“Why are you asking the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for an apology? They are not going to change their mind and repent of what they believe.” The indication in a question like this is that we are wrong to engage the CBMW by demanding accountability through the apology. To sign the petition, click here.
Note: the Associated Baptist Press has a story on our petition. Read it here.
Note: Dr Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality signed the petition and added these words:
From taking my chair as president of Christians for Biblical Equality, I have heard from females who have been beaten, raped, humiliated, marginalized and demeaned by leaders who believe Scripture subordinates females. Ideas have Consequences! Theological ideas—speaking on behalf of God—as a pastor, educator or one privileged by theological training, is a position of enormous responsibility, according to Scripture. “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly,” James 3:1. I do not presume to judge the motives of CBMW, but I do call on them to acknowledge their errors, roundly challenged by the academic and theological community, globally. Thank you Shirley! May your holy protest and godly boldness bring challenge, reconciliation and repair to the body of Christ. Mimi Haddad, Ph.D.
Returning to my story: The woman who made that comment believes in peace at all costs. She believes that we should love the Council and allow them to do they want to do, and we should go our own way in working for women’s equality in the church and home.
It reminds of the story of David. He had been given so much by God. God had given David talents, protection, good looks, and a great body. Poetry flowed from his lips. He could have anything he desired. But those desires caused him to do a great evil against other people.
2 Samuel 12:1-10. And he sent Nathan the prophet to tell this story to David:
A rich man and a poor man lived in the same town. The rich man owned a lot of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had only one little lamb that he had bought and raised. The lamb became a pet for him and his children. He even let it eat from his plate and drink from his cup and sleep on his lap. The lamb was like one of his own children.
One day someone came to visit the rich man, but the rich man didn’t want to kill any of his own sheep or cattle and serve it to the visitor. So he stole the poor man’s little lamb and served it instead.
David was furious with the rich man and said to Nathan, “I swear by the living Lord that the man who did this deserves to die! And because he didn’t have any pity on the poor man, he will have to pay four times what the lamb was worth.”
Then Nathan told David:
You are that rich man! Now listen to what the Lord God of Israel says to you: “I chose you to be the king of Israel. I kept you safe from Saul and even gave you his house and his wives. I let you rule Israel and Judah, and if that had not been enough, I would have given you much more. Why did you disobey me and do such a horrible thing? You murdered Uriah the Hittite by having the Ammonites kill him, so you could take his wife.
“Because you wouldn’t obey me and took Uriah’s wife for yourself, your family will never live in peace. Someone from your own family will cause you a lot of trouble, and I will take your wives and give them to another man before your very eyes. He will go to bed with them while everyone looks on. What you did was in secret, but I will do this in the open for everyone in Israel to see.”
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has taken a very valuable asset from the family of God. They have served women up on a platter, and many have partaken in the feast. They have each in turn added their own garnishments, and from their mouths, they declare that it is God’s design.
The sheer numbers of those committed to this complementarian theology are staggering. The SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) claims over 16,000,000 in their 46,000 churches in America alone. In addition, the complementarian influence extends internationally through SBC missionaries who are forced to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
The Danvers Statement’s influence extends into other denominations and beyond. Although Southern Baptists are the largest group to adopt The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (the foundational document of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), they are by no means the only group that teaches a restrictive male headship. Far too many other evangelical denominations followed the lead of the SBC and adopted the teachings of complementarianism.
Campus Crusade for Christ, now with over 25,000 full-time missionaries in 181 countries, has adopted both the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and The Danvers Statement, which were written by some of the same people. Other prominent complementarian organizations include Promise Keepers and Focus on the Family. Concern for families is admirable, but they have chosen the wrong solution. It takes both a strong mother and father to raise children. Strong families are not made by weakening the mother of the family by requiring her to submit to the children’s father, reducing her to another type of child, as is taught in those faith documents.
Can they all be wrong? The answer is YES. When one group presents a rotten apple as being desirable, and others bite into it and call it sweet, does that make the rotten apple sweet? This writer is not the first, nor will she be the last, to point out that the complementarian view of men and women is not a biblical view. There are many voices crying out in protest that scriptures have been misused and mistranslated in favor of man’s superiority over woman.
Civilizations change and move forward. For well over a thousand years Christ was lost among civilizations, including our own, that sought to enslave others because some believed that they were born to a higher status. The end to slavery did not come about easily because many people used the scriptures to justify owning other human beings.
The concept of male divinity is not new. For centuries it was believed that emperors were divine. That is what is happening today with male headship, but to a greater degree than ever before. Complementarians have decided that it is not just some men who are born to rule over women, but that all men are born to rule over all women.
Not content with ruling over women in the present world, the CBMW has taken male headship into heaven itself, leaving no avenue of equality for women. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood endorses this heresy that male headship will continue on into Heaven, and that males will eternally rule over their wives, and that wives and children will eternally be submissive to the husband and father in the family.
Click on the link to read their Spring 2006 Spring Journal to read it for yourself. Find it here: Relationships and Roles in the New Creation (Article by Mark David Walton, Senior Pastor, Glenwood Baptist Church, Oak Ridge, Tennessee).
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood continues in their great evil against women. They are selling men a bill of goods that they cannot deliver. In the final day, when God has his say, man will find himself stripped of what he thought was his male headship. Consider who is Head in Heaven. It is not human man, because for a man to be Head in Heaven, that would mean that he had divinity on earth. Who among you will say that males are created to share God’s Lordship?
The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s office is located on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Supporters include Southern Baptist Convention leaders like Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, head of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The group’s core beliefs are detailed in the Danvers Statement, drafted by evangelical leaders in Danvers, Mass., in 1988. (Associated Baptist Press)
We voice a demand because all previous petitions have been ignored.
We cry out for justice for all those who have suffered, directly and indirectly.
At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women’s submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is with that thought in mind that we make this petition. (sign here).
I urge the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to read the story Nathan told to David, and understand that justice will come. It is my desire that the Council repent of its destructive teachings before that great day of reckoning.
And to help them before that time of reckoning, we demand that they apologize for their teaching that denigrates God’s cherished children.
To sign the petition, click here. If in doubt, read Cindy Kunsman’s blog on the petition here.
For the sake of all Christians of all genders, we demand that CBMW apologize publicly for their misuse of Holy Scripture, and for the inestimable harm suffered by women and families.
Please forward this petition on your facebook, twitter, and other social media.
Reading this makes me wish that I could vote all over again!
I know what you mean! Me, too.
Reading through the linked 2006 journal one thing is clear. As a single woman with no children, having never been married, do I even have, according to CBMW theology, a soul? Do I have a place in heaven? When are they going to start saying that the only access women have to an after-life is via their husband?
Amazing, isn’t it what male headship leads to? But to answer your question about the after-life being accessible to single women. They have an answer to that. You must be willing to have sex with a man. Can you imagine Jesus telling women that in order to be saved they must denounce their desire to be men, and then be willing to have sex with a man.
It makes it clear that salvation comes from a male organ. What blather! What blasphemy! Please read my blog Desiring to be God – Part 8 where this is all spelled out.
Pingback: PART I: Hobby Lobby’s Case Is NOT About Religious Liberty | The Pink Flamingo