Further Evidence of Dubai’s Connection to C.J. Mahaney – Guest Post by Todd Wilhelm

Birds of a feather flock together…

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2159&picture=mirror-mirrorMirror Mirror

Thanks to our friend Todd Wilhelm, we are able to keep track of what is going on half a world away with the Calvinista crowd.  Todd just brought to our attention a conference taking place in Dubai which features two members of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary faculty — Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware.  We are grateful that Todd has allowed us to publish his post in its entirety for our readers.

But before we get to our guest post, we believe it is important to provide some background information about these two colleagues.  Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware have much more in common than just their current employer…

According to Tom Schreiner's faculty profile, he holds the following advanced degrees:

Th.M., Western Conservative Baptist Seminary Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

And Bruce Ware's faculty profile indicates that he has these advanced degrees:

M.Div., Th.M., Western Conservative Baptist Seminary; M.A., University of Washington; Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

If Western (Conservative Baptist) Seminary sounds familiar, it's probably because we mentioned Mark Driscoll's educational background in a previous post.  You may recall that he holds a Master of Arts degree from Western Seminary.  Perhaps this connection is why Bruce Ware preached at Mars Hill Church back in 2013.

Not only did Schreiner and Ware earn degrees from the same institutions, but they taught at the same seminaries.  Take a look…

Schreiner's faculty profile

Dr. Schreiner joined the Southern faculty in 1997 after serving 11 years on the faculty at Bethel Theological Seminary.

Ware's faculty profile

Dr. Ware is a highly esteemed theologian and author in the evangelical world. He came to Southern Seminary from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he served as Chairman of the Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology. Prior to this, he taught at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and Bethel Theological Seminary.

Bruce Ware began teaching at Bethel Seminary in 1984 and, if you do the math above, Schreiner began teaching at Bethel Seminary around 1986.  Ware was still teaching at Bethel in 1986, so it appears they were colleagues there.  Ware also taught at his alma mater (Western Seminary) and later at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS). 

After eleven years at Bethel, Tom Schreiner joined the faculty at Southern Seminary (in 1997).  The following year, Bruce Ware left TEDS and joined the SBTS faculty. (link)

The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is also a point of commonality.  Bruce Ware served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2008, and Tom Schreiner served as ETS president in 2014. (link)

These two men have written extensively about their theological beliefs.  Bruce Ware, a proponent of ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father), wrote Tampering with the Trinity, Does the Son Submit to His Father? which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 2001 (link)  You can read the article in its entirety on the CBMW website.  By the way, Ware's son-in-law Owen Strachan is the current CBMW president, a position Bruce Ware previously held.  Wade Burleson and Paul Burleson (Wade's father) have taken issue with ESS here and here.

When Tom Schreiner was teaching at Bethel Seminary, he wrote articles that were featured in the tome Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, published in 1991 and edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

Speaking of Piper and Grudem, they were in seminary together for a season and taught together at Bethel College.  Can you imagine Piper, Grudem, Schreiner, and Ware together in Minneapolis at the same time?!  Subsequent to teaching at Bethel College, John Piper was called to pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church in 1980, and the remaining three (Grudem, Schreiner, and Ware) taught at Bethel presumably during overlapping years.

No doubt there are more connections between these birds of a feather, which we will probably delve into at a later date. 

And now, Todd's post…


Further Evidence of Dubai's Connection to C.J. Mahaney (link)

– Todd Wilhelm

2015-01-13 UCCD fllyer for Ware Schreiner conference

Almost 2 years have passed since I resigned my membership at UCCD (United Christian Church of Dubai) over issues of conscience.  I was opposed to the promotion (on occasion from the pulpit) and sales of books authored by C.J. Mahaney due to his involvement in covering up and enabling the sexual abuse of children in the Sovereign Grace churches.

You can read my story on The Wartburg Watch blog.

When I was a member of UCCD I had numerous conversations with several of the pastors concerning C.J. Mahaney.  Their response to me was that Mahaney and the sexual abuse scandal he was involved in was an American problem, it had nothing to do with us in Dubai.  I wasn’t buying what they were selling.  Here is an email I wrote to Assistant Pastor Richard Ngwisha on 23 February 2013, about 2 weeks prior to my resignation.

Hi Richard,

Unfortunately this SGM crisis is not simply a denominational crisis, nor is it contained within the USA.  The fact that the T4G leaders continue to allow Mahaney to speak at conferences and either publicly endorse his ministry or remain silent in the face of  mounting charges of sexual abuse and cover-up is shameful.  (Not to mention well documented blackmail by Mahaney.) It is a sad commentary on “leadership” when they do nothing in the face of this evil and it is left to the lay-people to speak up and force change.  As you know these leaders hold conferences attended by people from all over the world.  Mahaney’s books are promoted at churches and Christian bookstores world-wide.  John Folmar told me our church considers Mahaney’s books “go to books” for new Christians.  We have had Dever, Trueman and DeYoung speak at our church.  Dever, to the best of my knowledge, has not said anything positive or negative about Mahaney but he continues to share the platform with him at conferences.  Trueman was a member of the original 3 man panel that declared Mahaney had not done anything to disqualify him from ministry.  DeYoung has endorsed Mahaney.  Piper will be speaking at our church later this year and he just spoke at Mahaney’s church and gave him a ringing endorsement.  Mack Stiles preached at Mahaney’s church the week prior to Piper.  Brent Detwiler said the following about John Piper, but I believe it applies to all these leaders:  

 “John has tolerated in SGM what he would never tolerate at Bethlehem Baptist Church.  He has made exceptions for C.J. that he would never make for a church member.” 

