Evangelicalism has failed to detect and reject the biblically inconsistent starting points of an unholy trinity of cultural ideologies: Marxism, multiculturalism, and genderism.[1] Genderism, the third member of the unholy trinity, is a term borrowed from contemporary secular gender studies which is redefined as referring to the false and anti-Christian family of ideologies consisting of feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, transsexuality, and other gender related ideologies relating the LGBTQA++positions that deny the creation order binary definition of male and female according to physical sex (Gen 1:27).[2] Genderism is currently undermining the foundation of the church by destroying the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). Evangelical academicians, pastors, and laypeople must take action against events taking place in the ivory towers of academia that have been and are continuing to shipwreck the local church (1 Tim 1:19). This thesis will be argued in four parts over four postings: (1) Definitions and History, (2) Opposition Actions, (3) The Stakes, and (4) Recommended Actions.

Despite a revisionist history which places its origins earlier and claims to be a biblically derived theology, the so-called Christian feminist movement (falsely called egalitarians) arose as a purely“culturally conditioned”[3] and heretical[4] ideology from the second wave of the secular feminist movement (1960s–1980s)[5]and incited heated debate in the church over the roles of women in marriage, the church, and society. In this debate of the last five decades, five views appearing in the polemic literature (traditional/patriarchal, hierarchal, headship, egalitarian [here after called the so-called “Christian feminist” or “feminist” view],[6]and secular feminist) have been reduced to two views: the complementarian and so-called Christian feminist, with the understanding that there is a spectrum of positions within each view.[7]The feminist view generally permits women to do whatever a man may do in the church and in society at large because any restrictions are due to sin and are reversed by redemption (Gen 1–2; Gal 3:28), while the complementarian view reserves some positions or functions for men and assigns others to women based on the creation order (Gen 2:15, 18; Tim 2:11–15).[8]In 1987, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) formed to promote biblical and orthodox complementarianism and produced the “Danvers Statement” (1988) and the definitive text, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood(1991, 2006).[9]In the same year, the opposition group Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) formed and produced the “Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality” (1989) and the definitive feminist text, Discovering Biblical Equality(2005).[10]Regardless of their use of the Bible and according to the mission statement and history on its website, CBE believes notin Christianity, but ratherin the antibiblical unholy trinity of Marxism, multiculturalism, and genderism:[11]“CBE International (CBE) is a nonprofit organization of Christian men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnicgroups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scriptures” and CBE is “devoted to reviewing and promoting resources on gender.”[12]

Prior to the rise of genderism and in response to the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (1920–1935), looselycharacterized as the battle between inerrantists and those adhering to the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture, the ETS was formed in 1949 as part of the neo-evangelical movement to create new “fundamentalist” intuitions (1930–1950).[13]In keeping with this historical context, the ETS constitution respectively states in Articles 2 & 3 that the purpose of the society is “to foster conservativebiblical scholarship” and that this purpose rests on the doctrinal basis (not statement of faith) of the affirmation of biblical inerrancy.[14]Since its founding, ETS has represented diverse theological viewpoints across the evangelical spectrum in a number of doctrinal loci,[15]but the society shifted toward complementarianism through the mid-1980s–mid-1990s[16]when Southern Baptists began joining ETS after the conservative resurgence[17](1979–1990)[18]took place in that denomination.

Gordon H. Clark, the 17thETS president, pointed out that while “both principles are, of course, essential in every age,” the main issue of the day had shifted from justification in the Reformation to inerrancy in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of his time, so in postmodernity, while justification is essential and inerrancy foundational, “the main battle centers on” the unholy trinity of Marxism, multiculturalism, and genderism.[19]Genderism is currently undermining the foundation of the church by destroying the ETS. Evangelical academicians, pastors, and laypeople must take action against events taking place in the ivory towers of academia that have been and are continuing to shipwreck the local church (1 Tim 1:19). Having explained the Definitions and History in this article, the next three posts will outline the (2) Opposition Actions, (3) The Stakes, and (4) Recommended Actions regarding the genderists’ takeover of ETS.

