROUP: That’s Arianism! Obedience necessitates two wills, but there is only one will in God ad intra. This was settled at Nicea centuries ago! I just can’t even.
CHRISTIANS: Umm. This sounds complicated. Are we supposed to know what “ad intra” means? Anyway, we know Arianism is bad. (Mill around a bit, ending up closer to ANTI-EFS GROUP.)
EFS: (Turns to address CHRISTIANS) Yeah, no. “Ad intra” means that we’re talking about the relationship between Father and Son from all eternity, not just when human Jesus learned obedience on earth. (Turning back to ANTI-EFS) Anyway, no, we aren’t Arians. Obedience doesn’t require two wills. We teach one will. Nevertheless, the Son is subordinate. The Son was sent by the Father, and He obeyed by coming to earth!
ANTI-EFS: Why are we even talking about this? There is no connection or correlation between the Trinity and marriage in the first place! We don’t need anything related to the Trinity to defend biblical manhood and womanhood. It’s a big mistake to confuse the two. Trying to read stuff in or out of the Trinity in terms of human relationships is just Social Trinitarianism.
CHRISTIANS, looking intimidated, move even closer to ANTI-EFS.
EFS: (staring dumbly) … …You do realize that fatherhood is pretty fundamental, right? It’s beginning to sound like you’re attacking God’s fatherhood, just like FEMINIST. You really don’t believe that the relationship between God the Father and God the Son has any bearing on the nature of fathers and sons on earth and how they are to relate?
ANTI-EFS: Sure we do!
EFS: In what way? Should sons obey fathers because of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son?
ANTI-EFS: No. The Son doesn’t obey the Father, so earthly relationships are different in that way.
EFS: What about submission? Or something like that? Use whatever word you want that doesn’t imply inferiority to you.
ANTI-EFS: No. Submission always implies inferiority.
EFS: (muttering) That’s exactly what FEMINIST said.
ANTI-EFS: Shut up. I’m not a feminist, and there is no reason at all to draw parallels between the sexes and the Trinity.
EFS: Is there, in fact, any practical outworking of Father and Son in the godhead to earthly relationships?
ANTI-EFS: I can’t think of any.
EFS: But God is the Father from whom all fatherhood gets its name. It can’t get any clearer that there is a connection between the relationships in the Trinity and human relationships. Don’t you think that fatherhood from above means something for the fatherhood here below?
ANTI-EFS: That verse is mistranslated. It should say “family,” not “fatherhood.”
EFS: You’ve got to be kidding me. If you are “not feminist,” I wonder what I am! Is there any difference at all between the Father and the Son, and if not, why are they called different things?
ANTI-EFS: Well, there’s one. And it’s the key to understanding any distinction that you think you might have found between the Father and Son. Taxis.
EFS: Wait. Before we go there, why is it the Father that sent the Son, and not the Son that sent the Father? Was it just random?
ANTI-EFS: Well, it probably could have been either, but if there is a reason, then it is because the Son came out of the Father. As I just said, that’s literally the only distinction between the persons in the Trinity: taxis.
EFS: Ok… which means “order,” right?
ANTI-EFS: Exactly.
EFS: And that’s the only distinction at all between Father and Son?
ANTI-EFS: Right. Now do you finally get it?
EFS: But that order doesn’t actually mean anything practical?
ANTI-EFS: Sure it does. The reason the Son was sent instead of the Father is because the *order* within the Trinity, and the fact that the Son proceeds *from* the Father means that although they have the same nature, the Son has a different role.
EFS: That’s subtle. I think I’ve heard it somewhere before.
