CBMW’s Gavin Peacock Claims Eve Was Trying to be King and Lost True Womanhood

Gavin Peacock works with Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and is the Director for International Outreach.  I forgot I had saved this screenshot from a couple of months ago.  This is what CBMW is all about:

55 comments on “CBMW’s Gavin Peacock Claims Eve Was Trying to be King and Lost True Womanhood

  1. Eve was trying to be king? What?

    I can only assume he is pulling the complementarian fault of “women will try to steal or usurp male authority at any opportunity Eisegesis” – he probably assumes that Eve’s sin was not disobeying God (which is what the text teaches – she ate the fruit against God’s orders), but rather, she tried to be Adam’s boss and/or supposedly usurp Adam’s authority. Though no where in Scripture does God put men in authority over women.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Don’t know if anyone here saw it on the other blog, but a complementarian guy who regularly posts over there was saying in one older thread in the last day or so that essentially he is against women preaching/leading because

    1. all of us women are more easily deceived than men, and
    2. he had personal disagreements or dissatisfaction in churches or denominations that had women leaders/ teachers/ preachers.

    He also had some other views that he brought up which I found strange but which I won’t belabor in this post. What I noticed about some of them is that he contradicts his own views at times.

    As to the two points above (and similar he’s raised), it’s like he’s not examining the biblical text only but basing his views on gender on his personal preferences (and he also hates secular feminism and blames it for impacting church ladies).

    The comp guy at the other site tries to pass himself off as a conservative Christian who is sola scriptura, and he seems to feel any who disagree with him are not taking the Bible at face value and/or have been under the spell of culture (specifically secular feminists).

    He has this huge blind spot to his own personal biases. He assumes that only his debate opponents over there have personal biases, and so on.

    He also can’t seem to understand how offensive and sexist it is to tell women that they should be limited because (in his opinion) all women are more easily deceived than men. As though all women have this DNA that taints them all.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. She did what now? She ignored God’s word, not man’s.

    He did what now? He died to reconcile mankind with God.

    This is such logical insanity. Accept a surface interpretation of scripture to start with, which drives further research, which produces insanity like this that only vaguely resembles the source material.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Thank you, Daisy, for saying how offensive and sexist this is. When I first saw this I thought how can anyone read this without thinking this guy’s a jerk?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Kathi, I’m not sure if you know which blog or guy I mean, or if Julie Anne would be okay with me saying here who and what I mean. Scott O. seems to know who I mean.

    I don’t know why I bother to still post responses to that guy over there. I find myself talking in circles with him. Gram3 still responds to him. She must have the patience of a saint. He makes me want to pound my head against a wall.

    He says he’s a conservative but deems conservative methods of Bible study as being “liberal” (such as taking original author’s intent and culture and time period into consideration; he also feels scholars using extra-biblical texts to help shed light on the Bible itself is a liberal practice).

    I told him in all my years of reading Christian apologetics (most of them centered on defending the deity of Jesus or the history of the Bible, such as the transmission of the text etc), I saw numerous occasions when conservative Christian theologians and scholars appealed to extra biblical (sometimes secular) texts to bolster the Bible, or to illuminate some cultural thing mentioned in the Bible.

    There is nothing “liberal” about this practice (many actual liberal scholars and Christians hate it, as a matter of fact), but this comp guy at the other site insists that if a Christian gender egalitarian appeals to extra biblical texts to make some point or another about the Bible (explaining how marriage or whatever was viewed in the time of Paul the Apostle) that he or she is being “liberal.”

    Like

  6. Another thing hit me about Peacock’s tweet.

    Jesus did not die on the cross to redeem womanhood.

    To redeem women from sin, yes, but not to defend biblical gender roles, puh-lease.

    Jesus died on the cross to reconcile sinful humanity to God, not to fix gender roles or save the nuclear family (a lot of evangelicals act like Jesus died on the cross to fix cultural problems or save the nuclear family).

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Always amazes me men have to put themselves between women and God. Even in sin, they have to say “Eve really sinned against manhood (and thus Womanhood).” Funny, the serpent said “you will be like God” not “you will be like Adam”. As I am fond of saying, in order to insert a complementarian of any passage, you first have to remove the centrality/primacy of God/Jesus in Scripture.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. What is he trying to say? His words don’t even make sense.

