Evangelicalism has failed to detect and reject the biblically inconsistent starting points of an unholy trinity of cultural ideologies: Marxism, multiculturalism, and genderism. 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 associated with the LGBTQA++ positions. Whereas the last three posts outlined the history behind genderism’s destruction of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), the opposition actions, and the stakes, this article presents the last of the four points outlined in the first essay by recommending actions in response to the devastation.
Although both conservative members and genderist participants of ETS, such as Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), likely do not see it at this time, it is probable and highly regrettable that ETS is already a burned organization for conservative evangelicals so that a new conservative academic organization needs to be formed. At least eight factors indicate that ETS is already irrevocably compromised. First, unlike past controversial theological-ethical issues, ETS cannot remain neutral on the issue of genderism because whether or not ETS allows women in leadership or to present at meetings, inherently means the organization is taking a position on the issue. Second, since historically ETS has been unable to expand its insufficient doctrinal basis into a more comprehensive statement of faith, then it is highly unlikely that the current leadership will officially affirm either complementarianism or genderism. Third, since ETS historically has been unable to enforce its doctrinal basis of inerrancy, then there is little reason to believe that the current leadership would actually enforce a position on genderism. Fourth, while CBE finds the participation of women at ETS to be deficient, in fact their organization is already unalterably entrenched in ETS not only because of reasons two and three, but also because the ETS executive committee does not appear to have the will to enforce complementarianism. For example, in CBE’s 2014 study of “Women at ETS” three complementarian ETS executive committee members (anonymous?, Daniel B. Wallace, and Thomas R. Schreiner, See Table A3) were quoted as effectively stating that the committee lacked the will to enforce complementarianism and was even open to feminism. Additionally, not only Pastor Tom Buck (First Baptist Church of Lindale, Texas), but also Thomas R. Schreiner (ETS President, 2014) believe that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the primary complementarian force in ETS, at best has a strong feminist element and at worst is moving toward feminism as a denomination. Fifth, as the current 2020 ETS executive committee (See Table A4) consists of six confirmed complementarians, including Wallace from the 2014 CBE study, and the current president is a staunch feminist (Craig S. Keener), then it seems unlikely the committee will take action to remove or oppose genderists, much less make ETS complementarian. Sixth, as Gundry points out, the ETS constitution and particularly the doctrinal basis are extremely difficult to change as general amendments require a 60% vote and the doctrinal basis an 80% vote for change. Given that ETS women’s membership is approximately 6–7% and that the number of feminists is probably larger than 14%, then it seems unlikely that under fair voting conditions ETS even has the required 80% vote to become complementarian or resist feminism. Seventh, ETS has started a Facebook group with the explicit purpose that, “more women will be encouraged to join and remain active members of ETS.” Such an action surely indicates that women and feminists will soon gain the numerical presence and voting constituency necessary to undermine any remaining and informal complementarianism at ETS. Eighth, the fact that the various individuals and groups were able to get away with the opposition actions described in a previous post, and with so little resistance, indicates that ETS is already lost. Consequently, due to evangelicalism’s general capitulation to the prevailing culture of the unholy trinity, the lack of resistance to it in ETS, and the difficulty of changing the doctrinal basis, then, unless something dramatically changes, it seems likely that ETS is already irrevocably compromised by genderism.
More than likely at this point it is too late for ETS. ETS is a burned organization for conservative evangelical scholars who oppose Marxism, multiculturalism, and particularly genderism. ETS has already been compromised by a host of errors. Some of these aberrant teachings include: so-called Christian feminism, other forms of genderism, openness theology (open theism), and scholars denying inerrancy. Conservative evangelical scholars really need a new organization with a far more stringent and comprehensive statement of faith than ETS’ bare doctrinal basis. Consequently, concerned pastors and laypeople should at least take the following steps: (1) Pray for conservative evangelical scholars to realize the condition of ETS. (2) Pray for evangelical scholars to start a new conservative academic society. (3) Donors should financially support a new evangelical academic society. (4) Pastors and laypeople should individually contact their local seminary and let the board of trustees know that their church does not want professors training their future pastors to believe in the unholy trinity. (5) Pastors and laypeople may corporately petition their seminary or denominational leadership that they do not want specifically liberal ETS professors training their future leaders. (6) Donors should withhold or reallocate funding from schools or institutions they believe are not actively opposing the unholy trinity. (7) Qualified representatives may attend any denominational or church affiliation meetings and voice opposition to the cultural ideologies of the unholy trinity and its propagation in the relevant seminaries.
