***
The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a parachurch organization aimed to promote complementary differences between men and women, yet only men run their board under President Owen Strachan.
The other day, my blogger friend, Tim Fall, and Gail Wallace, co-founder of The Junia Project, were tweeting about this:
Here is the mission statement for Council for Biblical Manhood and Woman (CBMW). CBMW exists to:
The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.
The CBMW mission statement elaborates on the following points and you can see how important they feel these complementary differences are:
1. The authority of Scripture is at stake.
2. The health of the home is at stake.
3. The health of the church is at stake.
4. Our worship is at stake.
5. Bible translations are at stake.
6. The advance of the gospel is at stake.
It’s important to note that CBMW is a parachurch organization. Evidently, CBMW feels it their obligation to supplement what we get from our churches and our pastors with their “important” information. Me thinks they are acting in fear. Is God not big enough to be working in local churches through the lives of His Saints without this organization? Is God not big enough to speak His words through people sitting in the pews of the local church and church leaders? Perhaps this group thinks not or we would not be inundated through social media, blogs, conferences with their material.
But back to the topic at hand. A number of us joined the Twitter conversation about the 100% male Board at CBMW. We were wondering why there were no ladies on the CBMW board. A lively discussion ensued. In the conversation there was some back and forth between a gentlemen who challenged some of us about CBMW’s motives. I tweeted that there was no way CBMW would have a woman on their board because of their articles I’ve read about roles of women, and certainly from the original CBMW co-founder, John Piper, who has spoken about women in leadership roles in the civilian world.
During that Twitter conversation, I was reminded of a personal conversation I had with the director of a non-profit board on which I’m currently serving (non-religious board). I had never been on any boards before and he explained to me that the board of his particular non-profit makes all the executive decisions, including whether or not to fire him. So, in the context of CBMW (and if all boards work in similar capacities), this means that a woman could in fact initiate the process to fire a man. She would be in essence his authority in a hierarchal role. I know that does not jive with the teachings/articles I’ve seen from CBMW and so this was the basis of some of my arguments. To settle the issue, I decided to tweet Owen Strachan, the president of CBMW, directly:
@timetherington @tim_fall @gailwallace55 Better yet, ask @ostrachan Owen, Are women allowed to be on @CBMWorg board?
— Julie Anne (@DefendTheSheep) July 3, 2014
Tim, who was also involved in the conversation, also tweeted directly to the source to get clarification:
@CBMWorg Serious question: would women be allowed to join the CBMW Board of Directors? — Tim Etherington (@timetherington) July 3, 2014
I haven’t yet received a response to my tweet from Mr. Strachan (and didn’t really expect to get one over the holiday weekend), so I searched the CBMW site to see if there was anything published on the topic. Sure enough I found something, and it is specifically related to parachurch organizations. As I said earlier, CBMW is a parachurch organization. Take a look:
(Source)
I have to admit, I was delightfully surprised to read this. So, according to CBMW, women can serve “alongside men as members of a board of directors!” Now again, keep in mind, this is CBMW’s interpretation of what they believe a woman’s role can include (and that opens up that same can of worms about CBMW usurping pastoral role in the local church body and a pastor’s interpretation of biblical roles), but whoa – – ladies, doncha just want to line up and inquire about a position on the Board of directors at CBMW?
Today at SSB, we’re going to do something a little different. We’re going to work on math, specifically percents. Percents are your friends, people. Do not click the little “x” at the top of your screen. Percents won’t kill you. This will be easy. We’re going to do it in story problem form, too. You can do this!
Here we go: as of right now, 100% of the current CBMW board members are men.
Let me break that down for ya. That means 100% of the board are men and 0%, that would be a big fat ZERO percent, are female. 100% of the men get to tell 100% of women about their biblical roles. 0% of women get to tell 0% men about their biblical roles.
It makes one wonder if perhaps CBMW’s guidelines for parachurch oranizations and women as members of boards only applies to other parachurch organizations, and not specifically, CBMW.
Ya think?
hmmm… Yea, this seems like a brave new movement to me (this is CBMW’s Twitter banner).
But take a look at this – – CBMW recently added two new board members . . . and those two new board members are, no surprise, 100% male, which of course means 0% female.
I think I am going to break mold and allow a man to speak for me. Gomer Pyle, take it away:
Major news for @CBMWorg: we just added @JGDuesing & @DrThomasWhite to our board. This is a huge day for us! http://t.co/qSaXznHwl2 — Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) July 2, 2014
Here’s the next percentage problem. Please check my math:
Two 100% brand new board members + the 7 current 100% male board members = Nine 100% male board members (and zero percent, 0% female members).
Here are three tweets in a row from Mr. Strachan. He seems to really appreciate women, doesn’t he?
Notice here, we have FIVE women in the above tweet/picture.
Ok, for your math extra credit, please figure out what percentage of women represented their “spelling capabilities and the organization” in the above picture.
Isn’t that cute? Women were allowed to spell out CBMW, but when it comes to running the organization alongside men in the CBMW organization, we do not see any representation of women on the board.
ZERO % women
Women represent 0% of the voices at the CBMW board. Maybe the men don’t want women to interpret their biblical roles?
I do want to point out that there are 26 members on the CBMW council, 6 of whom are female. I did my math and that means there are 77% male.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28 ESV
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I wonder if these guys at CBMW realize that their views on the roles of women are not in sync with Jesus” view.
LikeLike
I wonder if they care, Tom? It doesn’t seem like they do or they would love women like Jesus did. Instead, women get pats on the back in tweets like the above and “atta-girls” for posing CBMW with their hand gestures. Good grief.
LikeLike
My guess would be that if women sat on the CBMW board, they would only be able to influence votes that affected women and not men. Women cannot have authority over men.
LikeLike
See . .. there you go, Kathi. That’s why I said there’s no way they’d allow women on the board. Women cannot have a say for how men should behave “biblically” – that goes against their whole agenda.
LikeLike
Times like these makes me actually proud to be egalitarian … just sayin’ …
LikeLike
I agree that there should NEVER be any woman on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
In addition, there should NEVER be any man on the same board, either. In other words, the whole teaching of this board is nothing more than to bash women, even when they talk out of both sides of their mouths stating that women are created in the image of God.
Man (MEN, that is), looks at the flesh (We all know that, and 9 times out of 9 it is known as lust), while God looks at the spirit, and tells us to do the same.
I’m getting really sick and tired of these people using the words “obedience to scripture”, when those words have two different meanings between the OLD testament, and the NEW.
The whole purpose of this cultish board is to put women in their place, barefoot and pregnant.
Here’s one for ya:
I’m sure that many of these board members are FOX NEWS watchers. Ever wonder why? Because there are beautiful and EDUCATED women on the channel. Fox News is known to be “conservative” in it’s political views. Would these board members ever want their daughters to be employed by Fox. Many of those women on Fox are attorneys, and judges.
I call the board hypocrites if they watch Fox News!
Ed
LikeLike
It’s news to me that it’s the job of pastors to interpret biblical roles. Last I checked, every believer is supposed to do that and “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), rather than abdicate that responsibility to a pastor or anyone else.
I’s also like to see some biblical authority for the notion that any church is supposed to be governed by a single pastor, especially in light of what Jesus and others like the apostle Peter said about governance, and Paul holding the congregation as a whole, and no pastor, responsible for correcting things in Corinth
.
LikeLike
Good point about pastors interpreting roles, Peter, my point is that pastors can certainly have a say in their interpretation of this in their own church, but CBMW usurps the local pastor’s job and I wonder, in fact, if CBMW’s role in fact can cause problems in the local congregation as people take CBMW with more credibility. I would agree with you that biblical role is something that we interpret. My pastor gives his opinions all the time – doesn’t mean I go with them. And I don’t think he expects me to, either.
LikeLike
Thanks for the shout-out, JA.
This falls squarely within the category of “practice what you preach”. They preach women on the board, but don’t practice it at all, and don’t explain why they don’t practice it at all.
