The Babylonian captivity of Protestant seminaries...

(Dr. Hollinger) will be joined in ministry by his wife of 36 years, Dr. Mary Ann Hollinger, who is Dean of External Programs and Assistant Professor of Family Studies at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania.

(Tim) Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is David's and my alma mater and we just received a letter from interim president, Haddon Robinson, announcing "Dr. Dennis P. Hollinger" as the president-elect.

Now, stop for a second and consider how central domestic godliness is in the qualifications listed by the Holy Spirit for church officers. An elder "must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4, 5). Again, elders are to have "children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion" (Titus 1:6). Do these qualifications apply to seminary presidents?

Well, first we must ask what a seminary president is, precisely? Is he a doctor of the church? An elder? A pastor? A bishop? Or is he simply an academic administrator to whom these biblical qualifications don't apply?

Speaking for myself, I find it inconceivable a man who will lead an institution that exists to train church officers must meet lower qualifications than the men he trains; and specifically, that he need not "manage his own household well, keeping his children under control" or have "children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion?"

But if these biblical criteria apply to seminary presidents, we look in vain for any mention of them in the two and a half pages of Mr. Hollinger's qualifications released by Haddon Robinson. Instead, the pages are filled with qualifications of an entirely worldly nature. Degrees earned, positions held, pages published...

So, what? We blithely assume the biblical but need proof of the worldly criteria? If so, could there not be at least a bone tossed in the direction of the biblical ones? Something like, "The Board of Trustees has examined Mr. Hollinger's Christian character and his household and have found him above reproach according to the criteria mandated by the Holy Spirit for church officers," for instance?

Curiously, although Haddon Robinson's letter tells us Mr. Hollinger has served in the pastorate, we aren't told if Mr. Hollinger has ever been set apart by the laying on of hands and prayer to serve as an officer of the church. There's no indication whether or not he's ever been ordained: His name is listed as "Dr. Dennis P. Hollinger," not "Rev. Dr. Dennis P. Hollinger." Yet when it comes to academic degrees, we have great specificity of letters: Mr. Hollinger has the M.Div., M.Phil., and Ph.D. Does the degree matter but ordination not?

We are also told the academic institutions that have blessed Mr. Hollinger or been blessed by him: Evangelical Theological Seminary, Messiah College, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Alliance Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Drew University, C. S. Lewis Institute, Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, and Oxford University. These schools (and organizations) and the degrees he's earned and positions he's held at them are the heart of Mr. Hollinger's qualifications. (Oh yes, also "65 articles" and "four books.")

Mr. Hollinger is said to be "passionate about quality theological education."

No duh!

I mean, allowing a dispassionate man to lead an evangelical seminary today would be the height of stupidity. Think of any coach in the NFL and try to imagine him getting the gig if he didn't feel passionately about quality football? It's inconceivable, isn't it?

Honestly, could we pleeeease have a little less talk of our passion? The Christian life isn't really sublimated sexual intimacy.

Finally, the thought that started me writing this blog.

In his letter to GCTS's constituents, this is what Haddon Robinson says about Mr. Hollinger's wife:

He will be joined in ministry by his wife of 36 years, Dr. Mary Ann Hollinger, who is Dean of External Programs and Assistant Professor of Family Studies at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania.

We've come a long way, haven't we? Ms. Hollinger will be "joining" her husband in "ministry." What ministry, exactly?

Well, the ministry of Christian scholarship, of course. Immediately following the statement about her anticipated "ministry," we read her credentials and past history, and it's all academic.

Long gone are the days when it was understood that godly women lived for serving as the helpmates of their husbands and that this service and obedience was proven by...

Well, why not go to Scripture for the proofs of feminine godliness:

But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1Timothy 2:15)

A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. (1Timothy 5:9,10)

Older women likewise are to be ...teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Titus 2:3-5)

Yes, yes, I know. Proverbs 31 commends women buying and selling land. Yes, yes, I know. Phoebe was a servant of the church. Yes, yes, I know. Deborah was a judge over Israel. And if you must lead a life of rebellion against Scripture while claiming the Name of Jesus Christ, I leave you to your vaunted gifts and new insights without which life would not be worth living.

But for those whose hearts are tender to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, why can't we see how utterly shallow and drab the life of an academic woman is compared to the godly woman who bears children, brings them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, shows hospitality to strangers, washes the saints' feet, assists those in distress, devotes herself to every good work, loves her husband, loves her children, is sensible, is pure, is subject to her own husband, and works at home?