    That is one of the best examples of isogesis that I have seen in a long time.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. In courtship, vocalization stands to be a primary way for peacocks to attract peahens. Some studies suggest that the intricacy of the “song” produced by displaying peacocks proved to be impressive to peafowl. (so says the Wikipedia article on peafowl)

    Gavin Peacock’s clever twitter intricacy might attract a lot of peahens to him. May he be so swamped under amorous peahens (birds, not women) that their feathers stop him breathing and tweeting!

    Liked by 3 people

  10. How can they express this non-biblical teaching with a straight face? Nowhere does the scriptural text support his message. Then again, if your doctrine is based on concepts of manhood and womanhood rather than on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, anything might come out.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Kathi, my first thought about this involved another area of the nether regions of the male species. I wondered if he could get effective treatment for his glaring case of craniorectal inversion. I just saw a meme about the probable skeleton of the first politician where some jokester put the skull upside down inside the pelvis. If religion doesn’t work out for him, he might find a fitting role in politics.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Really, really weird theological theory. I’m not really sure where these guys come up with this stuff but you know it could be spined another way ( in the spirit of CBMW thinking ).

    Adam wasn’t excercising proper leadership “OVER HIS WOMAN” and then was further lacking in being so quick to fall. Basically he totally failed at headship and single handily created the original feminist movement by his failures. Maybe he founded the CBMW🤔

    Like

  13. These guys are always warning the crowds not to attribute motives to people, yet Gavin can attribute motives to Eve (whom he obviously never even met) . . . she wanted to be King. AND that, of course, means that “every” woman wants to be King. The folks at CBMW are cray cray!

    Liked by 2 people

  14. I have come to believe there are more woman haters within the realm of what is called Christianity and the church in this day and age, twisting the Scriptures to put women in their place in offering up a platter of hatred. There are also many women who have been indoctrinated with these lies as well and happily and mindlessly join in with their husbands in supporting this Christian hate movement within the visible church.

    To these religious authorities, these individuals who present themselves as important in their own eyes, who love the sound of their own voices and the applause of their congregations, who twitter and tweet, tweet, tweet volumes of personal philosophies from the depths of their hearts indoctrinating the religious folks who do not read their Bibles nor have a thought process of their own:

    I would simply ask these folks this, “So exactly what role DO WOMEN have in any society in this world?”

    Did not Timothy receive instruction from godly women? Did not Lydia sell fabrics/merchandise? Did not Jesus treat women with love and respect all the while calling out their sin, and still giving them a proper place within His Kingdom?

    As a born again follower and believer in Christ alone for my salvation, Jesus is our King, sitting at the right hand of our Father, not these earthly men who desire to be the replacement of Christ in our hearts, minds, and lives.

    Why do men desire to replace the Glory of Christ with themselves?

    Liked by 3 people

  15. It’s amazing how incredibly bad and wrong a single tweet can be, and I have a lot to say about it. However, in the spirit of CBMW-brand complementarianism, I’ll respond with my husband’s comments instead:

    “So if Eve was responsible for the fall, why does scripture subsequently refer to it as ‘Adam’s sin’ and never ‘Eve’s sin?'”

    And: “The only person who blamed Eve for the fall was Adam, and he was wrong to do so. Isn’t this guy just sinning in the same way Adam did, by saying ‘These women you gave us caused all our problems?'”

    My husband may be an egalitarian and a feminist, probably the worst things you can be to the CBMW, but I’ll go ahead and stick with him because he’s demonstrated an ability to read and understand the scriptures without inserting a corrupt viewpoint that benefits only himself.

    I’m actually thankful in a sense for comments like Peacock’s because they made it easy for me in my younger more impressionable years to recognize any sense of equality or respect the CBMW claimed to have for women (or even scriptural authority) was a bald-faced lie. So a man is responsible for his wife, except Adam wasn’t responsible for “Eve’s sin” so I guess you can just drop your responsibility to God for your family whenever it’s inconvenient to you? I can’t/can believe this guy gets behind a pulpit every week.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Tim,

    How can they express this non-biblical teaching with a straight face? Nowhere does the scriptural text support his message.

    Making it up as they go along. It reminds me of an episode of “The Golden Girls”, in which Sophia reminisces about a relative who invented pesto sauce by trying to make ear salve. Dorothy calls her out, saying, “Ma, you are making this up!” Sophia’s response: “So what!? I’m old, I’m supposed to be colorful!!”