And I’d say this then also falls squarely within the category of “actions speak louder than words.” CBMW’s sure do anyway.
LikeLike
If I was a pastor I would recommend that everyone in my congregation ignore groups like the CBMW. Board member Jeff Purswell is a long time Sovereign Grace drone and is on the Soverign Grace board. Any man affiliated with Soverign Grace on any level is poorly qualified to dictate to anyone what is Biblical and what is NOT.
These clowns have their own 9 month pastors school to crank out SGM drones , and avoid seminary grads like the plague. They are a pathetic group of unqualified , abusive “pastors” that have covered up sexual abuse cases, blackmailed people, and threaten parents for talking to the police after their children were raped. It hasn’t been just a case or two like they attempt to spin it. Sexual abuse has been a wide spread issue.
Is this type of group even necessary ? I say NO. I find it hilarious that these guys really think they have enfluence, they don’t. Most people consider this group a joke.
LikeLike
Scott, I quite like your misspelling: “enfluence”! Because while their influence is debatable, their effluence is certain.
LikeLike
Scott, I saw that CJ Mahaney and Josh Harris (former SGM pastor who left SGM) are both currently on the council.
LikeLike
Scott said~
“Is this type of group even necessary ? I say NO. I find it hilarious that these guys really think they have enfluence, they don’t. Most people consider this group a joke.”
Owen needs to stop tweeting. I cannot take him seriously (not that I did in the first place but this adds insult to mega-injury) with those tweets posted above. I showed them to my husband and he, not knowing what the heck the CBMW is, wondered if the guy was married. When I told him yes- it’s a requirement to be saved (lol), my husband wondered why a married man who is the head of a religious org like CBMW would tweet about/re-tweet/show pictures of fun, young women–even naming their twitter names. Seemed very odd to my egalitarian husband. I love him for that.
Go home, Owen, you’re drunk.
If the CBMW ever does appoint a woman to the board, will it be a fun, young woman who would “keep things lively” for which Owen is so grateful? Or more a serious, older woman…like, say, a Nancy Leigh DeMoss type–oops, silly me, she’s not married…can’t portray the gospel…never mind.
LikeLike
LOL, Diane. I think I will pay you to stay and comment. 🙂
LikeLike
“When I told him yes- it’s a requirement to be saved (lol), my husband wondered why a married man who is the head of a religious org like CBMW would tweet about/re-tweet/show pictures of fun, young women–even naming their twitter names. Seemed very odd to my egalitarian husband. I love him for that.”
Yes, it is odd. But not if you are in the evangelical bubble. CBMW is desperately trying to rebrand themselves and it is coming off forced and silly. But they don’t know that because they are in the ivory evangelical bubble. CBMW was/is basically dead. The money dried up and quite frankly, gender roles are about the only thing that will unite Cals and Non Cal pastors in the SBC. I think this resurgence for CBMW is basically to deflect attention from the Cal/nonCal disunity in the SBC. Make us all forget about Mahaney?. All SBC pastors/leaders can agree on comp doctrine.
Putting the immature Owen Strachen (SBTS prof Bruce Wares son in law) in charge is not helping their rebranding street cred. It is like putting the Beaver in charge of Ward’s Rotary Club meetings.
LikeLike
I also have to wonder how they can afford to bring in the board for meetings and pay Owen any salary at all. Perhaps the board never meets and it is all for show? That makes me even MORE curious as to what is going on. SBTS footing the bills?
CBMW was founded on the Danvers statement and anyone who has taken the time to analyze it can spot the exegetical mack truck sized holes all through it. They rarely trot it out these days.
Little men trying to be big by limiting women. It all boils down to insecurity.
LikeLike
#fail #CBMWtotalfail
LikeLike
All men, all white. No women, no one (seemingly) of any other culture/race. I can’t see how they think they will be taken seriously.
LikeLike
“I’m sure that many of these board members are FOX NEWS watchers. Ever wonder why? Because there are beautiful and EDUCATED women on the channel. Fox News is known to be “conservative” in it’s political views. Would these board members ever want their daughters to be employed by Fox. Many of those women on Fox are attorneys, and judges.
I call the board hypocrites if they watch Fox News!”
I’m sure his eyes will be closed.
LikeLike
Maybe if CBMW “allows” women to be on the board, they will have to sign some sort of covenant to not challenge of male authority.
LikeLike
Can anyone give me an exact definition of biblical manhood/womanhood?
LikeLike
Why don’t these guys just admit they are threatened by women who do not stay in the places these men want them to. They must be extremely insecure.
LikeLike
7. Salvation is at stake.
Oh wait…
LikeLike
Exactly, Persephone, they try to dance around this issue a lot, but then you read that.
It is a primary doctrinal issue to them. If you get this complementarian issue wrong, then you undermine everything in that list. In other words they are forcing people into this ideology putting your salvation on the line if you don’t comply. And because some of these guys are respected leaders, women and men will comply and women will be oppressed.
LikeLike
Well, they seem efficient at shooting credibility to smithereens,
LikeLike
I’ve never understood why complementarian males think they get to define what womanhood is, biblical or otherwise. Even the Bible, in the NT, has a verse about let the older ladies mentor the younger ones. So, why not allow women to dictate what constitutes biblical manhood?
Beth asked,
Can anyone give me an exact definition of biblical manhood/womanhood?
I don’t know how exact it is, but… take the 1950s situation comedy television program “Leave it to Beaver” and add Christian veneer to it, and there you have gender complementarian “biblical womanhood and manhood.”
Note it really only applies to married people who have children still at home.
If you are an adult who has never married, are divorced, widowed, or married but (1) infertile or (2) the kids and grown and out of the house on their own, I’d say anywhere from 90% to – 99% of the views the complementarians push are not applicable to people.
In most complementarian works I’ve read online and stuff I’ve read in years past (such as Christian magazines) you have to be in that very narrow demographic of married with small kids under your roof.
LikeLike
That whole take off from the YMCA song is ridiculous.
LikeLike
“Would these board members ever want their daughters to be employed by Fox. Many of those women on Fox are attorneys, and judges. ”
Well, I live in CBMW land. I can tell you that the rules for their daughters are very different. Mohler’s SINGLE daughter went to DC and worked for a Senator before she married recently. And yes, I think many would want their daughter on TV.
In fact, they are known to use women quite to their advantage. They trot them out over specific issues. They did that recently on the TGC blog concerning abuse right when the issue with TGC/SGM was hot over Tullian leaving. If you have watched them long enough, you see the pattern quite easily. Of course the women love being featured in such influential circles. Many of these women confuse me as if they are not really able to connect the dots.
LikeLike
Beth:
Biblical manhood does not exist. Biblical womanhood does not exist.
Biblical manhood is an imaginary standard created whole cloth by selectively proof-texting erroneously little pieces of the Bible. It is a false doctrine. If it were to exist, all Biblically manly men would be tilling the soil by hand as per Genesis, pulling weeds by hand, etc.
So it is imaginary, not real. Alternatively it is the BIG LIE to keep men in power in the pastorate — you know, hierarchy in the family of God on earth, with the senior pastor (find that term in the Bible if you can) in charge of everything, including what he gets to take home and who else works for the church.
So take the definition you may choose, imaginary or BIG LIE. HERESY is another applicable word.
LikeLike
Example of “Biblical Womanhood”: Sapphira in Acts 5.
:o)
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
A point I have brought up on similar posts as this one at the TWW blog is I think the gender complementarian position is not so much “pro woman” (or “pro man”), or even “pro God” or “pro Bible,” as it is a device they use against groups or views they find the most dangerous or annoying, such as secular feminism, homosexuality suppporters, etc. – or at least I think that is their motivation, they are “anti” certain positions, not “pro” anything, not really.
I am a former gender complementarian. I was a devout Christian my entire life, raised by a mother who was a “June Cleaver” sort of women, and she encouraged me to be that way as well.
