Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Executive Director Owen Strachan Corrects the Record with Associated Baptist Press Regarding the Missing Article on Biblical Gender Roles in the New Creation
Last week I posted about an article, Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?. My post was about an article which was located at the CBMW site, which subsequently disappeared. CBMW’s article vanished within 24 hours of my article which had spread pretty quickly via social media. In the past week, social media has been abuzz discussing both the shocking content of the article, and the fact that the original article disappeared.
Yesterday, Bob Allen, of American Baptist Press, also published a story on the CBMW article, first discussing the content of the article on gender roles in the new creation, and then, in three paragraphs, mentioned that the original article was no longer posted at the CBMW site. Here are those three paragraphs:
A 7,000-word article titled “Relationships and Roles in the New Creation” apparently was taken down after the Spiritual Sounding Board blog posted a critique March 12 querying “Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?”
Further in the article:
The CBMW website includes no mention of why the reposted article was taken down, but the group’s executive director said in a blog post that opponents sometimes “try to paint us into a corner” by linking the council “to figures that most complementarians don’t even know about.”
“When this happens, we have to shake our head and laugh,” wrote Owen Strachan, who also serves as an assistant professor at Boyce College in Louisville, Ky. “But we know that when you stand for something definitive, you always risk being targeted. The body of work in our journal and on our website shows that we publish one piece after another on how biblical complementarity, powered by the gospel of Jesus Christ, transforms us, critiques us and blesses us.” [JA note: please note that this entire paragraph is a quote from Strachan.]
Today, the day after Allen’s article was published, CBMW Executive Director Owen Strachan published an article to publicly correct Allen that CBMW did NOT pull the article – saying it must have been a computer glitch (which happened to have occurred within 24 hours of my article posting and going viral). I tell ya, these pesky computers and technology! Who can control it?
The issue of the missing article was such a big deal to Strachan that he posted an entire article snubbing reporter, Bob Allen, and his journalism etiquette. Hmmmm
Here’s the beginning of Strachan’s article:
Yesterday, an Associated Baptist Press story by Bob Allen alleged that the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood had taken down an article on gender roles in the new creation after online pushback. As Executive Director of CBMW, I feel compelled to respond due to the article’s numerous inaccuracies, all of which could have been immediately cleared up with a phone call to me or to Denny Burk, editor of the Journal on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. (Source)
Strachan then goes on to list four problems he has with Allen’s article.
Ok, here’s my commentary. Strachan criticizes Allen for not contacting him or Denny Burk ahead of time for clarification about the removal of the article. While Strachan criticizes Allen about not calling him, why didn’t Strachan follow his own criticism and call Allen to let him know that CBMW didn’t pull the article? Why does he have to make a public ordeal of that?
I said, I said,
Why does he have to make a public ordeal of that?
Please hit play. You know you want to – 5 seconds – that’s it.
Because it’s a diversion to the real issue. They don’t want you to know that they reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaalllllllly DO believe that gender roles continue into the New Creation.
Take note that Bob Allen’s article is 16 paragraphs long. As mentioned earlier, three paragraphs were about missing post/pushback CBMW receives, and the final three paragraphs are background info on CBMW.
So, let’s think this through here. What was the primary focus of Allen’s article? The primary focus was regarding gender roles in the new creation – TEN paragraphs were dedicated to that primary topic.
All this brouhaha is a great diversion tactic to shift the focus off the real topic of very bad teaching onto those meanies who are accusing CBMW of yanking their article down (Allen, me, etc.).
Okay, so let’s give Strachan what he wants. Let’s say there was a computer glitch and amazingly and coincidently the article disappeared within 24 hours. That still confirms my point. The fact that Strachan said that if they had meant to remove the article, they would have removed the pdf as well proves that:
they still believe the article to be appropriate and valid, and endorse it the ideology.
Just to check, I tweeted Strachan right after he posted this tweet – 6 minutes after the original tweet:
No surprise – – I did not get a response from Strachan.
Going back to Strachan’s article, he states:
I have a responsibility to speak up, however, when CBMW is the subject of misinformation and public projection of a motive.
It’s interesting that he got his widdle feelings hurt about the misunderstanding about the missing post, yet seems to be perfectly fine with very bad teaching. It seems that he, of all people, should be exercising some Biblical Manhood and calling out this trash as heresy.
But, no . . . . . instead he blames Allen for getting it wrong and then at the end of the article gets all yippy skippy about this marvelous work the CBMW site is doing and proves it by disclosing the number of clicks on their webpage:
I am excited about seeing men and women, homes and churches, transformed by the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s what CBMW is after; that’s what well over 1 million pageviews of CBMW.org in 2013 shows us tons of folks all over the world want from us;
(Maybe he didn’t consider that some of those page views were from people like me wanting to see what these guys are up to. Shhhhhh…….) Oh, and apparently those 1 million page views is not amounting to much $$ based on info in this article: Is CBMW the Bellwether for the Complementarian Movement?
Okay, but wait – – -he’s getting very confused again. He talks about glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. No, the agenda of CBMW and Biblical gender roles is NOT the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. But that is how strongly they believe this stuff. Their thought is that if you don’t get the gender thang right (their gender thang), then you obviously don’t have the right gospel. They make their complementarian message into a primary doctrinal issue – – as in Gospel-level importance.
The saddest part for me is that these are men in leadership positions who have an agenda to promote Complementarianism at all costs – even to stretch Scripture to make it fit their agenda. Look at this amazing work he believes is going on at CBMW:
It is life-giving to work with a pulsing, dynamic, international movement that stands for a rich body of doctrine.**