These leaders unwillingness to speak out against Mahaney, or tell him he needs to quit speaking at their conferences is doing untold damage to the Reformed movement world-wide.  In April Duncan, Dever, DeYoung and Mahaney are jointly holding conferences in South Africa.  The following blog from SA is questioning the whole Reformed movement, and I must add that I have read untold comments of the same sort.  Reformed Christianity, which I believe holds to the correct scriptural doctrine, is taking a severe hit.  I must admit that I myself am very disillusioned with the whole group of Reformed leaders.  Again I will quote Detwiler:

It goes to show that godly men like Piper will disobey the Bible when idols in their hearts become more important than the righteousness of Christ and the truth of God.  To be honest, it is hard to listen to some of these men preach any longer because of such hypocrisy.  They protect their own, while their own harm others, and there are no consequences for their actions.  In this way, they do not follow the Bible.

I agree with Detwiler.  It is very hard for me to respect these leaders.  

http://fortheloveofhistruth.com/2013/02/10/why-we-cannot-endorse-rezolution-2013/#more-5885

Kind Regards,

Todd

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

James 1:27

Over the past two years it has become evident that Brent Detwiler’s words also apply to John Folmar, the UCCD leadership and the leadership of several of the UCCD church plants in the United Arab Emirates.

Today and tomorrow Bruce Ware and Thomas Schreiner, both professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will be holding a conference at UCCD.  SBTS is the seminary where John Folmar studied.  The president of the institute is C.J. Mahaney’s close friend Albert Mohler.  Mohler has issued a strong statement of support for C.J. Mahaney. He has never retracted it.  Bruce Ware and Thomas Schreiner both spoke from the pulpit of C.J. Mahaney’s run-away church plant in Louisville, KY.  They all endorsed him in full knowledge of the sexual abuse scandal in the Sovereign Grace churches.

Nearly every conference speaker UCCD has had over the past several years has been an outspoken supporter of C.J. Mahaney.  Coincidental?  I think not.  John Folmar has cast his lot with the Celebrity Christian “leadership” of the Neo-Reformed movement.  He has chosen notoriety over identification with the weak and downtrodden.

Many UCCD members don’t know about these issues.  Those that do have chosen not to confront John Folmar.

2015-01-13 My FB on UCCD Ware Schreiner conference
Earlier in the week I ran across this Tweet by Dave Furman.  Furman is the senior pastor at Redeemer Church of Dubai, a church plant of UCCD.  Furman is well aware of the Sovereign Grace/C.J. Mahaney scandal.  I have had lengthy discussions with Mack Stiles, a senior leader at Redeemer, after he twice spoke at Mahaney’s church.  Nevertheless, Furman also apparently has no issues featuring teachers who choose allegiance to the Gospel Glitterati over love and concern for the broken and abused sheep.

Notice the names of those who commented on Furman’s Tweet:

Thabiti Anyabwile – A close friend of John Folmar and Mark Dever.  He has spoken at C.J. Mahaney’s run-away church plant, lending his support to the man.

Bryan DeWire – Formerly on staff of Desiring God Ministries, John Piper’s organization. Dewire now is the communications PR man for Sovereign Grace Ministries.

Matt Chandler – One of the Celebrity Christians riding the Christian Conference circuit, well established in the Gospel Corporation.

Sam Allberry – Well connected in the Gospel Corporation.

And so it goes.  It really is a “good old boys” club where the main rule seems to be protect your fellow club members at all costs.  To do so may cost you your integrity, but you will have notoriety and maybe even the money so many of them seem to be chasing.

2015-01-11 Furmans Tweet about Ware2015-01-11 Responses to Furmans tweet about Ware2015-01-12 Redeemer sells Cross Centered Life
2015-01-12 Redeemer Sells Humilty by Mahaney

 

2014-10-17 Cross Centered at UCCD

2014-10-17 Humility at UCCD

Lydia's Corner:   Exodus 12:14-13:16   Matthew 20:29-21:22   Psalm 25:16-22   Proverbs 6:12-15

Comments

Further Evidence of Dubai’s Connection to C.J. Mahaney – Guest Post by Todd Wilhelm — 63 Comments

  1. This may be an odd response, but…did Dave Furman or anyone else think they might be putting people at risk for harassment or worse by being in that picture of the class of the “Gulf School of Theology”? I think it’s at best unwise.

  2. “what do John Piper, Mark Dever, Thabiti Anyabwile, Bruce Ware and Thomas Schreiner all have in common?” WOW. The amount of funny but immature things I could say right now is staggering.

  3. @ mirele:

    More than unwise, downright stupid. Unless things are totally different than when I was there in the 90s they are asking for residency permits to be revoked. All they are doing is making it easier for the Al Mukhabarat (secret police) to do their job.

    For Todd- I was at Oasis up in Al Ain in the 90's. Judas Maccabeus

  4. The people in the churches do not confront the “leaders” who support Mahaney for the same reason that the “leaders” do not disavow Mahaney. They love their friends and their position more than the truth.

    A pewpeon who tries to apply Biblical principles becomes the problem, not the “pastor” who abused his flock and covered up abuse. Persons and personalities trump principles every day of the week. That is the way of the world and the way that one attains worldly success and acclaim. It should be just the opposite in the church, especially the part of the church that trumpets its fidelity to Christ and scripture.

    It is evident by our lives and our actions who and what we love. I don’t see the love of Christ in these leaders but rather a mutual love of themselves and their sacred doctrines which are elevated above scripture. I do not see a Christ-like desire to love and serve the little sheep, but I see a desire to rule the sheep for the benefit of themselves who are the ones they truly love despite all the talk about being servant leaders.

    Servant leaders throw themselves in front of the train to protect the little flock. Worldly lords and rulers deliberately and joyfully and arrogantly run over the little sheep so that they can continue to enjoy the comforts of first class. Which of these two groups does the Gospel Glitterati most resemble?