I’ve never been too keen on secular, left wing feminism (and am still not). Growing up, the impression I got from famous preachers and other Christians (book authors whose works I read, etc) is that being a biblical gender egalitarian on womens’ issue meant in effect siding with liberals on the topics of casual sex, marriage, etc., it meant selling out, abandoning what the Bible “obviously” said about women, marriage, women’s roles, etc.
But as I got older, I saw within the Bible itself verses that contradicted the idea that God does not want women to lead or teach men. I stepped back and saw the larger picture that God is okay with women leading and teaching men or other women.
The gender comps, however, continue to focus on only 2 or 3 very limited verses about women (the Pauline ones, usually), and they take the verses that do support female leadership by distorting them, ignoring them, or explaining them away (e.g., such as a woman, Deborah, of the Old Testament, being a leader over Israel and leading the men into war).
Not to mention many churches ignore or explain away verses that discuss singleness *and by extension, being childless) in a positive way to only focus on “pro marriage” verses, which further narrows women’s roles even more, so that Christian women come to believe their only godly role in life is to marry and have a baby (so if you never marry, or you are infertile, etc, you are “persona non grata” in American Christianity, or made to feel like a loser or odd ball).
I remain a social conservative (which is not to say I completely agree with other social conservatives on every issue at all times, or in how to solve societal issues). So I do understand how they think – gender comps are usually very socially conservative.
Complementarians really do not realize that one can remain a social conservative, believe in biblical inerrancy, but not slide into acceptance of abortion on demand, or homosexuality, and yet be a gender egalitarian too.
They really don’t comprehend how it’s possible to let go of gender comp. views without compromising other views, or leading to a slippery slope, but it is quite possible.
I used to be that way myself, but when I got older, I saw that you can still remain pro- traditional marriage, pro- life, etc, but you don’t have to be a complementarian (ie, male hierarchist) regarding gender roles.
LikeLike
I find it sadly funny that CBMW thinks that “Bible translations” are at stake in this debate. Maybe it is, but not in the way they think.
Many Bible versions, from what I have read, are biased against women, against women leadership – verses that positively refer to women leading and preaching have been intentionally mis-translated by male translators in the past (and I think today) who obscured such passages because they were not comfortable with women being leaders.
I can’t remember who it was, what her name was, but some very famous Christian lady (who I believe knew koine Greek and/or Hebrew -Bushnell maybe?) discovered that Bible translators in some foreign nation she visited were deliberately mistranslating Bible versions for their native language in passages that talked about women teaching and leading, all to maintain male hierarchy in their churches and communities.
From one web page (from God’s Word to Women blog):
In light of the fact that some Christians have a known history of purposefully mis-tranlating Scripture to gloss over the fact God does permit women to lead or teach, I find it funny (and a wee bit annoying) when the CBMW type of complementarians have a cow and get upset over “gender inclusive” languages, where the translators are not changing the meaning of the underlying text, only using the phrase “him and her,” or, “he and she,” or, “the men and women” where the Greek may indicate a mixed gender group, not a male only group.
Even that minimal and faithful sort of biblical translation work offends these guys, I’ve seen a few of their blog pages where they had their knickers in a twist over it.
LikeLike
I used to be involved in organizing all sorts of comp seminars, conferences, etc. It was a HUGE money maker for church’s back in the 90’s. everyone wanted a good marriage and they had “formula” answers. But things are not as they seem at all. You start to see what a “business” it is and the reasons for it.
Most celeb comp couples fell into one of two broad categories. Either the wife was a doormat or she was like General Patton off stage and wore the pants. It was rare to see an actual complementary type relationship. They simply forced their personalities into one on stage. The doormat talked about her “equality” and General Patton talked about her feminiity. You could start to set your clock by them and I saw how fake the whole thing was.
And all it does is teach couples to focus on playing their “role” correctly and stay focused on who is doing what, etc instead of simply being a Christian and abiding in Christ. I think Satan is delighted with it.
Egals who don’t even think about this stuff are much happier and fulfilled in marriage.
LikeLike
Daisy, Bushnell wrote God’s Word to Women and is a must read for women who are questioning scripture and gender “roles”. She was quite the woman. Missionary, doctor, Hebrew, Greek and even ancient culture scholar back in a time that was rare for a woman.
There are quite a few chapters online for free. I have 2 copies of her book –both marked up like crazy.
LikeLike
I haven’t read the article nor the comments word for word, but your use of Gomer’s “surprahze!!!” tickled me and brought to mind a similar refrain from a similar show — namely, “Hee Haw:”
“Gloom, despair and agony on me
Deep dark depression
Excessive misery
If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all!”
The CBMW’s focus on the six “essentials” that are “at stake” further bring to mind something an elderly woman told me. She remembered the times before Christianity came to her village, when a shaman was the spiritual leader. Fulsomely, I asked her what that was like. She narrowed her eyes. “It was awful!” she scolded me. “He had us ALL in FEAR, all the time!” Yep. The similarities are so clear, to me. How do people not see it? I’m so glad SSB does, and calls it out.
LikeLike
How does T White have time to be on the board? He’s too busy firing people at his institution.
LikeLike
The boys at CBMW are a riot. I’m not sure this organization deserves any attention from Spiritual Sounding Board at all. But hey, their story gave me a good laugh! Thank you for that!
CBMW is a very small non-profit. Their 2012 income was only $84.7k and that marks a decline from 2011 and 2010. Their expenses exceed their income. I find this a bit shocking considering that they have a lot of highly compensated people on their board. Don’t the board members support their own organization?
http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=12088
(By the way, the egalitarian organization Christians for Biblical Equality had $697k of income in 2012, higher than both 2010 and 2011. http://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=7313)
And as to their opinion that no women should serve as board chairs for religious organizations? I wonder how many would Christian non-profits would shut down if that was the case. I’ve known many women at the top of Christian non-profits, at the request of men (and women), and chosen ahead of men. Do you want a woman who knows how to run organizations or a man who doesn’t. Sometimes it’s an easy choice, especially at a time when many non-profits are still scrambling for funds.
God’s work will go on. Lives will be saved. Children will be fed. Good deeds will be done — with women in board chair positions — whether this CBMW wants them to or not.
LikeLike
Marian – Welcome to SSB. I’m slow. If you were to read all the way back from the beginning of the original blog (which I morphed into this one), you will not see me nearly as opinionated about these issues, but now I’ve had 3 years studying the behavior of these men and the teachings that I have been around for decades.
I have friends who identify themselves as complementarians. They say the man is the head, but in practicality, they both serve each other and there is a mutual respect and submission to each other – kind of how Christ served and gave his life for us. It’s quite beautiful. They might be surprised if you called them out as egalitarians – lol.
But, I have also been observing people like my former pastor and others who rail on the issue of male headship, wife submission, men as priest of the home, men being the umbrella of protection and all of that stuff. And what I have seen now is that these men have to talk big because they are responding in fear. When someone responds in fear, they must be in control and this is one of the ways these men do it – by controlling the womenfolk, using scare tactics by telling them it’s a salvation issue, etc. I’m tired of this bologna. It’s ridiculous.
Oh, and another thing – there are women who promote this as well, and they are just as controlling and fear mongering as the men.
LikeLike
“I find this a bit shocking considering that they have a lot of highly compensated people on their board. Don’t the board members support their own organization?”
Brilliant observation!
LikeLike
Nutsell,
Dr. Thomas White. Prez of Cedarville. Yes, they have become very anti woman there.
They are all fighting a losing battle as hard as they try. Women are outpacing men in attending and graduating from college. It is a trend that is not letting up. They will always have their token female students but most females are going to end up going where they can fully develop their gifts and the degree mean something. It will be interesting to see how long these guys stand on that hill to die on while female dollars go elsewhere.
LikeLike
This reminds me of this joke from when my then employer ARCO merged to BP.
How do you pronounce “BP-ARCO”?
ARCO is silent.
So how do you pronounce “Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?”