It is a Scripturally degenerate time and institution which carefully avoids the qualifications that matter to God, while being ever so careful to parade those that matter to woman and man. Yes, yes, I know that Dr. and Ms. Hollinger may well have their home in order and children who believe and are not accused of dissipation and rebellion. And yes, yes, I know Ms. Hollinger may well be a paragon of submission to her husband who has given herself to bearing and raising children, washing the feet of the saints, and to her home. It may well be that, for her, the academy is just a simple side interest that she dabbles in after her long day of domestic servitude, and Haddon Robinson didn't know or care.

Long ago, I learned that what others say about you in promotional material can be far from the truth. Once I was vexed to discover a speaker's blurb listed me as "Dr."

So do I think that it's wrong for women to be academics? No. Last Lord's Day, we bid a very fond farewell to a dearly loved sister who's moved to San Francisco to be a math professor there, and we wished her Godspeed.

Do I think that academic degrees shouldn't be listed in the promo pieces sent out by a seminary as they announce their president-elect? No. Those degrees are indications of discipline and achievement in an area critically important for an academic institution.

Do I believe a mother shouldn't work outside the home; or if so, not at an academic institution? No. My own wife has done it with my blessing.

So what's my point?

That the two and a half pages of text announcing Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's president-elect tell us a sad story about the things that matter today within the institutions that train our church officers, and an even sadder story about the death of female virtue among us.

Some of you will understand why Church of the Good Shepherd and Christ the Word have both established a pastors college to train men for shepherding God's flock in the context of our churches. If you're interested in joining the fifteen men thus far enrolled in these works, send us an e-mail. There is another way to prepare for the ministry of the Word and Sacrament.

But of course, you won't get a degree from an accredited institution of higher education certified by the Association of Theological Schools. For that, you'll have to write Dr. and Ms. Hollinger.

Comments

[Barbara L]

This could be in my biography:

"But for those whose hearts are tender to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, why can't we see how utterly shallow and drab the life of an academic woman is compared to the godly woman who bears children, etc..."

Drab is exactly the right word.

Thank the Lord for the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

[Benjamin P. Glaser]

Amen and Thank You!!!

[Drew]

Are you kidding me? Is this really something to get worked up about? Three reasons why this is not a big deal, and was an appropriate way to introduce Hollinger and his wife:
1. GCTS IS an academic institution. Their goal is education, and to highlight the educational achievements of the president is completely on point. In addition, the news release on the GCTS website has the Board Chair positively commenting on his 'competence and character', and also lists his pastoral ministry positions.

[Drew]

Secondly, GCTS is NOT a church. To focus on qualifications for ministry required of an elder (which, strictly speaking, DO NOT apply to secular or para-church positions) would not only be out of place, but may also convey an unintended claim that GCTS is functioning as a church. They are (and should be) very clear that they are not taking upon themselves any of the functions reserved for a local church.
Thirdly, GCTS does not take a position on egalitarian/complimentarian issues. They allow both camps to study and teach there. Therefore, would it be appropriate to comment on Mrs. Hollinger's family role as relevant to his professional one? You may think so as a complimentarian, but some may see it on the level of mentioning that he was baptized as an infant, or that he has been a bishop in his denomination.
GCTS has to balance a lot of concerns, and I think they did an acceptable job in the announcement. Let's cut them some slack.

[David Gray]

>Thirdly, GCTS does not take a position on egalitarian/complimentarian issues. They allow both camps to study and teach there.

That is taking a position...

[Mark Chambers]

That is taking a position...

Precisely

Let's cut them some slack.

No let's not.

[Mark Chambers]

GCTS has to balance a lot of concerns

Perhaps their bank statement?

I suggest a new motto: Living grey in a black and white world

[Clint Mahoney]

Drew,

No offense but I couldn't disagree with you more. I sound like such a kiss-up but posts like this are exactly what I've been missing in churches all my life and why I'm now in the one I'm in.

The seminary is to train - PASTORS! - not professors primarily. It's like me going to a marriage counselor who won't tell me if he's been divorced twelve times.

[Clint Mahoney]

Whoops, I didn't make it clear what I meant - when i said "posts like this", I meant Tim's blog entry.

This guy may be the greatest seminary professor ever but the way the seminary dealt with the promotional material we have no reason to believe he's got any biblical qualifications, and it shows their false priorities.

I remember looking at a church website recently and it listed like a college departmental webpage - listing secular qualifications as if they were paramount. So what this seminary is doing is affecting the way churches view secular education as well.

[Clint Mahoney]

Also, if we don't apply biblical standards to seminary presidents, then it's like we're saying that Paul wasn't the biblical model for education of people like Timothy. Why would secular education systems ever be the model for pastoral education?

