# New Group Demands Apology from Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

A group named the Freedom for Christian Women Foundation, which developed from the work of "Baptist Women for Equality," (or bWe) has written a letter to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood demanding an apology.



> July 24, 2010
> 
> Dr. Randy Stinson, President
> Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood
> ...



You can read the article here. To see the attachments for the letter, go here.

What exactly is the bWe and how did all of this develop?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2010)

Demand? HUH? 

The fact of a "demand" is bad enough, but when the "demand" is accompanied by completely slanderous accusations, it really takes the cake...


----------



## JBaldwin (Jul 30, 2010)

It just makes me sad.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 30, 2010)

I had never heard of them. The letter doesn't help much, either: the two pages for signatures (where we could see who was involved) are blank


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

I found this to be a telling paragraph:



> Four of the five organizers of the conference were Christians and the conference was hosted at a Methodist Church. It was a predominantly Christian led event.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2010)

Would at least be nice if they'd gotten the organization's name correct. (i.e. CBMW, not CBMBW) 

The more I look at that list of "offenses" the more I see typical humanist idiocy. The CBMW is said to "deny the love of Christ fully to women", and teach that men are "godlike in their relationship to women". This group is "concerned with the mistranslation of Scriptures". The rest of the list is FULL of accusations that are simple logical fallacies... oh well. I've seen enough. Time to do something more intellectually challenging with my time (like empty out my pencil sharpener).


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jul 30, 2010)

"We don't demand solid facts. What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel."


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jul 30, 2010)

Why not write a letter back to them and say "rather, we would gladly receive an apology for your largely misuse of the Holy Scriptures on many areas, such as pretty much every heresy known to the whole of the church!"


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

Not a single passage of Scripture is mentioned, referenced, or explained in the letter or its attachments.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 30, 2010)

Oh the irony of a feminist movement demanding that others kowtow to their view of scripture.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm not sure I understand. Is the Council of Biblican Manhood and Womanhood associated with any denomination? Do they actually have any authority? It was my understanding that they were just a group or society that discussed these issues and put out books, articles etc. Under those circumstances, demanding an apology seems odd. Why wouldn't you just ignore them? 

(And that's not even dealing with the content of anything they or the Council have said).


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Jul 30, 2010)

Well, the Bible teaches Male headship in the household, as well as that the father/husband has dominion over their spouse and children.

However, it sounds like to me that they are seeing some cases where the father/husband is using this biblical authority to manipulate, neglect, and abuse their family, yet the council are taking these "very rare" incidents and assuming this is how it all pans out with everybody.

They are also making the implication that the parents (especially the father) have absolutely no authority over their children (and I can think of many cases in scripture where that is a big no-no).

I will say this though: It's Scripture, and I will honor it. No petitions, demands, threats, or bribes will make me do otherwise (regardless if I am not the head of the household or not). As far as this company is concerned, they should disregard this letter as nothing more than hate mail.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 30, 2010)

Their so-called demands amount to nothing more than a brazen attempt at self-aggrandizing publicity.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 30, 2010)

This is not a serious challenge. It is full of culturally-based demands and claims that women are "immobilized" if their roles differ from those of men. It's plain to see that's over the top.

I have seen serious, Bible-based arguments put forth to challenge the position of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. Such challenges should be answered carefully, and with grace and humility. But this is not one of those.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2010)

I don't have the quote but I've heard Ligon Duncan has stated that if you can get from where the Scriptures say "I don't permit a woman to speak..." that "I permit a woman to speak..." then you can make the Scriptures say anything.

They ought to instead say: "We demand that you apologize for not adopting a deconstructionist view of the Word of God and acknowledge this was all written by men anyway so we can ignore all metanarratives and construct our own meaning."


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jul 30, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Their so-called demands amount to nothing more than a brazen attempt at self-aggrandizing publicity.