Womanhood is silent.
LikeLike
John Piper, grand old man and co-founder of CBMW, ignored my invitation to join with us in our cry for justice for victims of domestic abuse. http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2012/08/03/john-piper-we-are-doing-what-you-want-christians-to-do/
And I sent it to my by email and snail mail, to make sure he got it.
And the then President of CBMW, Randy Stinson, told me they would be revising their Statement on Abuse after I critiqued it, but nothing happened. http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2012/11/28/critique-of-cbmws-statement-on-abuse/
CBMW are all talk but their only action is image-management — tweeting a lot and getting pics of women mascots making dumb gestures. SIgh.
LikeLike
Also, when I gave Ligon Duncan, one of their current board members, a copy of my book when he was in Australia some years ago, he was happy to receive it and said to me that at his church they were aware of the issue of domestic abuse and wanting to do more work on it. When I saw him again two days later he told me that he’d read several chapters of my book already and was quite excited about it and would email me when he got back to the States. No email ever ensued. I tried many times to follow him up but got the same old silence I get from almost all comps.
LikeLike
That’s disappointing to hear about Ligon Duncan, Barb – especially that he seemed excited, but then did not follow up.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, there are six women on the CBMW council.
FYI, Joshua Harris and C.J. Mahaney are still listed as CBMW council members despite their recent resignations from the council of The Gospel Coalition. Evidently the effects of the SGM/CLC child sex abuse coverup scandal haven’t yet reached CBMW.
LikeLike
Yes, singleman, 6 women and 26 total are represented on the council, which accounts for the 77% men and 23% women (if I did my math correctly – hey, I’m still in bed and it’s Sunday).
LikeLike
They love it when we try to change THEIR minds. They control the process. What they HATE and go after is when the minds of their followers are changed. :o)
That, and other reasons, are why we are seeing the rebranding of CBMW. Social media is changing the game for them on this issue.
LikeLike
They like to talk about servant leadership and male headship where the wife lovingly submits and all of that. A wife will lovingly submit when a husband doesn’t force her to. It’s not submission if a wife is forced to submit, it’s coercion and manipulation. Submission is given to someone, not demanded of someone.
And guess what – – – a husband also lovingly submits to his wife. That is a tough pill for some of these guys to swallow.
LikeLike
Lydia said:
I’m a former follower of complementarianism. After a lifetime of being a comp (and yes, I apologize for defending it vehemently online) I finally switched sides.
I changed my mind for two reasons: (1) I saw that comp doctrine bore bad fruit. There’s no joy, peace or freedom in comp doctrine if you are not in a perfect comp marriage. It works for a small elite group of wanna-be perfectionists trying to convince others they have perfect lives and perfect marriages, which of course they don’t. I don’t see Jesus in that attitude. And (2) I found N.T. Wright’s paper on why he believes in women in church leadership. I figured if the top New Testament scholar in the world can analyze each passage and look at each critically and come out advocating women’s leadership, who am I to say it’s absolutely wrong?
Here’s the link to Wright’s paper:
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
Yes, thank you.
I’ve often found it peculiar that the gender complementarians – when they aren’t writing about marriage and motherhood – are forever writing sermons or blogs about how women should submit to their husbands, demanding it, insisting that it’s a woman’s only appropriate response to her spouse.
It’s one thing to mention this principle in passing when giving a marriage sermon if it is what one believes, but they really hammer on the issue… if you have to keep browbeating women and guilting them to adopt that stance, it’s not true submission.
When complementarians get confronted with the notion that a lot of Christian men abuse the doctrine to mistreat their wives, only then do they start writing the other blog pages or comments in sermons about how if a Christian man really loves his wife the way Christ loves the church, she will voluntarily submit.
And, by the way, as I said at TWW before, in books I’ve read about codependency in women, the therapist or psychiatrist authors in a couple of the books I’ve read (by Christian authors) note the only men, over their many years of practice whom they have met, who EVER use the “wives submit” verse to bludgeon their spouse into compliance are the abusive men.
Even in the contentious Christian marriages where there is lots of verbal sparring and anger, the ones where the men are NOT being controlling or abusive, the therapists said those types of husbands have never brought up the Ephesians “wives submit” verse. It’s only the abusive selfish jerks who wield that to try to get their way.
If you have to constantly demand or insist on women submitting to husbands, it’s not true submission.
I am also curious. If you have a marriage where the wife refuses to submit, then what?
What if I marry and my spouse is a complementarian but I remain egalitarian and refuse to submit to him (in the comp sense of slave to a master, where husband gets final say merely for having an Adam’s apple and facial hair). Who or what is going to force me to submit, and how are they going to go about forcing me to?
And it’s true that an earlier verse in Ephesians says that everyone is supposed to submit to every one else – that would include husbands to wives, but I never hear the complementarians preach on that verse.
LikeLike
Anonymous2, me too! I used to be a complementarian. If you go back up this page to find a post or two I did yesterday in this thread, I explained most of my reasons for rejecting it.
Not only does gender comlementarianism presuppose a perfect (and I’d argue 1950s American) marriage, but it presupposes marriage at all. I am middle aged and have never married and never had children.
One could barely fill a thimble with the amount of advice, commentary, books, or magazine articles complementarians devote to never married women, childless women, divorced, or widowed people.
On the other hand, one can find enormous amounts of Christian gender complementarian pontificating on how and why a woman should marry, be submissive to a husband, and have children.
LikeLike
missdaisyflower,
It’s kind of a country club mentality, isn’t it? Everyone else is a second class Christian.
I’m not sure Jesus had any desire to be part of a country club or to establish a country club. He strongly objected to people who thought they had it all together and looked down on others, not lifting a finger to help those in need.
LikeLike
They don’t need women on the board, nor men on the board, because they don’t need a board for a para-church organization that shouldn’t exist and whose ONLY purpose is to raise money to support its self while trying to convince Christendom that men rule 🙄
MNSHO
LikeLike
Exactly, Bridget!
LikeLike
In some circles, the husband can go to their pastor and the wife placed in church discipline. I’ve read about this first-hand, unfortunately.
LikeLike
“I’m a former follower of complementarianism. After a lifetime of being a comp (and yes, I apologize for defending it vehemently online) I finally switched sides.”
Anon2,
Thank you so much for your entire comment. What a blessing to read it.
I live in CBMW world in my neck of the woods so you don’t see many actually switch sides and admit it. What you DO see are pew sitters who have simply stopped mentioning it at all. They might give some lip service to it to be part of the church but they do not pratice it in any way or form anymore. It is exhausting to try. It is not practical at all. And the biggest problem comps have now is that too many women have to work because of the economy and to add injury to that, many women are the major breadwinners today. Women are outpacing men in attending and graduating from college. It is just the way it is. Will they continue to spout doctrine that says these women are neglecting their children and husbands? They can’t. It won’t work anymore. And besides the ones spouting it are making a living off ministry, aren’t they? They cannot affored to alienate women doctors, for example. It is a strange conumdrum.
So they are quietly switching their views to focus on “Spiritual leadership” and leave out the other stuff. (Too many seminary husbands need wives to work, btw, and you should hear the hoops they jump through to excuse that)
And spiriutal leadership has it’s own ridiculous problems. It would mean a women president could not lead a bible study with her staff, for example. (Not that I think that should take place, just giving examples of the wackiness of their position)
The other problem they have is the internet is changing everything for their position. Now, the pew sitter can check the Greek, historical context, read NT Wright’s views, etc of any proof text they use for their doctrinal position. It is simply not as easy as it used to be. They are left with shaming, peer pressure, rebranding, implying it is salvic, etc. All the shallow unsubstantive things to shore up their position.
LikeLike
“They don’t need women on the board, nor men on the board, because they don’t need a board for a para-church organization that shouldn’t exist and whose ONLY purpose is to raise money to support its self while trying to convince Christendom that men rule ”
That pretty much sums it up, Bridget!