In reality the scriptural way to educate pastors would be not to have any seminaries, especially if we're looking primarily at their PhDs. In the NT church pastors were raised up from local congregations not sent off to seminaries to be trained by men who don't have biblical qualifications.

[Tim Bayly]

>men who don't have biblical qualifications.

Or, having them, think their constituents consider them not to be pertinent to their qualifications for training the next generation of pastors.

[Bret McAtee]

Drew said,

"Thirdly, GCTS does not take a position on egalitarian/complimentarian issues. They allow both camps to study and teach there."

Newsflash....

GCTS has clearly taken a position on women in office by allowing such a position to be taught at their Seminary. For those slow on the uptake, taking a position against women in office would have meant that they did not allow the position to be taught at their seminary.

[Drew]

Thanks for the great thoughts, everyone! In particular, Clint, I really appreciate your tone even in disagreement. I'll take my cue from you and try to be as gracious as I can.

I understand everyone's frustration with the women's ordination issue; I am also complimentarian. However, I still believe they have not taken a position on the issue. They allow professors and students of both persuasions to teach and learn here. That may be frustrating for those with strong feelings on the issue, but it does not mean they have gone the other way. I suppose, then, that their position is one of allowing folks of both types to participate (which is somewhat of a position, as has been pointed out).

[Drew]

On the issue of training pastors, I have to take a broader view. First, seminaries are not only for pastoral training, but also for professional counselors, for scholars, and for interested laypeople and non-ordained missionaries.
Secondly, applying standards to seminary professors in biblical terms that just do not apply (since they are NOT elders or apostles) is not completely appropriate, and sends the wrong message. Of COURSE I think professors should be godly people with a desire to see the kingdom advance and the church grow. (Ungodly professors should not be hired!) It is entirely appropriate to look for this in an interview. I just think broadcasting it in biblical terms would send the wrong message since GCTS is not a church.
Finally, Clint, I agree that the ideal model is church training for pastors. But given the general state of both the fields of biblical studies today and the education of local pastors, that is simply not a possibility for most churches. It seems to me that the best method, given our current situation, is either to learn in an exceptionally well-staffed church, or to understand that seminary education in and of itself does not prepare one for ministry. It is the academic piece, and it needs to be supplemented by a lot of training and experience in the local church. Some things only the church can do; unfortunately, because of the state of the (most) churches today, there are some things that right now only a seminary can provide. Good pastors need both.
Thanks again for the discussion.

[Jack's Pipe]

Drew,

You either think it important enough to guard the henhouse, or you don't. You either exercise discipline or you don't. The failure to do so is tacit recognition that it's adiaphora, that it's not a denial of Scriptural authority worth fighting for. (I'd surmise that there is majority agreement at the seminary with feminism, but a cowardice in coming out and saying it since "complementarians" write checks and letters too.)

For some reason "moderates" always think that they aren't taking a position by splitting the difference. As I've said before, it's the moderates who do the real damage.

[Keith LaMothe]

Drew,

They have taken the position that it is permissible to allow professors to teach the pro-ordination-of-women position. That is crossing over the line.

Think of it this way: if a seminary said that "we do not take a position on the divinity of Christ, we allow people of both camps to study here", is that really not taking sides?

Assuming you would agree with me on that fairly extreme (but extant) example, the question comes to the severity of being pro-ordination-of-women. I think that "being-squishy-on-the-divinity-of-Christ" is being 8 months pregnant, and "being-pro-ordination-of-women" is being 3 months pregnant. Do you disagree?

Blessings,
Keith

[Mark Chambers]

applying standards to seminary professors in biblical terms that just do not apply (since they are NOT elders or apostles) is not completely appropriate, and sends the wrong message.

What I see reflected here is the all too typical compartmentalization of life into separate spheres. A view that is atomistic rather than holistic. Biblical standards of righteousness and truth, which own those titles exclusively, speak univocally across the entire spectrum of human existence. No one, Christian or not, has the right to act, (and that includes teaching), in a way that is contrary to the express truths revealed in God’s Word.

Not anywhere and not anytime.

It would hardly be legitimate to imagine that the warning issued in James 3 to teachers is limited to things taught within the confines of church walls. These men claim the name of Christ, claim to teach Biblical truth and hold a position wherein they are viewed as having a better hold on it. And the fact that two antithetical positions are allowed to be proffered in the same seminary gives the impression that the matter is not settled and that each view is an equally valid expression of orthodoxy. But the one is most certainly NOT valid.