  5. __

    “Is The Neo-Reformed Movement Rotting Upon Da Vine?”

    hmmm…

    “You shall know them by their fruit?”

    Excuse me?
    The Right Reverend Charles Joseph Mahaney…has done nothing to disqualify himself from the devil endorsing his ministry?

    intermission:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_QD-Y_JKZc

    Birds of a feather…?

    …his ‘friends’ are gonna be ‘there’ too?

  6. It is difficult to keep the threads straight, and it is almost like every post on a Gospel Glitterati thread can be posted to every other thread and be relevant. Sad.

    It doesn’t matter which professor you send from SBTS to Dubai or anyplace else. They are fungible functionaries.

    When any of these men who are so obsessed with spreading the gospel to unreached areas make it to Sanaa or Jeddah or Lahore or Mindanao, will somebody let us know?

  7. Gram3 wrote:

    Servant leaders throw themselves in front of the train to protect the little flock. Worldly lords and rulers deliberately and joyfully and arrogantly run over the little sheep so that they can continue to enjoy the comforts of first class. Which of these two groups does the Gospel Glitterati most resemble?

    Yes. “Elders” and so on were fed to the lions first so the others could try and get away. It was not a glamorous “authoritarian office”. It was about being more mature in the faith and putting others before yourself.

  8. Lydia wrote:

    “Elders” and so on were fed to the lions first so the others could try and get away. It was not a glamorous “authoritarian office”. It was about being more mature in the faith

    That seems a lot more consistent with how the Bible describes an elder. Now, among the Gospel Glitterati, it means identifying promising *young* men and enlisting them in eldership training programs or internships or, ironically, “Boot Camps.” As if the character and wisdom that comes from walking with the Lord and his people through life’s trials can be implanted into a young person by completing a one-year program. Where do these guys who talk so much about the Bible find their methods and doctrines in the Bible?

  9. Let us not forget Bruce Ware’s idea of the woman bearing a derivative image of God because she was created from the man.

    Or Ware’s 10 “proofs” for male “headship” which are evidence that Ware has surrendered all logicship and reasonship and exegeteship which should be requirements, ISTM, for holding a professorship at the flagship seminary of the SBC. Corbin will have to take the ship meme further.

    Here are Ware/Grudem/Ortlund/Owen (notJohn)’s reasons why we can know for sure that God intended for males to rule over females forever. Presented in the abbreviated Gramnotated version:

    1. The man was created first. Yes, duh, so what? God chose Jacob instead of Esau, Seth instead of Cain, and David was the youngest. I guess God does not follow his own Rule. Oh, wait. Primogeniture is a *human* rule in the *human* institution of Patriarchy.

    2. The woman was created out of the man. Yes, duh, so what? Woman came from man, man comes from woman, and all come from God is Paul’s summation of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11.

    3. The woman bears the image of God derivatively because she came out of the man. Then I suppose the man bore the image of God derivatively through dirt? Seriously, this is ridiculous bordering on desperate.

    4. The woman was created to be the man’s helper. Not his executive assistant or sandwich maker or penile residence, but more precisely and literally his essential counterpart/distinct equal. The word translated unhelpfully as “helper” is ezer, and it usually refers to God himself. Is God our Helper? Yes. Is God therefore subordinate to us? No, not no way, not ever.

    5. God gave his command to the man and not to the woman who only learned it from the man. This is an argument from silence and unadulterated speculation. God did not tell us how the woman learned of his command not to eat the fruit. Maybe God actually did tell the Woman. Who knows and what difference does it make?

    6. The man named the woman. Well, if making a rather obvious observation about something, namely that woman, Issha, was created out of man, Ish, means that the man and all of his male descendants shall forever rule over all of her and his female descendants, then I guess almost any detail can be made to mean almost anything! Eisegesis is fun!

    7. Satan ignored God’s design for male headship and tempted the woman instead of the man. Circular argument re: God’s design for male headship. Argument from silence re: Satan’s motivation. A Ph.D. and certainly a PhD should do better than this.

    8. After the fall occurred, God called to the man first. Yes, but God did not tell us why, so it is pure speculation to say why God spoke to the man first. Because God made him first? Because he sinned willfully while the woman was deceived? Because of literary structure? I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

    9. God’s “curses” on the man and woman show God’s initial design for them respectively. God did not curse the man or the woman. God foretold the consequences of their sin. Beyond that is speculation leaning toward a circular argument. The only textual evidence we have regarding roles is Genesis 1:26-28 where there are explicitly no roles specified by God nor division of the Mandate.

    10. Equality of essence with distinction (inequality) of “roles” is a reflection of the Trinity. Well, isn’t that an especially delightful form of theology. Speculate on the relationship between Persons of the Trinity and then apply that speculation to prove the eternal hierarchical relationships between the human genders. What else can we not know about the Trinity but speculate about and then apply that speculation?

  10. Gram3 wrote:

    Here are Ware/Grudem/Ortlund/Owen (notJohn)’s reasons why we can know for sure that God intended for males to rule over females forever. Presented in the abbreviated Gramnotated version:
    1. The man was created first. Yes, duh, so what? God chose Jacob instead of Esau, Seth instead of Cain, and David was the youngest. I guess God does not follow his own Rule. Oh, wait. Primogeniture is a *human* rule in the *human* institution of Patriarchy.

    You know what makes me laugh about this? I always want to say, that “sharks & vultures, alligators & grizzly bears, were all created before man. And its jolly well time you men started obeying them, & let them gnaw on you as they want to”.
    Because, after all, if order of creation has anything to do with superiority, wouldn’t the sun & the moon have it over ALL of us?