LikeLike
Bridget, and they don’t even do that well. They are not good at raising money. They raised just over $83,000 in 2012. If you look at the list of their 26 council members and 9 board members (there’s some overlap), it’s obvious that giving among their own constituents is negligent. That’s less than $3,000 per head, and many of these are 6-figure income earners.
To mangle a Theodore Roosevelt quote: “[They] speak loudly and carry a tiny little stick.”
LikeLike
You know when you get right down to it the Danvers statement and the CBMW organizing principles boarder on blasphemy. When you start claiming that the survivial of the church, gospel message and the family all rest on your little organization and it’s warped sense of God’s WORD it’s just beyond the bounds of reality.
The gospel message will continue to spread regardless of what this relatively unknown organization does or doesn’t do. These men have vastly exaggerated their own self-importance in their own minds.
LikeLike
Julie Ann,
Thank you for your kind welcome and your patience with me. When I asked “why people don’t see this?” I was completely out of order. As it happens, my pastor this morning reminded us of the Judaizers who were trying to persuade the Galatians that it was “Jesus plus,” not “Only Jesus.” Jesus plus circumcision, dietary laws, etc.
So it is with these CBMW varmints, and with the folks who are swayed by their mess. Seems like human nature will forever be at war with the Gospel, in that we homo sapiens can’t believe that there isn’t also something WE must do/be/achieve to be saved.
To the poster who would shrug off CBMW and its ilk because they are underfunded organizations, money ain’t everything in promulgating ideas like this. People are seeking stability and happiness. I know an educated, well employed, savvy woman who dipped a toe into complementarianism and patriarchy in hopes it would make her marriage to her then-husband tolerable if not enjoyable. She quickly figured it out and rejected it — all, including him.
Had he had the sense to behave, who knows? — they might have aligned with some kind of CBMW-ish church and tithed their usuall 10% of their gross. On a combined income of well over $300,000 …. well, let’s not get into math, but you can see where their contribution would’ve helped the congregation, which would have redounded in not-so-mysterious ways to the CBMW umbrella [sic]. Of course, I’m guessing that any such congregation would’ve devised a loophole for the lady to keep working, finding it somehow gawdly and pleasing that she do so, with her gifts (of more than one kind)!
Anyway, enough with the speculation. On with the analysis, the critiques, the truth!!!
LikeLike
“People are seeking stability and happiness.”
Marian, great point and that is what attracts people to this nonsense. I carried on a lengthy convo with a woman several years back who is a high powered CPA with a huge firm and travels internationally. She was a big promoter of Emerson Eggerich’s Love and Respect approach to comp doctrine. She was totally blind to the historical context of that passage in Ephesians and convinced it was the secret to having a “Christian” marriage. Over a series of months it became clear she was having to work too hard at implementing “Eggerich’s” approach instead of simply being a Christian who loved her husband and he loved back. It was down to “how” he “loved” her and “how” she “respected” him and was very silly if I might say. My guess is her high powered job was more of an albatross in their relationship than she would admit. So they needed a formula to make it work.
BTW:
Any women here who do not want to be “respected” by your husband, please raise your hand.
I thought so. :o)
LikeLike
I think CBMW should change their name to “Council For Married Parents.” It would be more accurate.
They spend about, oh, 70 – 80% of their time and effort trying to propagandize Christian women to think their only godly, worthwhile roles in life are wife and mother. Then they churn out numerous books, conferences, and blog pages telling women how to go about being a wife ‘n mom(*).
The remaining 30 – 20% of their time is spent ranting against secular feminism and telling men how to be “godly manly biblical men.”
I’ve spoken with never married adults males who are over 40, and they are just as offended and irate with the drum beat of marriage ‘n family from churches and Christian groups as I am.
Single, childless Christian men resent having “biblical manhood” defined by these complementarian people as being “man with wife and children.”
A step up from that are married men who are fathers who get tired of CBMW and other comps telling them that THAT is not good enough…
Not only do you have to have a wife and babies, BUT you have to have a full time job that can support everyone in your family, so that your wife can be a SAHM.
Yet other complementarians also add that a “real” (and biblical) man owns his own car (doesn’t use a bus – see Driscoll), has to drink alcohol, has to watch NFL, etc.
In other words, these comp groups also paint a caricature of manhood like they do with womanhood, though they usually harp on womanhood far more often.
Complementarians, from the material of theirs I’ve seen, and comments by self professing comps on other blogs, often depict “biblical manhood” as being a John Wayne Hollywood movie.
They will often describe a “real” Christian man as being a tough guy who can crush a beer can with one hand, uses a shot gun, and chews tobacco.
It sounds more like they are taking cues from macho- man- adventure- action- Hollywood movies than from the Bible – which is so ironic, since they claim to be support BIBLICAL manhood. What they describe is not necessarily BIBLCAL but HOLLYWOOD.
(For complementarian views of women, their view seem not based on anything BIBLICAL but based on 1950s American sit coms that feature nuclear families.)
If complementarians are going to base their gender role views for women on TV shows and TV characters, I’d rather go with Xena Warrior Princess, or maybe Cat Woman or Wonder Woman.
————————
* (disclaimer)
(I would like to remind people I am not against motherhood, fatherhood, or marriage!
Sometimes married mothers assume from my posts on these blogs I participate on that I hate the family unit or marriage, but I don’t.
If a woman chooses to get married (or have children) and does, I am fine with that, really. I am only against how Christians tell women their only options (their only “biblical” options) in life are to marry and have children, as though there is something wrong, or second status, with women who stay single, get divorced, who are infertile, who lack an interest in having children of their own, etc.)
LikeLike
Lydia said,
This brings to mind something else.
Not only do a lot of gender complementarians define their views of men and women on Hollywood movies and TV shows, but they carry over secular assumptions and stereotypes about the genders and dating/marriage into their views.
Non-Christian culture, has, for years, supported views like “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” and “men want sex all the time, all women want is emotional closeness,” etc. These stereotypes from secular culture get repeated in Christian sermons and blogs I come across.
One of those tropes is that men want respect, women want love… as if to say in reverse, men don’t care about love, and women don’t care about respect. I say hogwash to all that.
I don’t think American gender comps realize just how much American cultural baggage about men, women, marriage, dating, etc, that they carry into the Bible and church. They read an awful lot of stuff about women and men into the Bible that is not there.
I do think there are some differences between the genders, but a lot of it (in the USA), in my opinion, is socially conditioned, which is why, the older I get, I find the “Men are from Mars, Women from Venus” shtick is untrue, and it’s annoying.
Anyway, that whole “Men want respect, women want love, men don’t care about love, women don’t care about respect” thing bugs me. I think it also serves to prop up other sexist stereotypes gender complementarians already believe in.
I think men and women are a lot more alike than they are different. If it were not for American conditioning that men should be tough, stoic, don’t cry, don’t talk about emotions, and women should be passive, meek, quiet, gentle, and non assertive, I think we’d see the similarities more often than not.
LikeLike
“Non-Christian culture, has, for years, supported views like “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” and “men want sex all the time, all women want is emotional closeness,” etc. These stereotypes from secular culture get repeated in Christian sermons and blogs I come across.”
Yes! Because it fits the bill for them. They just slap a fish on it and call it Christian.
LikeLike
“I think men and women are a lot more alike than they are different. If it were not for American conditioning that men should be tough, stoic, don’t cry, don’t talk about emotions, and women should be passive, meek, quiet, gentle, and non assertive, I think we’d see the similarities more often than not.”
Add to the fact that our Savior came as a male. So how do specific gender “roles” outside of physical body parts fit into that? In Christ there is no male or female. Full inheritance for both genders. Perhaps the focus on gender is a deflection from what is truly important as believers?
LikeLike
Lydia’s question:
“BTW:
Any women here who do not want to be “respected” by your husband, please raise your hand.
I thought so. :o)”
Respect is the new love.