While justification and inerrancy are essential and foundational doctrines, the most important issue of our time is the unholy trinity of Marxism, multiculturalism, and genderism. Genderism is currently undermining the foundation of the church by destroying 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).
Table A2: Select History of ETS Homosexual & Transgender Discussion
|ETS Annual Meeting||Session/Group||Select Scholar(s)/Presentation(s)
(Page numbers are to the
|2007||Hermeneutics||Kenneth G. Radant (Canadian Theological Seminary)
“Headcovering, Holy Kisses, Hierarchy, and Homosexuality: How Do We Discern What It Means to Obey Biblical Directives? A Truth-in-Context Model”
(ETS 2007, p. 26)
|2009||Pauline Studies||Linda Belleville (Bethel College, IN)
“Is the TNIV Soft on Sin? A Linguistic and Moralistic Analysis of ‘Male Prostitutes’ and ‘Practicing Homosexuals’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9” (ETS 2009, p. 18)
|2009||Personal and Social Ethics||Denny Burk (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Why Evangelicals Should Ignore Brian McLaren: How the New Testament Requires Evangelicals to Render Judgment on the Moral Status of Homosexuality” (ETS 2009, p. 28)
|2009||Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS)||Jim Spiegel (Taylor University)
“Why Gay Marriage Is Unjust”
(ETS 2009, p. 37)
|2011||Parallel Session||Francis J. Beckwith (Baylor University)
“Justificatory Liberalism and Same-Sex Marriage”
(ETS 2011, p. 28)
|2011||Parallel Session||Daniel R. Heimbach (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Refuting Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage”
(ETS 2011, p. 31)
|2013||Systematic Theology||J. Alan Branch (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Scientific Research and Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality” (ETS 2013, p. 52)
|2014||Christian Ethics||J. Alan Branch (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Pro-Homosexual Arguments Regarding Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and Homosexuality as an Immutable Trait: A Brief Christian Ethical Analysis” (ETS 2014, p. 18)
|2014||Evangelicals and Gender: Gender, Identity, and Sexuality:
A Conversation for the Church
|Ronald W. Pierce, Christa L. McKirkland, Amy Schifrin, and Darrell Bock
(ETS 2014, p. 19)
|2014||Issues in Sexuality & Gender||Denny Burk, Preston Sprinkle, Wesley Hill
(ETS 2014, p. 33)
|2014||Evangelicals and Gender||Kirsten Laurel Guidero, Sandra Glahn, Michael E. Erickson, Nate Collins (ETS 2014, p. 38)|
|2014||Ecclesiology: Gender Issues||Scott R. Jackson (Ouachita Baptist University)
“The Church and Homosexuality: A Theological and Pastoral Response to Growing Challenges”
(ETS 2014, p. 61)
|2015||Marriage and the Family||Nate Collins (Southern Seminary)
“Theological Perspectives on Non-Straight Sexuality, Gender Identity, and Sanctification” (ETS 2015, p. 16)
|2015||Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS)||Douglas M. Beaumont (North-West University)
“Christian Businesspeople, Gay Weddings, and the Ethics of
Cooperation in Wrongdoing”
John R. Gilhooly (Cedarville University)
“Gender, Sexuality, and Self-Identification”
(ETS 2015, p. 25)
|2015||EPS: Marriage and Gender Issues||Tapio Puolimitka, David Baggett, David A. Talcott, Kristen Davis
(ETS 2015, p. 46–47)
|2015||Methodological Approaches to a Theology of Marriage||Preston Sprinkle, Megan DeFranza, Stephen R. Holmes, David Gushee
(ETS 2015, p. 49)
|2016||An Evangelical Appraisal of Transgenderism and