 

 

[1]https://epecarticles.com/2018/08/18/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-1-introduction-by-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d/. In this manner, the nature of evangelicalism has experienced a fundamental shift so that large parts of evangelicalism are no longer Christian. Each ideology is unholy because they promise good but deliver evil. They are a trinity because each successive ideology builds in some way on its predecessor, beginning with Marxism.

[2]According to Airton and Thorne, “legendary sociologist” Erving Goffman(1922–1982) coined the term “genderism” in a 1977 study. Liz Airton, “Untangling ‘Gender Diversity’: Genderism and Its Discontents (I.E., Everyone),” in Diversity and Multiculturalism: A Reader, ed. Shirley R. Steinberg (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 242, note #15; Barrie Thorne, Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1993), 85. In Goffman’s original use, the term simply referred to “a sex-class linked individual behavioral practice.” Erving Goffman, “The Arrangement between the Sexes,” Theory and Society4, no. 3 (Aut. 1977): 305.

Subsequent to Goffman’s minting of the word, Airton tracks its history through the educational and psychological fields and finally into gender studies where it has numerous definitions and even claimants for originating the term. Airton opts for using the definition from a 2005 study on “transphobia” by psychologists Hill and Willoughby. Airton, Untangling ‘Gender Diversity’: Genderism and Its Discontents (I.E., Everyone), 242, note #15. Airton’s decision appears wise as Hill and Willoughby’s definition is seemingly one of the most widely cited in the literature related to gender studies and also because it is very comprehensive. Darryl B. Hill and Brian L. B. Willoughby, “The Development and Validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale,” Sex Roles53, no. 7/8 (Oct. 2005): 534.

[3]While complementarians have not so specifically referenced the “second wave,” they have indirectly or non-technically referred to it in their claims that so-called Christian feminism is “culturally conditioned.” So-called Christian feminists have responded not only by reversing the charge that complementarianism is culturally conditioned, but also with a revisionist history that moves the origins of their movement back into the first wave of feminism or beyond. However, feminists’ accounts of the feminist movement in standard references works in the field and other important historical works, including the attempts at revision themselves, contradict the revisionist history of so-called Christian feminists. Complementarian “culturally conditioned” sources: Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nded. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 254; Robert D. Culver, “A Traditional View: Let Your Women Keep Silence,” in Women in Ministry: Four Views, ed. Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse of Spectrum Multiview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), Kindle ed, ch. 1; Piper and Grudem, Recovering, Kindle ed, s.v. “Preface (2006)”; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck of Counterpoints: Bible and Theology, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), Kindle ed., ch. 4. So-called Christian Feminist revisionist history sources: Donald W. Dayton, Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), s.v. “Chapter 8”; Janette Hassey, No Time for Silence: Evangelical Women in Public Ministry around the Turn of the Century(Minneapolis MN: Christians for Biblical Equality, 1986), Kindle ed., s.v. “Preface”; Ronald W. Pierce, “Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed., ch. 3; Allison Quient, “Equating ‘Feminisms’,” Christians for Biblical Equality Special Edition: An Evangelical Tradition  (2013): 20; Ruth A. Tucker and Walter L. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Tunes to the Present(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 402.Works Contradicting Revisionist Accounts: Ann Braude, “Religions and Modern Feminism,” in Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, ed. Rosemary Skinner Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Bloomington: Indiana University, 2006), 1:14–15; Pamela D. H. Cochran, Evangelical Feminism: A History(New York: New York University, 2005), 18, 22, 44; Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, Revised ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1987), 16-17; Carolyn DeSwarte Gifford, “Nineteenth and Twnetieth Century Protestant Social Reform Movements in the United States,” in Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, ed. Rosemary Skinner  Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Bloomington: Indiana University, 2006), 1021; Patricia Gundry, Woman Be Free!(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 109; David Hempton, Evangelical Disenchantment: Nine Portraits of Faith and Doubt(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), Kindle ed., ch. 5; Ruth A. Tucker and Walter L. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Tunes to the Present(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 252.