Now there may be some hesitancy on the part of folks here to use a certain word in describing egalitarianism but I don’t share that hesitancy and so I’ll use it. It’s heresy. Egalitarianism is heresy. Heresy with a capital ‘H’.

Talk about sending the wrong message!!

[Bret McAtee]

Mark,

You can't be anti-egalitarian and be an American you know.

Now, certainly you can only be a Christian by being anti-egalitarian but you can't be an American.

There are millions of "Christians" who need to choose this day which gods they shall serve. The God of the Americans or the God of the Christians.

[Tim Bayly]

The premise the compl*e*mentarian movement was founded on has brought us to this state of affairs where the heresy grows and grows as the orthodox make occasional forays into enemy territory, all the while assuring friend and foe alike that it's only a fraternal debate, that men of good conscience should be allowed to disagree, that live and let live is the best approach, that everyone loves God, trusts in Jesus Christ, holds to the plenary inspiration of Scripture and equally submits to the authority of the Holy Spirit...

But of course, this means orthodoxy loses. Always.

So no, I'm not a complementarian. I used to love her, but it's all over now. No thank you please, it only makes me sneeze. I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. You get the idea...

Some who are younger and have a deep appreciation for some of the exegetical work done by complementarians don't understand the error intrinsic to that movement, and I don't condemn them. But many, particularly its leaders, understand exactly what they're doing and are fully culpable. They have chosen this position willfully, in the full light of day.

The premise that a seminary with the word 'inerrant' in its statement of faith can split the difference between those who submit to, and those who rebel against, God's order of creation is ludicrous. It didn't work when all of us were at Gordon-Conwell. It doesn't work within the Evangelical Theological Society today. It's simply conniving at evil.

[Bret McAtee]

Tim or anybody,

Can you provide a link that argues for the errors of complementarianism? I only know it by the huge volume edited by Piper and Grudem that I read and thought devastating to feminist Christianity.

How are complementarians compromising?

[Jack's Pipe]

Tim, like Bret, I would be interested in hearing more about your issues with "complementarians."

I abruptly stopped using the term awhile back after a discussion with an Anglican pastor made me realize the elasticity and uselessness of the term. Despite the fact that "ordained" women are welcome in his pulpit and unordained women serve communion and read Scripture in his services, he told me that he's a "complementarian" too! He just didn't believe that it "applied to all roles and functions." He had some traditional understandings of roles and was no feminist flag-waver. So, here we have a man calling himself complementarian who believes a woman can do at least some of the things an unordained man can do, and pretty much anything an ordained man can do.

[Mark Chambers]

It seems to me to be one of those attempts to soften (read sissify) the term patriarchy which is fraught with all the negative conotations placed on it by modern feminists. Oh gasp!!, let's not have them mad at us.

Complementarian starts with comp like compromise. It roles smoothly off the tongue and sounds nice. It is light and airy and sweet. Richard Simmons would use this word.

Patriarchy is archaic. Like chauvinist it is abrupt and mean. It is heavy and burdensome and springs from the dark side. Darth Vader would use this word.

The one wears a flower in his lapel. The other wields a light sabre.

OK maybe that is a bit extreme........or not.

[Pilgrim]

"The Christian life isn't really sublimated sexual intimacy."

That is an outstanding sentence.

[Clint Mahoney]

Mark,

You smart alek ... I love it. Great post. Yes, complementarian does sound pretty - but I'm thankful I've learned to be distrustful of those pretty sounding words as well. I've seen what compromising in biblical sex roles does to families and children and of course, the church, so words like it are no longer pretty to me. Call me a chauvenist if it allows my children to grow up whole and glorify God.

The sad thing about Chruch leadership issues in this area are that many men only appear to be leading the church anyway. Behind every great man is a great woman? Well, sometimes behind every passive man is an active woman.

One thing many of us should not kid ourselves about is that women are leading some of the most conservative non-complementarian churches in America, they do it through their husbands who have loved peace in their homes more than biblical leadership.

[Kamilla]

This two-for-one sort of talk sounds remarkably like the press for Denver Seminary's new president when he was hired.

Must be an egal thing, right?

Kamilla

[life experience degrees]

Get an Accredited College Degree In 5 Days without ever stepping foot into a college classroom or even doing coursework.No Need to Take Admission Exams, No Need To Study, Receive a College Degree for What You Already Know! Earn an associate, bachelor's, master's or even a doctorate degree without opening a single book… Even if you struggled or barely made it out of high school. For more details visit us at http://www.instantdegrees.biz/ .