|Moderator: Denny Burk
Owen Strachan (Midwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary), “The Clarity of Complementarity:
Transgender in Moral & Theological Perspective”
Preston Sprinkle (Eternity Bible College), “A Biblically Compassionate Response to Transgender Persons”
R. Albert Mohler (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), “Understanding the Transgender
Revolution in the West”
(ETS 2016, p. 16)
|2016||Christian Ethics||J. Alan Branch (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Epigenetics and Homosexuality: A Brief Survey and Analysis”
(ETS 2016, p. 21)
|2016||Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church||Moderator: Preston Sprinkle
Presenters: Wesley Hill, Bill Loader, Stephen R. Holmes, Megan DeFranza
(ETS 2016, p. 27)
|2017||Christian Ethics||Andy Draycott (Talbot School of Theology/Biola University)
“Evangelical Ethics and Transgender: A Critical Exploration”
(ETS 2017, p. 13)
|2017||Evangelicals and Gender||J. Alan Branch (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Gender Reassignment Surgery and Christian Ethics: A Brief Summary and Critique”
June Yang (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
“Revisiting ‘The Image of God’: Genesis 1:26-27 and Its Implications for the Concept of Gender”
(ETS 2017, p. 30)
|2017||Patristic and Medieval History||Jack Bates (Wheaton College)
“The Eschatological Elimination of Gender in Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor”
(ETS 2017, p. 33)
|2018||Evangelicals and Gender: Gender in Biblical Perspective||Andy Draycott (Talbot School of Theology/Biola University)
“Walking across Gender in the Spirit? The Vocation of the Church and the Transgender Christian.”
(ETS 2018, p. 13)
|2018||The Nashville Statement:
Promise or Problem for
Evangelical Sexual Ethics?
|Denny Burk (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) Why Evangelicalism Needs the Nashville Statement
Preston Sprinkle (The Center for Faith, Sexuality &
Gender) An Appreciative Disagreement with the Nashville Statement
Andrew Walker (The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission)
The Nashville Statement’s Faithful Witness and Transgender Identity
Joel Willitts (Northpark University) Why the Nashville Statement Does More Harm Than Good
(ETS 2018, p. 32)
|2018||Paul’s Letter to the Romans
The Gospel, Sin, and Salvation
|Robert Gagnon* (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) Paul’s Understanding of Same Sex Relations in Romans 1
(ETS 2018, p. 37)
|Robert S. Smith (Sydney Missionary & Bible College)
Sex and (Trans)Gender in Biblical Perspective
(ETS 2018, p. 41)
|2019||Evangelicals and Gender: Gender and Race||Moderators: John DelHousaye (Phoenix Seminary) Mimi Haddad (CBE/Fuller)
Andrea Smith* (UC Riverside) Race, Gender and Born-Again Theologies of Liberation
Amos Yong* (Fuller University) Yin-Yang and the Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: An East-West (Evangelical) Dialogue on Gender and Race
Mimi Haddad (CBE/Fuller) Arab Women Leaders in
Peacemaking: The Tail wagging the Dog
Valerie Landfair* (Firstfruit Ministries) Pentecostal
Womanist Expressions of Lament: Languages of Suffering a Brief Survey
Alexia Salvaterria* (Faith-Rooted Organizing UnNetwork)
The Calling of the Marginalized: Esther and Delores Huerta
(ETS 2019, p. 40)
|2019||Method in Systematic
Current Issues in Systematic
|Fellipe do Vale (Southern Methodist University) What is it to Give a Theological Account of Gender?