    Mind you, I don’t know how old Gavin Peacock is, but maybe one reason that they’re making up doctrine is an attempt to sound interesting — like they have something new and profound to say. I get the feeling that they have a hard time selling their message, and maybe they think saying clever-sounding junk will keep it fresh. Even if it makes no sense.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. A Twitter post is often an attempt to generate a viral meme. If and when it takes off the author is thought to be successful among some. CBMW doctrine is certainly a virus, sapping strength from the body of Christ. I hope they continue to issue such crazy ideas, as my hope is people will see it for the craziness it is.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. An additional things-that-make-you-go-hmmmm element: In the ESV, English Standard Version — a fine albeit flawed and complementarian translation — at most passages throughout the New Testament, where “brothers” is translated, a footnote is typically included, stating:

    Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God’s family, the church.

    This footnote is found consistently throughout the NT, with the exception of James 3:1, “Not many of you should becomes teachers, my brothers,” where adelphoi is clearly noted in the Greek, but the ESV complementarian translators grant “brothers” without the usual footnote. This is called translational bias, inconsistency, and a singular lack of integrity with regard to the original languages. This is one example of how one’s theology drives a translation.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. @Katy:

    I would simply ask these folks this, “So exactly what role DO WOMEN have in any society in this world?”

    And if they answer “penis homes and breeding stock”?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Scott, I went to a complementarian church and church school growing up. What you hypothesize is actually what they taught. They actually did teach that adam’s original sin was failing to exercise leadership/headship and prevent eve from being decieved, and instead letting eve make the decision and also following along with that decision himself, since after all he was with her when she did the deed.

    (And then they went one step furher and also suggested that Adam probably ate the fruit knowingly because he did not want to be separated from eve.)

    And then interpretation becomes confused with scripture, and any woman or man who has an egalitarian view is just twisting scripture and can be dismissed offhand as decieved or worse.

    “Scott on October 30, 2015 at 10:35 PM
    Really, really weird theological theory. I’m not really sure where these guys come up with this stuff but you know it could be spined another way ( in the spirit of CBMW thinking ).

    Adam wasn’t excercising proper leadership “OVER HIS WOMAN” and then was further lacking in being so quick to fall. Basically he totally failed at headship and single handily created the original feminist movement by his failures. Maybe he founded the CBMW🤔”

    Like

  21. H.U.G.
    That is the laugh of the week! And yet, in fundamental religion, regardless of the spiritual flavor, it has soured many folks against Jesus for this paradigm is what they hear and see within what is called Christianity.

    Like

  22. Anonymous2 on November 1, 2015 at 3:53 AM
    “Kathi,

    Are you really sure Gavin’s penis is bigger than yours?

    I doubt it.”

    Is the insinuation that he really has none at all?

    Like

  23. She gave to her husband and he ate. I wonder how close her husband was standing to her. It doesn’t say that she threw the fruit to her husband. Did he hear the whole conversation? So much possible conjecture. There is nothing even remotely close to resembling her wanting to be king though. Of all of the things you could guess about, that is not one of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. I haven’t commented here in forever, but the fellow on Twitter going from CBMW to LGBT inspires me to attempt some satire–so here’s how he gets there…
    You see– Adam thought it was a drag having authority over Eve so he wanted to dress up as a queen— while at the same time he was mad at God for not giving him another man, because he wanted to abdicate his leadership, doncha know.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Some miscellaneous thoughts:

    “…because of one MAN’S trespass, death reigned through that one MAN…” (Romans 5:17 ESV, emphasis added). Spiritual death and the so called sin nature are attributed to Adam, not Eve.

    Personally, I am acquainted with very few women who wish to dominate others. Many men attempt to do so. When these heretics like Peacock attempt to saddle Eve and all womankind with a desire to dominate, they are projecting their own characterological pathologies.

    With reference to the first comment on this thread, Peacock’s may be larger, but there doesn’t seem to be anything attached to it. How the spiritually emasculated appear to envy, resent and demean all, and especially women, who have been invested with true Spiritual authority! –With the authority that belongs only to Jesus, which He exercises through those who are submitted to him in humble service.

    Like

  26. In the spirit of this wonderful conversation, might I recommend reading Paul Young’s new novel, Eve. It is an outstanding, creative look at the Fall and gender roles that is sure to be controversial. It was refreshing to my soul, however, after spending far too many years feeling responsible, as a woman, for the Fall of humanity. It is simply an incredible work based on Paul’s years of research into this topic.