  11. Gram3 wrote:

    6. The man named the woman. Well, if making a rather obvious observation about something, namely that woman, Issha, was created out of man, Ish, means that the man and all of his male descendants shall forever rule over all of her and his female descendants, then I guess almost any detail can be made to mean almost anything! Eisegesis is fun!

    The male supremacists love to spout this one as some sort of iron-clad rule – that naming someone is always a sign of domination. The Bible itself disagrees:

    So she named the Lord who spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi’; for she said, ‘Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?’ Genesis 16.13

  12. I’m beginning to try to understand the issue of biblical gender roles as so have been taught growing up. Does anyone have any books or sites they would recommend ? I’m particulaly interested in understanding if egalitarian view of scripture can be defended. Gram3 your comment answered some things I have been taught. Thanks! – Ali

  13. Sorry for the typos…basically I have only heard headship / submission taught in church. Not equality taught in the church. I’m wanting to be biblical. My kids are home today due to the MLK holiday so know I will check back at least by tomorrow hopefully sooner. 🙂

    – Ali

  14. @ Gram3:

    All I can say is we have seen the exact same things.

    I knew Piper was a flake when I heard his “primogeniture” position which is so easy to refute.

    “3. The woman bears the image of God derivatively because she came out of the man. Then I suppose the man bore the image of God derivatively through dirt? Seriously, this is ridiculous bordering on desperate.”

    Exactly!! I brought this one up on a comp pastor blog one time and it was not well received— to say the least. I was seriously asking where the image of God came from, then, for the “human” called Adam. Dirt? :o)

    “5. God gave his command to the man and not to the woman who only learned it from the man. This is an argument from silence and unadulterated speculation. God did not tell us how the woman learned of his command not to eat the fruit. Maybe God actually did tell the Woman. Who knows and what difference does it make?”

    Cheryl Schatz takes this one on in depth in her Women in Ministry video. It is an important distinction for those who read Genesis literally but too lengthy to get into here.

    “7. Satan ignored God’s design for male headship and tempted the woman instead of the man. Circular argument re: God’s design for male headship. Argument from silence re: Satan’s motivation. A Ph.D. and certainly a PhD should do better than this.”

    You know what is interesting about this one to me? Adam had named the creatures, right, so he had experience with them. Yet he did not recognize something was wrong about this one?

  15. @ Ali:

    Cheryl Schatz’ ‘Women in Ministry’ video is a good start.

    But a real in-depth study would Katherine Bushnell’s “God’s Word to Women”. Eat your Wheaties! This missionary/doctor did her homework back when resources were not at our fingertips.

  16. @ Gram3:

    Yes, they always trot out Timothy to focus on “age”. But wait, Timothy had been in the trenches with Paul.

  17. @ Ali:

    It really depends on how you think. For me, I started as what I thought was a complementarian. I believed, and still believe, that males and females are complementary. When I heard about “roles” and a hierarchy is when I investigated what I had *assumed* to be true. I had swallowed the bait, but then I choked on it when I saw it was based on manipulation and flat out lies such as inserting a human’s words into the text of the Bible. So, in my experience, it was not the strength of egalitarian arguments but rather the ridiculousness of the “complementarian” arguments. That indicated to me that I had been duped, and I was not happy about that at all. A duped Gram becomes a Gram determined to expose the con.

    Others have encountered egalitarian arguments and been persuaded by them. For me, I had also swallowed the “scary liberal feminist” propaganda. Yeah, I know I should have known better, but when you trust people, you trust them until they prove untrustworthy.

    For that reason, if someone is complementarian, I press them to examine the assumptions and the reasoning of the comps. I assume that they were as trusting as I was and that they have the same desire I had to uphold the authority of the Bible. I had to see for myself that the comps were totally misrepresenting what the Bible actually says. Then, when I found out about the Eternal Subordination of the Son, it became clear what this game is all about. And it is not about the Bible or the Gospel or distinctions between the genders or any of those things. It is about men using a doctrine as a hook to control people.

    I think God will bless your diligent study of the texts he has given us. There are so many great tools which are available for free online. Use your common sense and put on your journalist’s hat and start asking questions. People who are after the truth are not afraid of questions. Comps don’t permit questions, and that tells me a lot about their security and also about what their real concerns are.

  18. Ali wrote:

    I have only heard headship / submission taught in church.

    You could start by just reading Genesis and looking for the place where God instituted a hierarchy. I don’t think you will find it. What is explicit is in Genesis 1:26-28, and that is where God blessed the man and the woman, without distinction of roles. We know that because in patriarchy, the father’s blessing does not go to the daughters. God did not institute patriarchy. You will also see explicitly in those verses that God did not distinguish between them and assign roles of “leader” and “follower” when he gave the Creation Mandate.

    Then, for fun, you can read chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Ray Ortlund makes his case for male superiority there. When he makes an assertion, just stop and investigate for yourself whether what he says is actually what the Bible says. He uses words of inference like “whispers” or “suggests” because he has no explicit Biblical evidence for male priority. He builds his case in much the same way as Ware and Grudem do with their ten reasons. They multiply zeros and think that yields something.

    Then, put the egalitarian arguments to the test. When they say something, go look it up and test it. Use the good mind that God gave you, and don’t listen to the people who say that women should not think for themselves! You glorify God when you seek him in prayer and diligent study of the words he has given us. The comps would say this displeases God because you are stepping outside your role. Does that sound like the reaction a loving father would have toward a daughter who is seeking to be a good daughter? May God reward your study of his word with clarity about who he has created you to be.

  19. Lydia wrote:

    All I can say is we have seen the exact same things.

    We are not alone, I think. Any person, male or female, who looks at the arguments objectively without trying to protect a particular position, will be able to see how transparent and flimsy their arguments are. If someone has been trained in critical thinking as part of their education or their job, then they will no doubt see the same problems with their reasoning. Sometimes they don’t even attempt an argument but just assert that something is true. Or they will attempt to shoot the messenger.