(ETS 2019, p. 42)
|2019||Evangelicals and Gender||(ETS 2019, p. 50)|
Table A3: ETS Executive Committee 2014
|Scholar||ETS Position||Theological Position||Source|
|Thomas R. Schreiner||President 2014||Complementarian||Women in the Church(2005)
“Two Views on Women in Ministry” (2005)
|Scott B. Rae||President-Elect / Program Chair 2014||Mediating View?||Moral Choices(2018)|
|Daniel B. Wallace||Vice-President 2014||Complementarian||“Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church” (2008)|
|Gregg R. Allison||Secretary 2014||Complementarian||Sojourners and Strangers (2012)|
|Robert W. Yarbrough||Past President 2013||Complementarian||Women in the Church(2005)|
|Paul R. House||Past President 2012||Complementarian?||WBC 23B|
|Clinton E. Arnold||Past President 2011||Complementarian||Women and Men in Ministry (2001)|
|Eugene H. Merrill||Past President 2010||Complementarian||JBMW (2007)|
|J. Michael Thigpen||Executive Director 2014||N/A??||N/A??|
Table A4: ETS Executive Committee 2020
|Scholar||ETS Position||Theological Position||Source|
|Craig S. Keener||President 2020||Feminist||Two Views on Women in Ministry (2005)|
|R. Albert Mohler, Jr.||President-Elect / Program Chair 2019||Complementarian||NYT (2000)|
|D. A. Carson||Vice-President 2019||Complementarian||Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1995)|
|Gregg R. Allison||Secretary 2019||Complementarian||Sojourners and Strangers (2012)|
|Daniel B. Wallace||Past President 2016||Complementarian||“Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church” (2008)|
|Sam Storms||Past President 2017||Complementarian||“Men and Women in Ministry: Who Believes What”|
|David S. Dockery||Past President 2018||Complementarian||JBMW (1995)|
|Michael J. Kruger||President 2019||Complementarian?||“Complementarity and Its Impact in the Greco-Roman World” (2016)|
|J. Michael Thigpen||Executive Director 2019||N/A?||N/A?|
 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; Erving Goffman, “The Arrangement between the Sexes,” Theory and Society 4, no. 3 (Aut. 1977): 305; Airton, Untangling ‘Gender Diversity’: Genderism and Its Discontents (I.E., Everyone), 242, note #15; Darryl B. Hill and Brian L. B. Willoughby, “The Development and Validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale,” Sex Roles 53, no. 7/8 (Oct. 2005): 534.
 https://epecarticles.com/2019/12/05/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-5-1-genderisms-destruction-of-ets-definitions-and-history-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d-2/; https://epecarticles.com/2020/01/08/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-5-2-genderisms-destruction-of-ets-opposition-actions-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d/; https://epecarticles.com/2020/02/14/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-5-3-genderisms-destruction-of-ets-the-stakes-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d/.
 Unfortunately, calls for such new conservative evangelical academic organizations to replace ETS have been made before. Norman L. Geisler, Preserving Orthodoxy: Maintaining Continuity with the Historic Christian Faith on Scripture, Kindle ed. (Matthews, NC: Bastion, 2017), 39, 41.
 Gundry argues that the complementarian-egalitarian debate is no different than the ETS debates on “open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the ‘new perspective’ on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex ‘marriages’ can be defended biblically,” but he is mistaken about the similarity of these controversies to genderism and their consistency with the Article II purpose of ETS “to foster conservative biblical scholarship,” not heresies like genderism. “ETS Constitution.” https://www.etsjets.org/about/constitution; “Purpose Statement.” https://www.etsjets.org/about/purpose_statement. Further, he is mistaken that ETS should be a “forum…for collegial discussion and debate” about heretical issues. ETS initially did not debate inerrancy, it stood against the historical-critical method’s view of a human errant Bible and formulated arguments against this error to refute it. Only later as ETS began its slide toward false teaching did it begin to debate inerrancy and fail to enforce its doctrinal basis and purpose. As a later and positive example, Daniel R. Heimbach’s title suggests he did not collegially discuss error, but rather refuted it in 2011 in his presentation on “Refuting Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage” (See Table A2). Biblically (Rom 16:17; 1 Tim 1:3). The same refutation needs to be done with today’s heresies such open theism, the New Perspective on Paul, and all forms of genderism (feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.). These heresies need to be refuted by orthodox believers, not civilly discussed with the heretics as Stanley N. Gundry and Preston Sprinkle desire (Gundry, “The Presidents’ Corner,” 7; on Sprinkle, see post 5.2). 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 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.
