employed, anything that looks remotely like genderstereotyping will run afoul of this law.” Further, shepoints out the reality that growing up as boys <strong>and</strong>girls is difficult enough without such “thinly-disguisedthought-c<strong>on</strong>trol laws” adding another layerof c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> from feminism <strong>and</strong> gay/transgenderrights advocates.Most young people have questi<strong>on</strong>s abouthow to express their gender. What doesit mean to be a man? What should agood woman do? <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>se are questi<strong>on</strong>swith which all young people must grapple,<strong>and</strong> they are entitled to have somesubstantial guidance from adults. For fartoo l<strong>on</strong>g, we’ve been avoiding these questi<strong>on</strong>sout of fear of offending sensibilities.With this new law, California schoolteachers <strong>and</strong> school boards will have tofear the gay lobby, as well as the feministestablishment.Indeed, all young people do grapple with theappropriate ways to express <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> theirgender <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong> in need of substantial guidance.However, they are not going to find it in a cultureentranced by postmodernity’s siren s<strong>on</strong>g of gender<strong>and</strong> sexual obfuscati<strong>on</strong>.Young people, indeed all people, will findsuch knowledge—what Francis Schaeffer famouslycalled “true truth”— <strong>on</strong>ly in the Word of God, thestorehouse of wisdom, wisdom that brings claritysuch as “God created them male <strong>and</strong> female,” wisdomthat dem<strong>and</strong>s that the <strong>on</strong>ly legitimate uni<strong>on</strong>between a man <strong>and</strong> a woman is a covenant uni<strong>on</strong>sealed by a holy God for a lifetime.Scripture knows no such ambiguous languagewith regard to issues of gender <strong>and</strong> sexuality <strong>and</strong>again, God’s Word proves that its wisdom brings t<strong>on</strong>othing the so-called “knowledge” of the philosopherof this age.– Jeff Robins<strong>on</strong>JBMW | Spring 2008 7
Letters<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Editor:Thank you for publishing a review of my book,Jesus <strong>and</strong> the Father, by Jas<strong>on</strong> Hall that I read withinterest (JBMW, 12/1, 2007, 32–39). Because I amprimarily interested in establishing what is the biblical<strong>and</strong> historically developed orthodox doctrineof the Trinity, I would like to make a reply to him.I resp<strong>on</strong>d to his work in the order I havefound comments that I cannot accept.P. 31 col. 1. Jas<strong>on</strong> says I accuse a “wideswath of evangelicals” of falling into heresy. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>truth is I accuse a very small number of evangelicalsfor publishing in error <strong>on</strong> the Trinity. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> evangelicalswho have written <strong>on</strong> the eternal subordinati<strong>on</strong>of the S<strong>on</strong> can be counted <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e h<strong>and</strong>. Not <strong>on</strong>eRoman Catholic, not <strong>on</strong>e mainline c<strong>on</strong>temporaryProtestant, <strong>and</strong> many informed evangelicals opposethis doctrine, including Millard Ericks<strong>on</strong>, RogerNicole, Cornelius Plantinga, <strong>and</strong> Philip Cary in theUSA.P. 32 col. 2. I do not speak at anytime as faras I am aware of an “egalitarian Trinity”. What Iendorse, taking up exactly the words of the AthanasianCreed, is a “co-equal” Trinity, where “n<strong>on</strong>eis before or after greater or lesser”, <strong>and</strong> all three are“Lord” <strong>and</strong> “Almighty.” Can I be in error if I exactlyquote the creeds?P. 33 col. 1. I do not oppose the subordinati<strong>on</strong>of the S<strong>on</strong> in any way. I endorse wholeheartedly,following scripture <strong>and</strong> the interpretativetraditi<strong>on</strong>, the voluntary <strong>and</strong> temporal (<strong>and</strong> if youlike “functi<strong>on</strong>al”) subordinati<strong>on</strong> of the S<strong>on</strong> for oursalvati<strong>on</strong>. What I oppose is the eternal subordinati<strong>on</strong>of the S<strong>on</strong> in being, work, or authority.P. 33 col. 1. I do not call my debatingopp<strong>on</strong>ents “Arians.” (This claim is made repeatedly)What I accuse my debating opp<strong>on</strong>ents of isembracing in ignorance key elements of the Arianheresy. If <strong>on</strong>e key element of the “neo-Arian” (i.e.Eunomian) positi<strong>on</strong>, opposed by the Cappadocians,was the subordinati<strong>on</strong> of the S<strong>on</strong> in authority—<strong>and</strong>it certainly it was—then Grudem, Wareet al have embraced a key element in the neo-Arianpositi<strong>on</strong>.P. 33 col. 2. I do not simply equate the terms“eternal” <strong>and</strong> “<strong>on</strong>tological.” What I argue is that theminute it is claimed that the S<strong>on</strong>’s subordinati<strong>on</strong> iseternal then his subordinati<strong>on</strong> is what defines hispers<strong>on</strong>. He functi<strong>on</strong>s subordinately because he isthe subordinated S<strong>on</strong>.P. 33 col. 2 last few lines. Jas<strong>on</strong> very badlymisrepresents what I say <strong>on</strong> the word “inferior.”I completely agree that an inferior in role is notnecessarily a pers<strong>on</strong>al inferior. What I argue is thatsome<strong>on</strong>e who is permanently or eternally subordinatedcannot be c<strong>on</strong>sidered an equal in any substantiveway. He or she is inferior in some way.P. 34 col. 1. Jas<strong>on</strong> suggests that I am mistakento claim that the Church Fathers <strong>and</strong> Calvinc<strong>on</strong>sider the “functi<strong>on</strong>al subordinati<strong>on</strong> of theS<strong>on</strong> a heresy.” It is true that n<strong>on</strong>e of them speakof “functi<strong>on</strong>al” or “role” subordinati<strong>on</strong>, but it is notfuncti<strong>on</strong>al subordinati<strong>on</strong> that I c<strong>on</strong>sider an error. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>voluntary, temporal functi<strong>on</strong>al subordinati<strong>on</strong> of theS<strong>on</strong> can be accepted as pristine orthodoxy. This iswhat the incarnati<strong>on</strong> is all about (c.f. Phil 2:4–11).What I oppose is the eternal subordinati<strong>on</strong> of theS<strong>on</strong> in being or functi<strong>on</strong>/work, arguing that theChurch Fathers <strong>and</strong> Calvin deem this idea to be“heresy”.P. 34 col. 2. Jas<strong>on</strong> claims that I do “not quotethe church fathers” to substantiate my argumentfrom “logic” that to deny the absolute authority<strong>and</strong> power (omnipotence) of the S<strong>on</strong> is to fall intoerror but I do <strong>and</strong> in great detail (See Jesus <strong>and</strong> theFather, pp. 185–190), especially in reference to theCappadocians.P. 35. In a major secti<strong>on</strong> entitled “Distincti<strong>on</strong>of pers<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> nature,” Jas<strong>on</strong> accuses meof “not making the necessary distincti<strong>on</strong> betweenpers<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> nature in the doctrine of the Trinity. Intrinitarian grammar the terms—substance, being,8 JBMW | Spring 2008