LikeLike
“Respect is the new love”
BWAHAHA! Brill…
LikeLike
I have been divorced for 8 years now. He filed and married again. I discovered the reformed tradition and came to the conclusion I needed to become a submissive wife if I ever hoped to have a godly future marriage that lasted. This made me a perfect sitting duck for an online dating disaster. I was contacted by a widowed Prince Charming ( a reformed minister who had been deposed 20 years ago for abusing his first wife). Because of God’s protection I’m still single.
Also, because of this, I have wondered if I could ever submit to a husband. I realize that with the right man, that’s not the right word. The word is “love.” Bury this comp stuff where the sun don’t shine. No thanks.
LikeLike
Carmen S.,
Congratulations on giving the deposed abusive pastor the boot. You go, girl.
When anyone (especially comps) applies formulas to singleness, it takes on an ugly side. Indeed, women are sitting ducks — that’s a perfect way to describe it.
I remember a guy in college telling me that I had to do what he said because he was the man. He was a student leader of the campus ministry. I refused. Today he’s a missionary in South America. I’ll bet he’s insufferable.
For singles, it’s best to dump all of the so-called Christian rules and formulas, and go with Tim Fall’s list at the bottom of this post. (http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/worst-dating-advice-ever/)
I don’t think you ever have to worry about submitting unless he’s obsessed by controlling.
You need a friend and a lover . . . not a master.
LikeLike
One of the last board members brought on just changed the doctrine of the University to Complimentarian. One of the single female prof’s after a year of “attention seeking” informed me she had a “doctrine” that she could not date a divorced man as a divorced man is still “one flesh with his wife”. Yet she did not seem to mind “communicating and leading on someone’s “husband”, as she stated it. Told me the pastor was in agreement with her “teaching” but turned out she was incorrect and he was definitely not in agreement with her teaching. After a year and half finally had the pastor come to tell me her “conviction”. That being, the divorced can’t remarry under any circumstances -despite the fact my divorce was in line with biblical grounds. Did not do it herself but got the pastor to do it. Then blamed the 1 1/2 yr of dishonesty on the pastor. The pastor tried to teach her and stated he did not agree with her doctrine and told her to revisit it. I tried to correct her doctrine. She has heard opposite teaching to her beliefs in her now new community. She stated she had knowledge pastors do not teach her doctrine – except for John Piper. Even he is wishy washy on it. Men have tried to teach her but she will not listen. She knows better and tried to teach her doctrine was divinely given. So, she would not listen to her pastor and other learned men. Yet she has signed a doctrine of complimentarianism that a woman can not teach a man but I can vouch that she does not live this out and is therefore, Egalitarian. In her opinion the pastor and others were wrong and would not budge. Now she has signed doctrinal statements that women can not teach men. I can tell you this man was smacked down by her teaching, and I left the church as I felt I had a banner of divorce written all over me. How does that fit in to a woman can not teach a man. She sure tried to teach me, and the pastor, and in trying to correct her, the wild stallion got other “authority figures” to come to her rescue rather than submit. So, the University has closet Egalitarians who have signed the comp doctrines but if you never date a man then nobody can challenge you or notice and stay under the radar.
Having said that, she is a great example of duplicity that confesses Comp but is Egalitarian but I will never personally date an egalitarian ideologue. I was protected from her in the end by God as she would make for an ungodly wife. The Egalitarian doctrine is unbiblical and will never submit, and if the husband did his part in mutaul submission her teaching would always be the right one. In the example above, an egalitarian will use other authority figures to tear down her husband/ boyfriend in an effort to show resolve to not submit, and there is a long list of free advisors and men who will white knight and come to a woman’s rescue. Or you can call them by their secular name: Mangina White Knights.
It’s a great example of stay single until you find a complimentarian wife. She is to listen to her husband and respect him. Not go to a host of friends and family to gain allies to outnumber her husband/ boyfriend to get her way always. That is no proverb 31 wife – who is for her husband, not tearing him down. Feminism has infected the church like a virus.
LikeLike
@ Buck Thornton.
You have it backwards. The Bible does not teach complementarianism, nor components of it, such as one-way submission, where the wife submits to the husband, but he does not submit to her, which comps teach; the Bible teaches the husband is to submit to the wife as well.
I’ve read of the opposite problem: men who pose as Christian egalitarians on dating sites, only once the relationship gets more serious, admit to being complementarian and start demanding that the woman they are engaged to (or after they marry) start bossing her around as though she is a subordinate, not a partner.
I can’t remember if it was at TWW blog or Internet Monk, but someone said they knew a woman who was in that very situation: the man she dated and ended up marrying claimed to be feminist and into equality, but after they married, he confessed he was a fundamentalist and strict complementarian. He expected his wife to be at his beck and call and jump at his every command – so she divorced him.
You said,
“Feminism has infected the church like a virus.”
I don’t agree with most secular feminism, but they do occasionally make some valid points.
Complementarianism is church-sponsored sexism and the same as secular sexism only with a Christian veneer; it is not godly or biblical.
Sexism vis a vis :biblical gender complementarianism: has been infecting the church like a virus for about as long as Jesus ascended into Heaven, much like ancient Judaism of his day did. Jesus came in part to rectify that, not see that it continues.
LikeLike
P.S. Not that the Bible calls or commands wives to submit to their husbands in the way comps teach, but the Bible does not even mention dating, nor does it say that all women must submit to all men – whether teachers, pastors, or men they are dating.
You’re stretching the Bible’s teachings to suggest that a woman who is dating a man must submit to him – she does not.
LikeLike
Buck,
Your story uses some unusual words that I’ve found only in the mysogynistic part of the internet known as the “manosphere,” where angry so-called “men’s rights advocates” complain that women they are dating don’t submit to them, don’t fawn at their feet, and don’t put up with their violence.
It’s always a clue when men use words like mangina and white knight in comments such as yours. In my experience, men who use those words and post these whining comments are abusive to women.
You complain that you cannot find a Proverbs 31 wife. Have you ever read the passage? Most men couldn’t handle a Proverbs 31 wife. She is far more capable than most American men. That woman is an import/export specialist. She is a manufacturer. She evaluates and buys commercial property. She has “servant girls” (aka childcare workers and/or maids and manufacturing employees) to do her piecework and domestic work. It’s important to her to run a profitable business. She is so good at business, that even her husband and children praise her at the main commerce center of the city, the main gate. Talk about a feminist! She’s not the woman you want. You want someone you can dominate.
Sorry, Buck, you can try to act like a victim here, but I don’t think you’ll find much sympathy.
LikeLike
Buck you are not a victim at all based on what you wrote above. No sympathy from me. As was pointed out above a Proverbs 31 women is really not wanted by men like yourself. You would never be able to control her and would probably feel inadequate in her presence.
LikeLike
CBMW is revealed as full-fledged, patriarchal-misogynistic by the 100% men, 0% women, constitution of their their board. The ratio is mathematically interesting. Were the board 6 men to 3 women, the ratio would be a mathematically permissible 6 to 3, or 6/3=2, indicating there are twice as many men as women. However where the ratio is 9 men to 0 women, the ratio is 9/0. Division by zero is self-evidently illegal (or so the mathematicians explain). I dare say that God does not countenance illegality, even when it comes to mathematical operations. Obviously, therefore, it is out of God’s will for CBMW to have a board on which the ratio of men to women is is 9 to 0, or 9/0.
On the other hand, it would be perfectly permissible for CBMW to have a board with no men and 9 women. The ratio would then be 0/9, and there is no law against dividing *into* zero.
Tongue planted firmly in cheek. I think.
LikeLike
Gary W – Thanks for helping me keep my math skills current. I am not taking math this term, but need to keep my brain engaged as I will be taking it in the fall.
LikeLike
To Anonymous 2 and Miss DaisyFlower,
Try being a single christian man in today’s world. Women are submitting freely and whether you like it or not this is what the sisterhood is doing.