 In the early 1990s, James A. Borland (41st president of ETS) proposed and outlined eleven points to expand the ETS doctrinal basis into a statement of faith, but only the statement on the Trinity was added to exclude anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. James A. Borland, “Proposed Constitution Amendment of the ETS Doctrinal Basis,” https://www.etsjets.org/website_constitution_amendment_announcement; Simon J. Kistemaker, “Annual Reports,” JETS 33, no. 1 (1990): 141; Stanley N. Gundry “The Presidents’ Corner,” ETS Annual News Letter (2016): 5; Simon J. Kistemaker, “Annual Reports,” JETS 34, no. 1 (1991): 141.
 On past enforcement efforts see: Geisler, Preserving Orthodoxy, 31–134, 152—60; Wally Morris, “Scholarship, Separation, and ETS: Part 3,” (April, 2015. https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2015/04/24/scholarship-separation-and-ets-3/). Despite their repeated protests to the contrary in the face of complementarian accustions that genderists are errantists, feminists and organizations like CBE cannot hold to inerrancy due to the inherent presuppositions in the postmodern and socio-critical hermeneutic of suspicion/deconstruction which they apply to Scripture and yet they remain as members of ETS. For example, compare CBE president Mimi Haddad’s claims about their proposed translation project to the criteria for inerrancy argued for by Greg L. Bahnsen, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and Francis L. Patton. Mimi Haddad, “Email: Does the Bible Support Patriarchy?,” to CBE Constituency (2 December 2019); Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 162–63, 170, 173–74, 182, 185; Francis L. Patton, The Inpiration of the Sctiptures (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), 113; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 43–44; International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy, s.v. “Article X.” Perhaps a future post will elaborate on the inerrancy dilemma involved in this proposed CBE translation project.
 In order to effectively enforce a complementarian position at ETS, a staunch form of it would need to be practiced which excludes women from the classroom lectern as well as the church pulpit. Zimbrick-Rogers reports that CBE and other genderists fear that ETS will “become the Evangelical Complementarian Society” or that “institutional complementarianism was going to be actually codified and officially mandated.” 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): 9, 11.
 JETS Staff, “Officers of the Evangelical Theological Society,” JETS 57, no. 1 (2014): 231.
 Zimbrick-Rogers cites Stuart as claiming, “I know we’re actively seeking women scholars to serve on the
executive committee…I could be wrong about this; we may have some old-school folks who wouldn’t go for that. But I’m not aware that they’re on the current board…Everyone embraces that we’re behind [on allowing/promoting women in leadership]…but it is just logistically figuring it out. It shouldn’t be that hard…I think the primary issues now are just logistical ones.” (Zimbrick-Rogers describes Stuart as “a current executive committee member,” but according to JETS (57.1 2014, 58.1 2015) this name is not among the ETS executive committee members for the 2014 or 2015 committees and so “Stuart” may be a pseudonym to permit this member to be cited anonymously or she is mistaken about his position in ETS.) Similarly, she cited Daniel Wallace as stating, “that there was, ‘way too much backroom politicking that’s going on that is keeping women from having a place in this society.’” Finally, Zimbrick-Rogers cites Thomas Schreiner as asserting that “ETS is more reflective [of colleges/seminaries/pastorates] than executive in the way it works.” Zimbrick-Rogers, “Experiences of Women ETS,” 8–9. It seems that due to the conservative resurgence in their denomination that ETS members from the SBC are likely overconfident they can maintain and/or regain control of ETS from genderists, but they may forget that the resurgence was a unique event in church history and historically things typically tend to deteriorate rather than reform in human sinful organizations. Consequently, it is necessary to forestall decline rather than try to reverse it.