[4]Like many contemporary heresies (such as the annihilationists, universalists, and pluralists), the feminist writings openly declare that they are explicitly revising the tradition. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed., s.v. “Introduction.”However, contemporary heretics do not realize (or in some cases care) that in making such claims they are admitting that their views are heresy. The reason such statements are an admission of heresy is that biblically, historically, and technically, heresy is novelty. Scripture defines heresy as novelty (“novitates,” 1 Tim 6:20, Vulgate) or as false teaching introduced (for the first time) that is new and contrary to the received tradition (2 Tim 2:13–14; 2 Pet 2:1–2; Jude 3–4). Despite contemporary interpretations of the Reformers to the contrary, the evangelical tradition to which such heretics falsely purport to adhere defines heresy as novelty since Calvin, Luther, and the other reformers accepted the Roman Catholic (Vincent of Lérins) definition of heresy as novelty when they made their defense against the charge of being innovators. Calvin Acta Synodi Tridentinae: cum antidoto(CR 35:369–70); Idem, Inst. 4.9.8 (CR 30:862); cp. Calvin Inst.4.19.32 (CR 30:1088). Cp. Theodore Beza, Sermons Sur L’histoire De La Résurrection De Nostre Seigneur Jésus Christ(Geneva: Jean le Preux, 1593), 390; Luther Von Ordnung Gottesdiensts in der Gemeine(WA 12:35); Vincent, Com. 5, 24, 33 (PL 50:644, 670–72, 684–86). Since feminists and other contemporary heretics openly admit that they intentionally are revising the traditional view of the church, then they are by technical definition confessing that they are arguing for heresy. Regardless of what moderns and postmoderns believe the Reformers did, the Reformers never claimed to be revising the tradition as contemporary scholars brazenly do, rather they claimedto be restoring the tradition to a prior uncorrupted state.

[5]Feminists argue that there have been four waves of feminism: the first wave dealt with suffrage and arose out of the abolitionist movement (1840-1920), the second wave dealt with legal and unofficial inequalities and arose out of the civil rights movement (1960s-1980s), the third wave dealt with the failures of the second wave (1990s-2007), and the fourth wave is characterized by its living out of the third wave ideals and use of technology (2008-present). Jennifer Baumgardner, F ‘Em!: Goo Goo, Gaga, and Some Thoughts on Balls(Berkeley: Seal, 2011), 243-52; Ann Braude, “Religions and Modern Feminism,” in Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, ed. Rosemary Skinner  Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether (Bloomington: Indiana University, 2006), 1:12; Estelle Freedman, No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women(New York: Random House, 2007), 45-46; Neeru Tandon, Feminism: A Paradigm Shift(New Delhi: Atlantic, 2008), 1-12.

[6]So-called Christian feminism or simply feminism will be used to refer to the egalitarian position for two reasons. First, and as previous articles have demonstrated, the unholy trinity is so ideologically different as a worldview and completely incompatible with the Bible philosophically, hermeneutically, and theologically that feminism in any form(secular or so-called Christian/egalitarian) is not compatible with Scripture and cannot ever properly bear the title Christian. Second, egalitarians, like other contemporary liberals, intentionally use the term egalitarianism instead of feminism as a form of Orwellian doublespeak for a smoke screen to hide their true cultural and anti-Christian affiliation with feminism. The heretics cannot be allowed to define the terminology and intentionally so in a manner, like other liberals, to predispose the conversation/debate in their favor before it even begins. Despite its basic differences with secular feminism, so-called Christian feminism is a form of feminism and therefore inherently incompatible with Scripture. https://epecarticles.com/2018/08/18/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-1-introduction-by-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d/.

[7]The traditional, hierarchal, headship, and egalitarian/so-called Christian feminist views were the four main Christian views and the secular feminist view is an unbelieving view, but one even held by some so-called Christians in logical contradiction to their faith. James R. Beck, ed.Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Revised ed., Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), Kindle ed., s.v. “Introdution”; Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 250; Bonnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, eds., Women in Ministry: Four Views, Spectrum Multiview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), Kindle ed., s.v. “Introduction”; Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed., s.v. “Introduction”; John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006),Kindle ed., s.v “Preface (1991).”

[8]Boyd and Eddy, Spectrum, 250; Groothuis and Pierce, Biblical Equality, Kindle ed. s.v. “Introduction.”

[9]Ronald W. Pierce, “Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed., ch. 3; John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006),Kindle ed., s.v “Preface (2006)”; http://www.grbc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Danvers-Statement-on-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood.pdf.

[10]Ibid; https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/english_0.pdf.