Women have found complete freedom and are giving full and complete surrender to men. There are a lot of men reaping the benefits of a one sided female submission. You really need to pay attention to what is really going on and stop believing the lie that women are virtue and there is no vice found in them. Proverbs 5,6, and 7 are not in the bible for nothing. Men don’t even have to demand if from women. They are throwing it at them, willingly giving it to a man, and getting quite angry at men if they will not accept the submission they are offering men.
But the submission is not their spirit or will. They are fully surrendering their bodies/ flesh, and totally denying the submission of their spirit.
Try being a man and telling a woman you would like to see her live out virtue, instead of her vice. You will be eviscerated and called misogynist, or worse: complimentarian.
I have found these egalitarian women everywhere in church. They are everywhere and I say no. I will wait for the complimentarian woman and when I find her I will realize she is like a treasure buried in a field or a valuable pearl and will treat her as such. But a complimentarian woman- she is worth more than jewels. Valuable. She is a rare jewel indeed and her husband will love her and will treat her as such.
My story above is a proverb. I was saved by God from a contentious woman and as Ecclesiastes says, God will deliver a man from such a woman but a man full of sin will be ensnared by her.
LikeLike
Buck:
Such a twisted and one sided viewpoint of women. I can not believe what I see you saying about women. BTW your proverb unlike the one in the Bible is not Biblical. I think you are just trying to be contentious this morning.
LikeLike
Say what? Please explain how women can have complete freedom by surrendering to men?
Let’s reverse this just for the idea of it: can a man find complete freedom by surrendering to a woman? why or why not?
LikeLike
JA:
I believe Buck is speaking to something sexual as it relates to women’s submision. Buck, if that is not true please correct me.
LikeLike
Gary- brother: white knight to the rescue.
I rest my case.
LikeLike
Ok, Tom, if that is the case, it is making my head spin even more. It’s too early for this. I need to go make my breakfast smoothie now.
LikeLike
JA: Read Proverbs 5, 6, and 7 and see what kind of woman is being spoken of. That kind of women is not egalitarian and BTW men do have a choice as it relates to this kind of woman.
LikeLike
Julie Ann:
Women are giving full surrender to men but it is their bodies and not their spirit or will.
Men have been surrendered completely to women for centuries. What’s your point ?
LikeLike
Tom: I believe Buck is speaking to something sexual as it relates to women’s submision. Buck, if that is not true please correct me.
Okay. Please take a moment to contemplate what you wrote to JA.
What you wrote is completely misogynistic. You are coming in to advise JA because “as the man”, you don’t think she is smart enough to figure it out for herself like she does not have the intelligence to understand.
I believe she is intelligent enough to understand quite fine without your male intelligence having to do it for her.
LikeLike
Oh, please, Buck. Tom is not misogynistic. He accurately figured out that I was not paying attention to the chapters in Proverbs you mentioned. Once he reminded me to look it up, I didn’t need to because I then knew exactly which Proverbs that was referencing and the kind of woman represented there. I appreciated his help.
LikeLike
The point is that I was lazy and had forgotten what was in those Proverbs chapters you mentioned earlier.
LikeLike
Buck: Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? I do not even know how to spell missioginist much less be one and BTW I did spell the m word incorrect.
LikeLike
Tom, if I remember correctly, you have been one to tell me when a man has treated me rudely on the blog. I didn’t even see what some of you were seeing. It’s been a process for me.
LikeLike
JA wrote~
“Women have found complete freedom and are giving full and complete surrender to men.
Say what? Please explain how women can have complete freedom by surrendering to men?
Let’s reverse this just for the idea of it: can a man find complete freedom by surrendering to a woman? why or why not?”
Can you please answer this, Buck Thornton?
LikeLike
Seems to me, Comp and Egal, are both four letter words. 🙂
1 – Because, both, comp and egal, are words, NOT found in the Bible.
2 – Because, both, comp and egal, are words, that upset my spell checker. 😉
Now – Does this verse, Gal 3:28, say male and female are equal?
Or does this verse say that male and female, *Do NOT exist?*
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is “neither” male “nor” female:
for ye are ALL “ONE” in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
Does this verse say that male and female, *In Christ*
“Are ALL “ONE?” And have put down their “titles” and “identity”
with this world system? And *In Christ* ALL are “ONE,”
And male and female do NOT exist?
For as the body is “ONE”, and hath many members,
and all the members of that “ONE” body, being many,
are “ONE” body: so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:12
That they ALL may be “ONE”; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be “ONE” in us:
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:21
If you’re *In Christ;* is there male and female?
Or is there “ONE”?
LikeLike
Amen, Amos!
LikeLike
Anonymous2 said,
Also: you can be an ideal gender complementarian vision of “biblical womanhood,” and strive to be passive, meek, and the other malarky gender comps say a woman must be and still not get a “Christian Mr. Right.”
I know, because it happened to me.
A lot of gender complementarian teaching on women on how to get a mate contains confusing, contradictory messages, but despite the fact I followed all their advice in my teens, 20s, and older, I still remain unmarried in my 40s.
I did not completely jettison and reject gender comp teachings until I get to my mid 30s or so.
I tend to be right wing and a social conservative, so I was never, by any means, a man hating, bra-burning feminist. I had traditional values and lived a clean lifestyle.
Even though my mother raised me to be a soft spoken, gentle, submissive, sweet little proper lady – and I was – Christian single men would still not ask me on dates. And I’m still single….
Which leads me to believe that single Christian males who claim to want sweet, wholesome, proper, soft spoken, passive little ladies to marry are lying, or when they whine and complain “I can’t find me a good, nice Christian gal anywhere” are exaggerating wildly.
I was the epitome of soft, sweet, compliant, submissive (as the gender comps define the word) little proper lady up until my mid 30s or so, and Christian men would not ask me on dates – assuming I could find any. Most churches I went to, the single females vastly outnumbered the single men.
Buck Thornton said,
Single Christian women have it ten times more difficult than single Christian men.
Single women are even lower on the pecking order in churches than single males.
Buck Thornton said,
I have no idea what that even means.
If a woman wants to be submissive, truly wants to be – (submissive in your usage meaning, being a doormat, which is not the biblical definition of submissive, by the way)- of her own volition, she has the freedom and right to make that choice.
I would, however, encourage such women who feel they must be a doormat, for whatever reason, to read books such as, “The Nice Girl Syndrome: Stop Being Manipulated and Abused — and Start Standing Up for Yourself” by Beverly Engel…
Because by being submissive in the sense gender complementarians teach, such women make themselves incredibly vulnerable to being abused or exploited by dishonest or abusive men (and dishonest or abusive women).
I also do not understand your point, because you are on the one hand in one post saying women today are freely submitting, yet, you also seem to be arguing at the same time in other posts that you cannot find a woman who wants to freely submit because they’re all independent, man-hating feminists now. -So which is it?
Buck said,
Giving one’s power to make one’s choices about one’s own life over to someone else is the opposite of freedom.
That’s not liberation, that is servitude.
Women who feel they must do this – let a man rule their lives – are quite often codependent, and usually come from families where they were sexually, physically, or emotionally abused, or did not get their needs met by their parents (they were not abused but were neglected and ignored).
Often, these types of women don’t feel as though they deserve any better, that they do not deserve to be treated well by men or by anyone. They are also afraid to be independent and stand on their own, and they assume they need a man to take care of them.
God says in the Bible he does not approve of codependency.
Sometimes, God refers to codependency in the Bible as “the fear of man.”
It is when someone allows their fear of other people, the fear or anger, the fear of rejection to be determining factors in choices they make in life, rather than trust in God to take care of them. Women are to put their faith and trust and ultimate submission in God, not a husband nor any other male.
Your view asks women to voluntarily make a human male into a deity, another god, which is idolatry, which the Bible also forbids.
Buck said,
I never said that women are “all virtue” and they “have no vice.”
I agree that women have vice. I wish the rest of Christians would wake up to this fact.
For example, women want and enjoy sex, even if that means having pre-marital sex.