 Zimbrick-Rogers quotes Schreiner’s opinion, “that most Southern Baptists ‘would agree that it would be a good thing to have women to be involved in ETS and present papers and so forth.’” Zimbrick-Rogers, “Experiences of Women ETS,” 8. Among others, Tom Buck cites tweets and Facebook posts by J. D Greear (SBC President, 2019) calling for the “the tearing down of all hierarchy,”; Russel Moore (head of the SBC’s ERLC [Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission]) “We desperately need a resurgence of women’s voices and women’s leadership and women’s empowerment again”; and Phillip Bethancourt (Executive VP of the ERLC), “encouraging signs in the SBC…the appointment of the ‘first trustee chairwoman’ at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary” as well as posts in support of nominating Beth Moore (women’s author and speaker) for SBC president and opposition to his own (Buck’s) rejection of such a potential nomination. Tom Buck, “Will the Next SBC Resurgence Include a Redefining of Complementarianism? (Part 1),” (2018. http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/will-the-next-sbc-resurgence-include-a-redefining-of-complementarianism-part-1/). Since Buck wrote, Greear posted a clarification of his own position which seems to conform to the headship view (‘soft’ complementarianism) rather than strict complementarianism—a move that will likely appear to more stringent complementarians as drift to the left. J. D. Greear, “Can Women Teach in the Church?,” (March, 2019. https://jdgreear.com/blog/can-women-teach-in-the-church/). Also, after Buck’s post, Russell Moore publicly addressed women in ministry at the SBC convention in a manner that seems consistent with the headship view. Russell Moore, “Video: Dr. Moore Responding to Question Regarding Women Preaching in Churches,” (June, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUG7To6lKvc&feature=youtu.be), s.v. “2:09–2:52; 3:19–3:41; 3:46–4:09 min.” For a transcript of Moore’s comments see: Russell Moore, “Moore Baloney: Russell Moore Redefines True Complementarianism at SBC19,” (2019. https://medium.com/christian-intellectual/moore-baloney-russell-moore-redefines-true-complementarianism-at-sbc19-faa3a58a41e6).
 Since the 2015 resolutions were opposed 22 to 135 out of 157, then 22 is 14% of 157 or the resolutions were opposed by 14% of those present and presumably opposed by genderists. “In favor to adopt all four resolutions: 135; opposed: 22.” Allison, “ETS Business Meetings” (2015. https://www.etsjets.org/files/Newsletter/2015_Business_Meeting_Minutes.pdf). Zimbrick-Rogers places ETS women’s membership at 6%, but ETS held it was at 7% for the same period. Zimbrick-Rogers, “Experiences of Women ETS Members,” 9. Likely more women and genderists have joined ETS since the 2014–2015 period these numbers represent. The empahsis on “fair voting conditions” should by no means be contrued by opponents as a suggestion that a vote should take place that is not fair or is somehow rigged. On the contrary, since genderists have charged that complmentarians at ETS have used “backroom politics” to manipulate the society, then this emphasis is a warning to both sides that not conducting a fair vote would be immoral and particularly so for those claiming to be Christians. The emphasis also stresses the strong unlikelihood that complementrians could currently win a fair vote at ETS.