[11]As previous articles have demonstrated, the unholy trinity is so ideologically different as a worldview and completely incompatible with the Bible philosophically, hermeneutically, and theologically that just as Carl Trueman paraphrased J. Gresham Machen’s claim about liberalism, so also the unholy trinity “is not a legitimate form of historic Christianity but rather a different religion entirely.” Carl R. Trueman, “Foreword,” in Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), ix.

[12]Emphasis added. CBE, “History of CBE,”  https://www.cbeinternational.org/content/cbes-history; idem, “CBE’s Mission and Values,” https://www.cbeinternational.org/content/cbes-mission. Cp. Stanley J. Grenz, “Biblical Priesthood and Women in Minsitry,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed, ch. 16; Ronald W. Pierce, “Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, ed. Gordon Fee (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), Kindle ed., ch. 3. According to CBE member, Chelsea De Armond, CBE officially shifted to the Marxist position of social justice in 2005, “In October of 2005, CBE revised its mission statement to include its commitment to the biblical call to justice.” Chelsea De Armond, “CBE Makes Valuable Contributions to the 2006 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting” Mutuality(Winter, 2006): 31.

[13]Not all fundamentalists were inerrantists, but the inerrancy debate was a large part of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. According to James Eckman, neo-evangelicals were a group led by Harold John Ockenga (1905–1985), Carl Henry (1913–2003), and Billy Graham (1918–2018) “who sought to reform fundamentalism to be more scholarly and to put more emphasis on apologetics and the social dimension of Christianity” and who founded Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA and Christianity Today. James P. Eckman, Exploring Church History(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 96–97; Daniel G. Reid, ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), s.v. “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” “Fundamentalism”; John Wiseman, “Introduction: The Evangelical Theological Society: Yesterday and Today,” JETS28, no. 5 (1985): 5–6.

[14]Emphasis added. “Article II Purpose: The purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservativebiblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures. Article III: Doctrinal Basis: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrantin the autographs.” Wiseman, “Introduction,” 9; cp. “ETS Constitution.” https://www.etsjets.org/about/constitution; “Purpose Statement.” https://www.etsjets.org/about/purpose_statement.

[15]Wiseman, “Introduction,” 6.

[16]R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Southern Baptists and the Quest for Theological Identity: Unavoidable Questions for the Twenty-First Century,” in The SBC and the 21st Century: Reflection, Renewal & Recommitment, ed. Jason K. Allen (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), s.v. “Chapter 5”; David Roach, “ETS Meeting: ‘Southern Baptists Everywhere’,” (Nov, 2014). http://www.bpnews.net/43787; Emily Louise Zimbrick-Rogers, “‘A Question Mark over My Head’: Experiences of Women ETS Members at the 2014 ETS Annual Meeting,” Special Edition Journal of Christians for Biblical Equality: A Question Mark Over My Head  (2015): 8–9.

[17]According to Worthen, the conservative resurgence is a term which refers to “what supporters call the ‘conservative resurgence’ and critics bemoan as the ‘fundamentalist takeover’: the radical shift of SBC leadership from the moderate, even mainline-inclined theology of the 1970s to today’s firm grounding in biblical inerrancy, a complementarian view of gender roles, and, more often than not, conservative politics.” Moly Worthen, “The Reformer: How Al Mohler Transformed a Seminary, Helped Change a Denomination, and Challenges a Secular Culture,” CT54, no. 10 (2010): 20.

[18]Robison B. James and others, The Fundamentalist Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief History, 4th ed. (Macon, GA: Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia, 2006), 40–41; William Stanley Stone, Jr., “The Southern Baptist Convention Reformation. 1979–1990: A Social Drama” (Ph.D. diss., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1993), 1; James C. Hefley, The Truth in Crisis: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, Reprint ed., vol. 6 (Garland, TX: Hannibal Books, 2005), 25, 45, 249. As opposed to earlier historiographies which end the movement by 1990 (although Hefley indicates an ongoing dimension), Sutton dates the resurgence as 1979–2000. (There seems to be firm agreement that 1979 was the beginning of the controversy). Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 1.

[19]Gordon H. Clark, “The Evangelical Theological Society Tomorrow,” BETS9, no. 1 (1966): 3.