    If the arguments are strong, then make the strong argument and it will stand. But when someone blusters as much as Grudem does, and speaks a cleverly as Ware does and disguises his real points with gaudy rhetoric like Piper or Owen (not John), then they are practically demanding that a thinking person examine their positions with great care and diligence.

  20. @ Lydia:

    And they act as if Timothy could not possibly already have known that women should in no cases be permitted to teach men. How did Timothy miss that after spending so much time with Paul and the scriptures if it is so critical to God’s Good and Beautiful Plan? Did Timothy just blank on that woman-in-authority thing for some reason? Had Timothy started the slide down the slope to evangelicalfeminimismliberalism and Paul needed to yank him up short?

  21. @ Lydia:

    Since Schreiner is one of the guys visiting and teaching in Dubai, have you ever read his chapter in RBMW or his explanation of “saved through childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15? It is priceless. Usually comps will punt on verse 15 because they have no idea what it means, but they will insist that it does not mean what it plainly says even though verse 12 means what it plainly says. And even though Paul’s argument is connected with–conjunctions! There is simply no reasonable way to sever off the verses that plainly say what you want them to plainly say from verse 15 which makes that hermeneutic a little……awkward.

    But Schreiner and Kostenberger are undaunted. It means not what it plainly says, but that women will be Saved by Roles. Not saved, like everyone else through “the Childbearing” but rather by coloring inside the lines of our roles. Do they not understand Paul and how he uses language and arguments? After reading some of their stuff, if it weren’t for a boggled mind, I’d have no mind at all.

  22. @ Gram3:

    Oh yes, I have read it. And am quite familiar with that interpretation which is propagated by means of shutting folks down from questioning with basic common sense. The historical context makes so much sense but takes away the ability to use it for personal agenda’s.

    These are the same men who believe faith and repentance are a work of salvation if we claim we are actually able to “have” faith and “repent”. So how are they missing the fact that these “roles” for women they teach in light of that passage in 1 Tim, such as saved in childbearing, would have the same result they rail against?

    The contradiction is so obvious!

    What about the Christian barren woman? (Carolyn Custis James has some good things to say on this view in one of her books, I cannot remember which. And she is Reformed, too)

    You realize Schriener and Ware teach/preach at the same local church here? At least they did a few years ago. I have some dear Reformed friends who visited several times and said it was too frozen chosen even for them! :o)

  23. @ Gram3:

    And how did the Corinthian church miss the rules about women? They had women prophesying only wondering if they could do it with their heads uncovered or not.

    I realize the comp/pats simply modified the definition of “prophesying” but they don’t fool me one bit.

    Besides, how would the Philippian church know about these rules for women in the Body? Do they make an argument from silence on those places where the rules were not laid out like they were in Ephesus? The questions could go on and on…..

  24. @ Gram3:

    I learned a lot from researching this for many years. I learned how easy it is for a teaching or a concept to become ingrained and never really questioned. I was raised pretty much in an egal (was not called that)home and church environment where women did just about everything in the church, have a grandmother who graduated from Moody with an M.Div, who was not a paid pastor but did preach to mixed audiences all the time. And this was SBC in the early 1920’s-30’s. (All the women in my family had children later in life because most had careers mostly as teachers or musicians so they were already bucking the norm)

    But what happened? I see it as a distinct change in much of Christendom around the late 70’s through to the 90’s as I was coming of age. Amazing how easy it is to get sucked into something (even on the periphery) you did not see modeled or taught as a child.

    This was simply not a huge issue before then from what I have read and was told. Women literally had more freedom to function in certain parts of the SBC before the advent of comp doctrine. But when their freedoms became more about educational and financial opportunities( as happened in the 60’s- 70’s) they were perceived as a threat to the church. The balance of power was threatened, I think. I give George McKnight a lot of credit for it, too.

    I think Satan has been delighted the focus has been off Jesus and on gender “roles” for marriage and the Body for which women compromise over half! What a waste of time. Can you remember the name of the book that kicked all this off? I cannot remember it for anything as I discovered it much later. I keep wanting to say it was George McKnight

  25. @ Ali:

    Ali, I know something that helped me. I prayed that my filters would be removed when I read scripture and studied. It is so hard to read Genesis and not read into it what you were taught. Katherine Bushnell did this big research study on the word Teshuqa in Genesis 3. You read it as mostly translated “desire” nowadays. Up until around the 1300’s it was translated as “turning”. As in Eve turning away from God and turning to Adam. That is an over simplified explanation as it is a sort of idiom but it changes everything we were taught. That one word and its translation.

    There are so many examples of these that we don’t even realize it. Who have been the translators throughout history? Men.

    Katherine Bushnell goes in depth into the translation of Isaiah 3:12 where you see the obvious contradictions with a wrong translation. Here is a snipped of it here:

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/isaiah-312-he-nation-could-sink-no-lower-than-to-pass-under-women-rulers/

  26. Never given birth = not saved, if one were to take a literal reading of that verse from Timothy. I’m sure, in an analogy to Rule 34 (*don’t* look it up if you don’t know what it is, this is for the benefit of HUG and Eagle), someone out there is preaching that.

  27. Lydia wrote:

    You realize Schriener and Ware teach/preach at the same local church here? At least they did a few years ago. I have some dear Reformed friends who visited several times and said it was too frozen chosen even for them! :

    So, is this lack of basic reasoning another type of brain freeze?

  28. @ Lydia:

    It is difficult for me to explain the poor thinking processes. I do think that a priori they rule out the possibility that Paul might be speaking pastorally into a particular situation and not making a universal pronouncement of dogma. Curiously, they apply this only to the gender proof texts which *must* be universal and timeless. It is basically reasoning backward from the pre-ordained conclusion. That necessitates some ad hoc backfilling of their arguments.