I find it offensive that many conservative Christians keep maintaining the falsehood that women are emotional only and do not want sex, but that men are visually stimulated and want sex. That is wrong.
Many women want and enjoy sex, and the latest stats I just read said up to 20% of Christian women are dirty site/ dirty magazine addicts.
I also tire of how Christian purity teachings only emphasize female sexuality – one seldom hears of “mother son purity balls,” or, one seldom hears Christians reminding young Christian males to stay virgins until they marry. The females get the overwhelming brunt of the “stay a virgin” lectures. The males need to be hit over the head with those messages too, not just the females.
Buck said,
You’re not being honest here. I was the very picture of complementarianism you describe, yet I never got married. You guys claim to want that kind of woman, yet, even when they are right under your very nose, you will not ask those sorts of women out on dates.
Buck said,
Another thing I should mention: gender complementarianism actually produces underhanded, passive aggressive behavior in women, the type of behavior Buck is complaining about.
Read the book “No More Christian Nice Girl” by Paul Coughlin for a longer, fuller explanation – there are chapters you can read for free online.
He explains in the book, along with a female co-author, how secular and Christian conditioning of women from the time they are girls to be passive and meek and to bury their anger, teaches females not to be direct.
Instead, women take their disagreements and anger “under ground” and use backhanded, quiet means – manipulation, for example – to get what they want, or to “even a score” with someone they are angry at, because Christian women are taught from childhood on-wards, from their church leaders and secular culture, that being assertive, being direct, expressing anger, asking clearly for what one really wants and needs, is selfish and unladylike.
So, if Buck and other gender comps are upset with women who proclaim complementarianism but who behave in an assertive manner, it’s a product of their very own theology and sexist treatment of women – ironically.
BTW, I do not think I would necessarily label healthy self interest or assertiveness with the term “egalitarianism.” It’s called being an adult, being normal, and having healthy boundaries.
Under the label “egalitarianism,” women might feel more free to have healthy boundaries and to be direct, but egalitarianism, or feminism, does not cause those qualities. Being assertive and direct are human qualities.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
I know… it’s a contradiction in terms, or an oxymoron, like “Jumbo Shrimp.”
Julie Anne said,
If this guy is terribly hung up on a woman submitting, maybe he came across your blog via the post,
The Christian Patriarchy Movement’s Dark Secret of Wife Spanking
People who are into that are into “BDSM” culture, where there is a dominant and a submissive. From the Wiki page:
(Though, based on what little I know, sometimes the man chooses to be the submissive and wants the woman to be in control.)
I’m not sure, but I think Buck T. has posted at TWW a time or two (or maybe he’s posted here before?). His screen name looks familiar.
LikeLike
Buck said, Men have been surrendered completely to women for centuries. What’s your point ?
No, for many centuries and cultures, men have taken control over women… even back to the point Jesus Christ had to correct the negative views and treatment of women by some of the Pharisees and other Jews of his time, about 2,000 years ago.
LikeLike
This is Buck’s first time posting here. We did have Brian Thornton, but Buck Thornton is new. I’m not sure if he’s posted at TWW.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
Oh, okay, maybe I am getting the two mixed up.
I just now did a Google on the name “Buck Thornton” and added “Wartburg Watch” to the search and someone under the name of Buck Thornton has posted at TWW before, like in this thread:
“John MacArthur: Gay Children; Two Rivers: Gone; FBC Norfolk: Gender Issues; James MacDonald; Mars Hill; Fight Church: Sex Abuse”
For example, here is a link to one of his posts there:
Buck on TWW
His comment there in that thread:
He has a tiny Canadian flag next to his post there.
LikeLike
ok, Daisy, thanks for that. Buck, I am watching you. Please behave.
LikeLike
Nothing but a bunch of Jezebel’s out there, eh, Buck? There are just not enough women out there willing to go along with Buck’s definitions of virtue. Sad stuff, Buck.
There is no such thing as a “complementarian” woman. That word is made up…by Piper long time ago. The doctrine is made up from stringing together several proof texts with no historical context. And worse, there are so many versions of comp doctrine, we need a Comp Talmud to keep these “oral laws” for women straight!
So, God “delivered you”? perhaps she is thinking God “delivered” her. Amazing how many people are so willing to blame God instead of taking responsibility for their own lives. I am sure nothing you or her did had anything to do with it. God was directing it for you both. (sigh)
A “contentious” woman could mean anything from refusng to adore you properly to defending herself against your insults. Abusers love to trot out the Proverbs or Eccl talking about a “nagging wife” or whatever. They forget these were mostly communicated by Solomon who had 600 wives/concubines. Of course, he found some contention within that evil mess of his own making. It certainly was not God’s plan was it?
LikeLike
“Men have been surrendered completely to women for centuries. What’s your point ?”
The point is you are making this up. I agree with Anon3 that you are using language and cliches right out of the manosphere. I recognize it, too. Creepy.
Why not try facts?
Historically, women have only had any semblence of “individual” rights since the early 20th Century–1920’s. They were considered “property” of their husbands or fathers, for the most part, since Genesis 3.
There were even statutes in English law upheld during the 20th Century giving measurments for the stick a husband was allowed beat his wife with. And that was a “civilized” country. Not much different in the US up to 20th Century as domestic violence was pretty much ingnored by law enforcement. That has only really changed in the last 40 years or so. Even in the 70’s the husband/wife account at the bank was considered his– legally.
But it was better back then, wasn’t it Buck? When women knew their place and were not so uppity. :o)
LikeLike
I actually came back into this thread to make some other observation on the OP, and something Gary said caught my eye that I wanted to comment on, but I saw the posts by Buck and got sidetracked.
I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say about OP and Gary’s post. I’ll think about it and maybe I’ll remember and can post about it eventually.
Lydia quoted Buck as saying,
And someone above mentioned MRA (men’s rights) groups, they said Buck sounds like he spends a lot of time on MRA sites (I agree, he does sound like them).
About a year ago, I visited a blog by a guy who says he is a Christian. He uses a lot of the MRA terminology. He, and a few other Christian blogs by similar men (and one woman) I’ve seen express the same views.
These MRA-Christians (for lack of a better term – or “hyper gender complementarians”?) are angry that a lot of women in the church these days are cussing, drinking, smoking, having pre-marital sex, and not being held accountable for unseemly behavior AND that preachers are shaming men from the pulpits over not dating these same women.
These guys are annoyed and offended that preachers are screaming from the pulpit that the males should “man up” and marry one of these “fallen” women.
I am kind of sympathetic to a point with these guys (assuming they are living godly lives themselves, and not being hypocrites and sleeping around but at the same time demanding to marry a virgin).
I am noticing a lack of balance in churches today.
No, I’m not a supporter of legalism. I don’t want preachers and church folk being mean and nasty to people who sin.
On the other hand, I see preachers and Christians who tolerate a lot of open sin from other self professing believers these days. Preachers today have admitted on TV and in interviews online they are afraid to call sin sinful from the pulpit, especially in the area of sexual sin.
If you someone who is trying to sincerely live a godly life style – no drug abuse, no sleeping around, etc, this is very frustrating – here you are following the rules, but the folks who are breaking the rules left and right are not being held accountable by the Christian community.
So I do in a way sympathize with these MRA Christians. What I find annoying, though, is that they allow their overall anger at the state of Christianity (that women are not being held accountable for their sin) to devolve into a “blame all women fest.”
They blame secular feminism and all women (Christian and Non), to such a degree they have become sexist pigs.
Also, men are fornicating a lot now too. A lot of surveys and polls I’ve read the past few years show high numbers of Christian men are addicted to pornography, many are having affairs, and this is true even of men who work as preachers!
So, it’s very lop-sided of the “MRA Christian” types to act as though men are little perfect angels who are being victimized by women and churches, and it’s only women who are sinning, or not being held accountable. I am seeing both men and women get off “scot free” now- a- days, especially in the area of sexual sin.
LikeLike