    Like

  27. I truly believe that many who stand in the pulpit spouting off do not believe God is real at all. They boldly put forth their own thoughts and ideas as if they were God’s. They haven’t the slightest fear of misrepresenting God or attributing falsehood to him. The god they represent has their thoughts, their ideas, their values. They create their own god in their own image. They truly do not believe there is any other God hearing and seeing them that can disagree with them or disapprove of their words. “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

    Like

  28. This is my own opinion but here is what I see in my own reading of the Bible. The woman was deceived and she ate of the fruit. The man, however, was not deceived- he willfully, knowingly chose to eat the fruit. Maybe he saw that his wife had eaten and knew she would be separated from God (and by extension, from him) and made a choice right then that he would rather lose God than his wife. I don’t know. But rather than bring his wife to God and seek her redemption, he chose rebellion. And then what did he do after this colossal failure, when his sin was found out? He tried to pass the buck and blame it on his wife. God did not accept his excuse.

    We know that God placed the responsibility for the sin and for the fall of mankind on Adam. “just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin” “as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” “death reigned from Adam until Moses” etc.

    So, all of this just to say that I, personally, do not think men have anything to boast about in terms of the original sin or any high horse to be looking down from.

    Like

  29. Sorry, Gary, I did not see your post above along the same lines of Adam’s responsibility, and you said it much better than I.

    Like

  30. When your last name if Peacock, you really should not be so obvious about compensating for your personal shortcomings.

    And, hint-hint, women, in general, are not trying to morph into males, honestly. And, judging from all the negative exposure in the news, males, particularly conservative Christian males are not exactly what I aspire to emulate. And just who knows what your female counterparts say or do since they are silenced by your theology.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Pingback: HEADSHIP Bible: Genesis 2 and 3 | Biblical Personhood

  32. You’d almost think their Bibles say:

    “16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of increased authority over another human”…

    4“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, having authority over Adam.”

    6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She kept it away from her husband because she wanted to usurp his authority, but he grabbed and he ate it…”

    Gavin Peacock and a recent article on John Piper inspired me to write this: https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/headship-bible-genesis-2-and-3/

    Like

  33. Shy1

    You are so correct when you write @ NOVEMBER 2, 2015 @ 4:27 PM…
    “I truly believe that many who stand in the pulpit
    spouting off do not believe God is real at all.
    They boldly put forth their own thoughts and ideas
    as if they were God’s.”

    ————

    There really are – Paid – Professional – Pastors – in Pulpits….
    Who do NOT believe in God. – You can’t make this stuff up… 😉

    ———–

    The Clergy Project
    http://www.clergyproject.org/

    The Clergy Project is a confidential online community for **active** and former **clergy** who do not hold supernatural beliefs. The Clergy Project launched on March 21st, 2011.

    Currently, the community’s 500 plus members use it to network and discuss what it’s like being an **unbelieving leader** in a religious community. The Clergy Project’s goal is to support members as they move beyond faith. Members freely discuss issues related to their transition from believer to unbeliever…

    When you believe the lie you start to die…

    Like

  34. Shy1

    Here is another site…

    Preachers Who Don’t Believe in God
    http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2012/06/21/preachers-who-dont-believe-in-god-2/

    Losing faith in God is common, but what happens when your paycheque depends on your belief? A study from Tufts University tells the story of several pastors who no longer believe. **Some are still working in churches,** **preaching sermons,** and counseling the faithful. They say they do not have the skills for a new job and, in some cases, are unable to confide even in their families for fear of what their newfound disbelief may do.

    Like

  35. Shy1

    Here is the PDF – From…
    Tufts University – Preachers Who Are Not Believers

    http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08122150.pdf

    You can’t make this stuff up… 😉

    Preachers Who Are Not Believers… Oy Vey!!!

    And, In the Bible…
    Did any of His Disciples ever call them self pastor/leader/reverend?
    Did any of His Disciples ever have the “Title” pastor/leader/reverend?
    Did any of His Disciples ever get “Hired or Fired,” as a pastor/leader/reverend?

    What did His Disciples know 2000 years ago?

    That those who call them self “pastor/leader/reverend,” miss today?

    Like

  36. If what Gavin Peacock wrote is true then I am ‘DOOMED’ because I believe Jesus died to take away my sin. Actually when I think about it this would mean that Gavin Peacock is also ‘DOOMED’.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s