 Some of the opposition actions mentioned before include: (1) a list of activities by CBE; (2) genderists voting against the 2015 ETS annual meeting resolutions affirming traditional marriage and sexuality; (3) Preston Sprinkle’s 2016 ETS annual meeting session on homosexuality; and (4) Andrew Draycott’s 2017 and 2018 ETS annual meetings presentations on transgenderism. Some of CBE’s activities previously mentioned include: (1) created the “Other Voices in Biblical Interpretation” ETS study group (1998); (2) established the “Gender and Evangelicals” ETS study group (2004); (3) had a book table at ETS (2005); (4) held a community dinner at ETS (2006), (5) sent an annual special edition CBE journal to all ETS members (2010); and (6) encouraged female full members to sponsor more women to stack the ETS membership (2014), and (7) CBE’s 2014 study, “Women at ETS.” https://epecarticles.com/2020/01/08/a-fundamental-shift-in-evangelicalism-part-5-2-genderisms-destruction-of-ets-opposition-actions-ronald-m-rothenberg-ph-d/
 Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, ed. John S. Feinberg, Kindle ed., Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 28–29; Denny Burk and Hamilton Jim, “Younger Evangelicals and Women in Ministry: A Sketch of the Spectrum of Opinion,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12, no. 2 (2007): 30–31; Duane Garrett and Paul R. House, Song of Songs and Lamentations, Wbc 23b (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2018), 86, 1178; Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2018), 445–51; Robert Saucy and Clinton E. Arnold, “Woman and Man in Apostolic Teaching,” in Women and Men in Ministry: A Complementary Perspective, ed. Robert Saucy and Judith TenElshof (Chicago: Moody, 2001), Kindle ed., ch. 6; Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9/15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 85; Robert W. Yarbrough, “Progressive and Historic: The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 123. Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues.” 2008. https://bible.org/article/some-reflections-role-women-church-pragmatic-issues.
 https://www.etsjets.org/ETS_Officers; Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church, ed. John S. Feinberg, Kindle ed., Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 28–29; Anonymous, “Southern Seminary Stands Firm,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1, no. 1 (1995): 1; D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches”: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), Kindle ed., ch. 6; Craig S Keener, “Women in Ministry: Another Egalitarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and James R. Beck of Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), Kindle ed., ch. 3; Michael, Kruger, “Complementarity and Its Impact in the Greco-Roman World” (2016. https://cbmw.org/topics/news-and-announcements/cbmw-pre-conference-day-one-summaries/); R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Against an Immoral Tide,” NYT (June 2000: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60E1EFB3D550C7A8DDDAF0894D8404482): Section A, Page 19; Sam Storms, “Men and Women in Ministry: Who Believes What.” https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/men-and-women-in-ministry:-who-believes-what; Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues.” 2008. https://bible.org/article/some-reflections-role-women-church-pragmatic-issues.
 Carson may infact be a complementarian and many may consider him to hold this position due to his essay cited in the above note in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. However, due to his support of the type of inclusive language used in the feminist TNIV Bible translation (2005) and criticsm of those who oppose it (The Inclusive-Language Debate  and “Limits of Functional Equivalence” ), and due to criticism of his translation position by Grudem and others, there is a feeling among at least some complementarians that Carson nad other gender neutral language supporters have compromised their complementarianism. D. A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); D. A. Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—and Other Limits, Too,” in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World, ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2003), 65–113; Wayne Grudem, “Are the Criticisms of the Tniv Bible Really Justified?: An Interaction with Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Peter Bradley, D. A. Carson, and Bruce Waltke,” JBMW 7, no. 2 (2002): esp. 49, 51-55; Rob Lister, “Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Books in 2003: The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World,” 9, no. 2 (2004): 53; Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words (Nashville, TN: B & H, 2000), 24, 161–63, 283.
 In an email to the ETS constituency on February 21, 2020, David Dockery officially announced that J. Michael Thigpen was leaving his long standing position as the ETS executive director for a “new role as Provost at Phoenix Seminary early this coming summer.” Dockery added that the search committee, “hope[s] to have the new Executive Director in place by July 1, 2020 if at all possible.” David S. Dockery, “ETS Email: Executive Director Search Announcement,” to ETS Constituency (2020). As of the time of writing, the email anouncement is available on the ETS homepage, but will surely be removed at a later date. https://www.etsjets.org/.