 
Egg-zack-lee. They are just looking to get their name on the map and in America this is the best way to do it.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 30, 2010)




----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 30, 2010)

Lord, please deliver me from the zealous crusaders before I say something really stupid and "in kind" in reply.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 30, 2010)

Borrowing a phrase often used by Steve Brown........TWITS


----------



## JennyG (Jul 30, 2010)

SemperEruditio said:


> They are just looking to get their name on the map and in America this is the best way to do it.


speaking of the map, - it's a bit appropriate that the indignation meeting was held in Orlando of all places, at least it is if you've ever had the misfortune to encounter the book of that name by Virginia Woolf.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

When I was just beginning seminary, and was being examined as a student of theology to come under care of the presbytery, it was at a meeting of presbytery where a group at a church was trying to push for a memorial (aka overture) that would allow the ordination of female elders. That effort was quashed, the pastor left the denomination, and a helpful position paper came out of the hoop-la. But when I had to stand and speak before the presbytery, I expressed how thankful I was that there were still denominations that were faithful to confessional standards such as the WCF, and how I had come out of a denomination (the PC(USA)) had now gone so far astray that it was not only ordaining women to the ministry, but was even considering the ordination of homosexuals. I got a few amens, but then I found out about a month later that a woman from the church (the one that wanted the memorial) had called the denomination's central office and complained about my comments and demanded that either I or the presbytery apologize for my comments. Needless to say, neither of those happened.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

JennyG said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > They are just looking to get their name on the map and in America this is the best way to do it.
> ...



Since this took place in Orlando, this might be a more appropriate church to meet: Basilica of the National Shrine of Mary, Queen of the Universe Catholic Homepage [Warning: Possible Second Commandment Violation]


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 30, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > SemperEruditio said:
> ...


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 30, 2010)

Since you liked that so much, Rich, you'll love this blurb, from the "About the Shrine" page:



> A 2,000 seat Shrine Church adorned with inspirational stained-glass windows, depicting the story of God's love for man, and Mary's place in God's plan for salvation. The Shrine's fourteen aisle windows are entitled "The Magnificat Windows."



Now, I think I'll join you:


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 30, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Since you liked that so much, Rich, you'll love this blurb, from the "About the Shrine" page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I've been trying to lose weight....thanks for the assistance  .


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 30, 2010)

Blegh... that shrine needs to be blown up.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 30, 2010)

I liked _Our Lady of Grace is four inches tall and composed of resin_...


----------



## Curt (Jul 30, 2010)

I like women. God loves them. There are Biblical roles. Deal with it. Now for a Gritty's Summer Ale.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 30, 2010)

Curt said:


> I like women. God loves them. There are Biblical roles. Deal with it. Now for a Gritty's Summer Ale.


 
Its possible this is the best summation of the issue that I've seen. Thank you, sir. And enjoy your Ale. (In 2 hours, I will be relaxing outside with a Sam Adam's Summer Ale. Have been thinking about it all day)


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 30, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I've got a response for them:
> 
> 1-800-WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE


 
That is awsome. Joshua I am going to use that if you don't mine, it reminds me of that new Geico comercial with the guy from Full Metal Jacket as the therapist, very funny. The book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womenhood by Crossway is very good on all things pertaining to this subject, I highly recomend.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 30, 2010)

Typical argument from one who has no argument. As my grandfather used to say, 'Just remember, ignorance can be remedied. Stupid is forever.'


----------



## FenderPriest (Aug 1, 2010)

Is it really an apology if it's demanded? I'm always left bewildered by these sort of things. 

On other news, N.T. Wright humorously commented once, "For some reason Feminist theologians never want to make Satan a woman."


----------



## Laura (Aug 1, 2010)

From the BWE website, be sure to check out the brilliant interpretation of the Danvers Statement by Ms Shirley Taylor, "What the Danvers Statement REALLY Means." Put on your thinking caps before you read it, it's heavy stuff (her comments in bold).

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary
differences between masculinity and femininity; *The Equality for women movement
is gaining ground and we must stop it.*

2. the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out
of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood; *Women are ruining
marriages.*

3. the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or
neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership
of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed
wives; *Women are tired of hearing about submission and are beginning to speak
up.*

4. the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking,
and the many ministries historically performed by women; *Women’s place is in the
home and not in the workplace or church leadership.*

5. the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and
historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal
of human sexuality;* Equality for women will lead to homosexuality. The Apostle
Paul didn’t link women with homosexuality, but we do.*

6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family; *Women are being abused
because they are not graciously submitting.*

7. the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to
Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness; *Women can’t
have authority over men. The rest of the sentence doesn’t make sense, but
women are to blame, anyway.*

8. the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret
apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts; *Those scriptures may not mean what the
English plain reading of them says it does, but we must ignore other possible
meanings of these favorite scriptures.*

9. the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the
accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of
technical ingenuity; *When ordinary people see “husband of one wife” they
immediately think that a woman can’t be a husband, so this eliminates a woman
from serving as a deacon or Pastor. Actually this scripture states a moral
standard for the leaders and their families and doesn’t address gender at all. But
they don’t want you to know that.*

10. and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of
the age at the expense of winsome, radical Biblical authenticity which in the power of the
Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture. *Say what?* 

At the end she simply says, "Jesus is not quoted in any of the scriptures they give in this document." ...I guess that fits with the liberal view of Scripture merely containing the Word of God (divinely inspired parts to be determined by such capable theologians as Ms. Taylor). So sad.