    Because they are so focused on the absolute necessity of their conclusions, they cannot or will not see how absurd their reasoning is. I don’t think they would want their own personal physicians to reason backward from an assumed diagnosis to the significance of their signs and symptoms, because the results could be disastrous. We should reason forward from the data and evidence we have without the conclusion being fore-ordained. That is what people do if they want to get at the truth instead of manufacture and disseminate propaganda.

  29. Gram3 wrote:

    Or Ware’s 10 “proofs” for male “headship” which are evidence that Ware has surrendered all logicship and reasonship and exegeteship which should be requirements, ISTM, for holding a professorship at the flagship seminary of the SBC. Corbin will have to take the ship meme further.

    How about anthropomorphismship? Reformationship? Covenantship?

  30. @ Gram3:

    Just want to clarify that even if Paul was speaking pastorally into a given situation, that does not mean that the principles cannot and should not be applied into the church in general. For example, men should not seize authority and proclaim they are superior so women shut up. Women should not be quarrelsome and ready to rumble. Neither sex should be pushing to the front of the food line at the love feast. It goes without saying that men should refrain from wearing their hair in elaborate braided-with-pearls styles, too. 😉

  31. Gram3 wrote:

    Eisegesis is fun!

    LOL. It’s also a great tool to induce obedience if it is always perceived as infallible from certain people.

  32. Lydia wrote:

    Can you remember the name of the book that kicked all this off?

    The best I have been able to reconstruct is that George Knight, III, now at Greenville Seminary, came up with the idea of “roles” within the Trinity to justify the notion of equality of being being consistent with gender-specific and non-reversible “roles.” IIRC he did that as an elder for either the OPC or the PCA and came up with that in response to women being ordained in the PCUSA. That was in the 1970’s. His paper is online, and his book is Role Relationships of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching.

    He was involved in the Coalition on Revival, again IIRC, along with Rushdoony and maybe Grudem, but I would have to look that up to refresh my memory. Anyway, his idea took root among those who conflated the social chaos of the 1970’s with the ordination of women and probably even the emancipation of women, in the case of Rushdoony.

    I think that there were some of the usual suspects from CBMW involved with COR at the outset. If you google Coalition on Revival there should be some more info. There was a moral panic during the 1970’s and the blame for the deteriorating social conditions was pinned on “Women’s Lib” and more specifically in the church on uppity females usurping male authority.

  33. Lydia wrote:

    I think Satan has been delighted the focus has been off Jesus and on gender “roles”

    Yes, I agree. The whole idea of gender roles only reinforces the Battle of the Sexes and denies the power of the Spirit in the lives of redeemed people. In that sense, it also diminishes what Jesus accomplished by the atonement which apparently does not reach as far as Christian marriage or the Christian church.

  34. Lydia wrote:

    Up until around the 1300’s it was translated as “turning”. As in Eve turning away from God and turning to Adam.

    That is the first explanation I heard about what that phrase meant. I never re-visited it until this whole idea of “desire to usurp” became The Way It Has Always Been and unquestioned dogma. In hilarious irony, that new interpretation was concocted by a deceived woman who obviously was trying to usurp the authority of the males before her who had interpreted “turning” as “turning.”

  35. Gram3 wrote:

    Worldly lords and rulers deliberately and joyfully and arrogantly run over the little sheep

    Do they also throw them under the bus?

  36. Gus wrote:

    Do they also throw them under the bus?

    No doubt. But the first class thing just doesn’t work with bus. Unless you stretch bus to mean a mega-RV or touring bus or something. Dagnabbit, you made me think of Driscoll in an Elvis jumpsuit! Won’t get rid of that thought for awhile…

  37. Gram3 wrote:

    Dagnabbit, you made me think of Driscoll in an Elvis jumpsuit! Won’t get rid of that thought for awhile…

    Wouldn’t that be a sight. I personally really want to see Piper in a Reformed rap video with Lecrae or Trip Lee.

  38. Corbin wrote:

    I personally really want to see Piper in a Reformed rap video with Lecrae or Trip Lee.

    What about a trio with the well-known rapper, Owen (not John)? I’d be afraid of what Piper’s gestures might signify outside the YRR environs.

  39. Here’s an open invitation for any and all of the Gospel Glitterati to repent of their coverup, in view of the other thread on Tony Jones and Rachel Held Evans. You guys are better than the Emergents, right? You believe in the Bible and that the Bible is authoritative, right?

    How about if you show the Emergents and progressives how real men of God step up and do what is right and not what is expedient and self-serving. How about if you demonstrate what a real servant-leader does to protect the least in the Kingdom. How about if you show real accountability as leaders for what your peers have done and which you have ignored or even facilitated?

    Set an example that is based on the Biblical description of elders.

  40. Thank you Gram3 and Lydia for suggestions on reading Genesis and other writings. I tend to move at a slow pace for personal study due to having three kids at home. But, I feel ready to study and see what The Lord shows me. Thanks for your input on some starting blocks.
    -Ali

  41. Ali wrote:

    Thank you Gram3 and Lydia for suggestions on reading Genesis and other writings.

    Another thing to think about as you study is to consider the big picture of how the Lord says his people should relate to one another. Does he set one group or person above others? Did he appoint any of his disciples to be in authority over the others, or did he maintain the authority? Did he commend Gentile rulers and hierarchies, or did he tell his disciples not to be like those who lord it over others and exalt themselves. Does he take any notice of any kind of human social status?