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 1, 2010)

Why is Ms Taylor so angry??? Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a well-adjusted feminist. They all seem angry.


----------



## jjraby (Aug 2, 2010)

I would like to know How Big Lig responds, if he does. Or he quickly deposits the letter in file 13.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Aug 2, 2010)

Well after remembering about a few discussions and now Taylors response I gotta say that while I dislike this type of feminist hermeneutic as it were there is a reality to this. I believe there are still many households which do not have a true Biblical man heading the household and that some of those men are pastors. There are a lot of abuses that are still going on in the name of maintaining a "biblical" marriage. I hate to read Taylor's response and do not believe anything but the power of Jesus will change her heart but I don't believe we should just so casually throw the spirit of her comments out as the blathering of a fool. Men in the Church have abused scripture and become dictators in their homes ruling with an iron fist of fear. As with race in the US, the issue has not gone away it simply has been domesticated and not talked about in polite company. Men have and continue to abuse their families and we do a disservice if we behave as if this isn't going on. I believe this Council is trying to address that.

I do believe that Taylor and her group are trying to get attention. However I also believe that we need to be careful about how we or perhaps "they out there somewhere" are quick to mention how there are Biblical roles for men and women but it is merely a cover for their belief that women are in fact the inferior creation. I don't know anyone here personally, well one or two of you, but for the rest I don't so don't take it personal. I don't think this group has a legitimate argument against Duncan but I also don't believe because of past wounds they are able to see or hear what the CBMW is trying to do. All that being said I would just encourage us's to keep each other in prayer and for God to change the hearts of those men and women who are abusing their spouses to stop, repent, and return to God and a true biblical manhood and womanhood.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 3, 2010)

Never read the Danver's Statement before. I read it because of this post/article. I like it. It's biblcial. This woman is spittin' in the wind.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> Why is Ms Taylor so angry??? Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a well-adjusted feminist. They all seem angry.


 
Yep.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 3, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I'm pretty sure my suggested response is the most honest, helpful, and effective.


 
lol


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 3, 2010)

Laura said:


> From the BWE website, be sure to check out the brilliant interpretation of the Danvers Statement by Ms Shirley Taylor, "What the Danvers Statement REALLY Means." Put on your thinking caps before you read it, it's heavy stuff (her comments in bold).
> 
> 1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary
> differences between masculinity and femininity; *The Equality for women movement
> ...


 
This is textbook deconstructionism. When you view the world from the standpoint that man is the measure of all things, this is what you're logically left with. I know it seems strange but her response is actually a good way to see how deconstruction works.

Notice how the original intent or meaning of the author is pushed off the platform and the normative rule for interpreting the document becomes the interpreter's deconstruction. All the statements are viewed with the idea that the words are being used to exert power over women and her goal is to demonstrate what the words _really_ mean and not what the words were intended to mean.

My own deconstruction of her words leads me to believe that she completely agrees with the article.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 3, 2010)

I don't know who that group is but they sure are cute when they're angry. No I'm just kidding.... actually, they're probably so uncomely that it takes two men and a boy just to look at them. Ok, that was just mean.


----------



## Fly Caster (Aug 3, 2010)

Silly Women.

_2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
_


----------



## DAW (Aug 3, 2010)

I hate to say it, but this group exhibits a typical feminist/female attitude, i.e. "my feelings are hurt, now apologize to me." If this group (Freedom for Christian Women Foundation)were composed of men, I would tell them to stop acting like crybabies and move on.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 3, 2010)

BobVigneault said:


> I don't know who that group is but they sure are cute when they're angry. No I'm just kidding.... actually, they're probably so uncomely that it takes two men and a boy just to look at them. Ok, that was just mean.


 
No... it was FUNNY!


----------