    Did he forbid women to teach and have positions of importance and authority (like being the first witnesses to the Resurrection when women were not considered reliable witnesses.) Did he commend Martha for pursuing her proper “role” or did he commend Mary for abdicating her proper “role” in the kitchen and instead choosing to study “at his feet”, a position of personal discipleship which the rabbis would never have granted to a woman. What was Jesus’ reaction to the woman with a hemorrhage who would have been considered unclean and which a rabbi or Pharisee would have avoided completely?

    The Lord has called us to imitate him, and that is what we should do rather than be imitators of men who claim to know what God meant even when God did not say what they say he said. People who lift themselves up and hold themselves over others are not imitating the attitude of Christ. Even if unintentionally, they are imitating the attitude of the one in the Bible who exalted himself and was then cast down.

    May God bless your diligent search of his word and of the Lord’s heart toward all of his people.

  42. @ Ali:

    Oh my. Looks like midnight reading! You will be a better equipped mom, too, when dealing with your kids as they grow up on this subject.

  43. Gram3 wrote:

    Let us not forget Bruce Ware’s idea of the woman bearing a derivative image of God because she was created from the man.
    Or Ware’s 10 “proofs” for male “headship” which are evidence that Ware has surrendered all logicship and reasonship and exegeteship which should be requirements, ISTM, for holding a professorship at the flagship seminary of the SBC. Corbin will have to take the ship meme further.
    Here are Ware/Grudem/Ortlund/Owen (notJohn)’s reasons why we can know for sure that God intended for males to rule over females forever. Presented in the abbreviated Gramnotated version:
    1. The man was created first. Yes, duh, so what? God chose Jacob instead of Esau, Seth instead of Cain, and David was the youngest. I guess God does not follow his own Rule. Oh, wait. Primogeniture is a *human* rule in the *human* institution of Patriarchy.
    2. The woman was created out of the man. Yes, duh, so what? Woman came from man, man comes from woman, and all come from God is Paul’s summation of his argument in 1 Corinthians 11.
    3. The woman bears the image of God derivatively because she came out of the man. Then I suppose the man bore the image of God derivatively through dirt? Seriously, this is ridiculous bordering on desperate.
    4. The woman was created to be the man’s helper. Not his executive assistant or sandwich maker or penile residence, but more precisely and literally his essential counterpart/distinct equal. The word translated unhelpfully as “helper” is ezer, and it usually refers to God himself. Is God our Helper? Yes. Is God therefore subordinate to us? No, not no way, not ever.
    5. God gave his command to the man and not to the woman who only learned it from the man. This is an argument from silence and unadulterated speculation. God did not tell us how the woman learned of his command not to eat the fruit. Maybe God actually did tell the Woman. Who knows and what difference does it make?
    6. The man named the woman. Well, if making a rather obvious observation about something, namely that woman, Issha, was created out of man, Ish, means that the man and all of his male descendants shall forever rule over all of her and his female descendants, then I guess almost any detail can be made to mean almost anything! Eisegesis is fun!
    7. Satan ignored God’s design for male headship and tempted the woman instead of the man. Circular argument re: God’s design for male headship. Argument from silence re: Satan’s motivation. A Ph.D. and certainly a PhD should do better than this.
    8. After the fall occurred, God called to the man first. Yes, but God did not tell us why, so it is pure speculation to say why God spoke to the man first. Because God made him first? Because he sinned willfully while the woman was deceived? Because of literary structure? I don’t know and neither does anyone else.
    9. God’s “curses” on the man and woman show God’s initial design for them respectively. God did not curse the man or the woman. God foretold the consequences of their sin. Beyond that is speculation leaning toward a circular argument. The only textual evidence we have regarding roles is Genesis 1:26-28 where there are explicitly no roles specified by God nor division of the Mandate.
    10. Equality of essence with distinction (inequality) of “roles” is a reflection of the Trinity. Well, isn’t that an especially delightful form of theology. Speculate on the relationship between Persons of the Trinity and then apply that speculation to prove the eternal hierarchical relationships between the human genders. What else can we not know about the Trinity but speculate about and then apply that speculation?

    Intellectually bankrupt arguments generally come from either intellectually bankrupt people or people who know better but have an agenda that overrides all other considerations. Regardless, Mr. Ware has obviously identified himself as one whom no one of right mind ought to seriously consider. Most of his arguments don’t even pass the straight face test.

  44. mirele wrote:

    Never given birth = not saved, if one were to take a literal reading of that verse from Timothy. I’m sure, in an analogy to Rule 34 (*don’t* look it up if you don’t know what it is, this is for the benefit of HUG and Eagle), someone out there is preaching that.

    Naturally. It’s remarkable what profound stupidities will come from a reading of the Scriptures that divorces them from all logic, reason, cultural and historical context and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

  45. zooey111 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Here are Ware/Grudem/Ortlund/Owen (notJohn)’s reasons why we can know for sure that God intended for males to rule over females forever. Presented in the abbreviated Gramnotated version:
    1. The man was created first. Yes, duh, so what? God chose Jacob instead of Esau, Seth instead of Cain, and David was the youngest. I guess God does not follow his own Rule. Oh, wait. Primogeniture is a *human* rule in the *human* institution of Patriarchy.
    You know what makes me laugh about this? I always want to say, that “sharks & vultures, alligators & grizzly bears, were all created before man. And its jolly well time you men started obeying them, & let them gnaw on you as they want to”.
    Because, after all, if order of creation has anything to do with superiority, wouldn’t the sun & the moon have it over ALL of us?

    As would vegetables, grass and trees.

  46. Gram3 wrote:

    The people in the churches do not confront the “leaders” who support Mahaney for the same reason that the “leaders” do not disavow Mahaney. They love their friends and their position more than the truth.

    Drop the first one, the “love” for friends. It has been said that “there is honor among thieves”. That is untrue, there is no honor, only self interest.

    Based on patterns of behavior that I’ve observed, both in churches I’ve attended and on the national stage, I sincerely doubt the average member of the glitterati cares one spit in the wind about any other member of the glitterati–they give every indication of caring exclusively about their positions and their power and themselves and the only manner in which they seem to care about their “friends” is when they are beneficial to them to further their own agendas. Witness how stridently the glitterati propped up Driscoll when surely most of them knew full well what he was, and how quickly they turned on him when he ceased to be useful to their agendas. I suspect the glitterati for the most part secretly hate and envy other members of the fraternity, but gladly use them to enrich and promote themselves.

  47. Wow! 53 comments about CJ and pushing 600 about Jones and RHE. And of the 53, only 4, including this one, contain the name “Mahaney”. A good OP, but… Poor CJ is sooooo yesterday’s news! He doesn’t get invited to speak at conferences much anymore. And despite all the big-name friends who’ve spoken there, his church is just one of hundreds in Louisville unlikely to ever go Mega- or Multi-.

  48. BFFs: Piper, Mahaney, Grudem, Ware, Driscoll.
    They all shared the celebrity spotlight at Mars Hill.

    http://tumblr.marshill.com/post/58742812259/this-week-dr-bruce-ware-swapped-his-khakis-for

    There’s plenty more out there. Just Google their names and Mars Hill. They helped prop up the abusive, corrupt regime. If they had spoken out, perhaps Driscoll might have seen his sin and repented. But they were lured by the limelight, the flattery and the adulation. And before they knew it, it all came crashing down.

  49. Law Prof wrote:

    mirele wrote:

    Never given birth = not saved, if one were to take a literal reading of that verse from Timothy. I’m sure, in an analogy to Rule 34 (*don’t* look it up if you don’t know what it is, this is for the benefit of HUG and Eagle), someone out there is preaching that.

    Naturally. It’s remarkable what profound stupidities will come from a reading of the Scriptures that divorces them from all logic, reason, cultural and historical context and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

    Don’t forget the words of the prophet Frank Zappa:
    “Stupidity is like Hydrogen; it’s the basic building block of the Universt.”

  50. Anon wrote:

    BFFs: Piper, Mahaney, Grudem, Ware, Driscoll.
    They all shared the celebrity spotlight at Mars Hill.

    Can you tweak that a bit to get it to rhyme?
    I’m seeing something like:
    “Is Nixon Guilty?
    Well he has been seen
    With Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell, and Dean.”

  51. Law Prof wrote:

    Most of his arguments don’t even pass the straight face test.

    I agree, but for some reason no one in Hierarchical Complementarian circles seems to be able to see what a freshman logic student should be able to see. Or at least they are pretending not to see because the consequences of seeing would be too great.

  52. Anon wrote:

    BFFs: Piper, Mahaney, Grudem, Ware, Driscoll.
    They all shared the celebrity spotlight at Mars Hill.

    Indeed they did. IIRC, at least some of them spoke during Driscoll’s annual vacation in 2013. There is no excuse. They made him, and they own him. The reason he has become an unperson in Gospel Glitteratiworld is that he exposed their odious theology for what it is. He gave away the magician’s secret. He said and put on display what they all really are thinking, but they will never acknowledge that their careers and reputations are built on such a lie. Grudem’s son Elliott was on staff at Mars Hill. I think he went on to Acts29, but I’m not sure. They whole bunch tighter than ticks on New Year’s Eve.

  53. Law Prof wrote:

    Naturally. It’s remarkable what profound stupidities will come from a reading of the Scriptures that divorces them from all logic, reason, cultural and historical context and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

    The question is why have they been so successful selling this? Why do people who have presumably been trained in logic not see this, and why do people who are trained in the principles of hermeneutics not see how the approach of the Hierarchicalists violates nearly every principle and blatanatly so? Just to cite one example, these same guys will go on and on about the cultural background and setting of the churches in Revelation 3. But somehow the cultural setting of Ephesians and 1 Timothy doesn’t mean anything in particular. How does someone who has an M.Div. not see this?

  54. Dave A A wrote:

    And despite all the big-name friends who’ve spoken there, his church is just one of hundreds in Louisville unlikely to ever go Mega- or Multi-.

    Here’s my semi-speculative theory. C.J. moving to Louisville was not ultimately about C.J. Obviously, they needed to get him out of Dodge and hope that things would settle down. Dever hid him while he was truly radio-active, and then he went to Louisville where it was easier to do damage control and make an attempt to rehabilitate him. But actually, I think that Kauflin was the real reason for the move because C.J. needs Kauflin now more than Kauflin needs C.J. when looked at from a merely pragmatic perspective. Kauflin was not as tainted by Morales and can continue promoting the SGM brand via his music in the hope that things will turn around at SGM. I don’t think that will happen because the SGM “pastors” were merely placeholders for C.J., as Joshua Harris aptly pointed out on Sunday.

    The whole thing with Mahaney, Dever, followed by the parade of Gospel Glitterati number-pumpers who have appeared to goose attendance in Louisville is just beyond words. I never would have predicted that Dever and Mohler, particularly, would compromise themselves for this. It makes no sense unless there are ties that we do not know about.

  55. Gram3 wrote:

    I never would have predicted that Dever and Mohler, particularly, would compromise themselves for this. It makes no sense unless there are ties that we do not know about.

    Maybe CJ’s got pictures?

  56. JeffT wrote:

    Maybe CJ’s got pictures?

    Maybe, but I think it is more likely that C.J. knows how some ventures were put together or who actually wrote some books or what some of the contract clauses are with Crossway or where all the money from the conferences and books and curricula go. But, hey, I never would have predicted they would put themselves on point for him in the first place.