Newsflash July 24, 2010
Today I was emailed a letter that was just FedExed to Dr. Randy Stinson and Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III on behalf of the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition which is demanding an apology for harm done to Christian women because of the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition
July 24, 2010
Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road, Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280
And
Dr. J Ligon Duncan III
Chairman of the Board of the CBMBW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202
Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.
For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
Sincerely,
Shirley Taylor
Waneta Dawn
Cynthia Kunsman
Janice Levinson
Jocelyn Andersen
Freedom for Christian Women Coalition
DEMAND FOR AN APOLOGY FROM THE COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD
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 these statements.
- We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;
- we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;
- we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;
- we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;
- we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women;
- we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;
- we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;
- we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;
- we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking;
- we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God.
It is because of these concerns that:
- We demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood acknowledge the harm that has been done to the church body by The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, confess it as sin, and denounce it;
- we demand that denominational leaders and all churches and seminaries which have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do the same;
- we demand a public apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, and from all heads of seminaries and Bible colleges that have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, for the inestimable damage this statement has done to all Christians whose lives have been influenced by it;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to promote the Biblical design of functional equality for all Christians, both men and women;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to speak out against pastors who continue to demean women and oppress Christians by the use of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood chastise pastors who claim that abuse of women is acceptable and justified because the wife is not submitting to the husband;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood make known to every boy and every girl who attend an evangelical church, that God is their head, and that authority over another human being can come only from God;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach men that they share equally in the burden of society’s ills, and that all that is wrong with society today cannot be blamed on women;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do everything in their power to teach seminarians to show the love of Christ to both men and women;
- we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach pastors to be loving towards those Christian men and women who disagree with The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;
- and, finally, for the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
Shirley Taylor, bWe Baptist Women for Equality , Presented at the
Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women’s Rights Convention July 24, 2010 in Orlando, Florida
AFFIRMED BY THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION AT THE SENECA FALLS 2 EVANGELICAL WOMENS RIGHTS CONVENTION
JULY 24, 2010 IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA
For more information see bWE blog or Women Submit blog
I believe that the unrealistic demands in this letter, and its polemic tone will do more harm than good to the egalitarian cause.
I have no idea what it will do and have more of a wait and see attitude.
But I do know that CBMW needs to be taken to task for the violence they have done to the Gospel. And I’m pretty sure any reasoning on the part of egals will do nothing.
It has done nothing so far.
Perhaps it’s time for a more direct, in your face, approach.
I’ll have to wait and see how this all works out.
What else is there to do?
Except agree with these ladies and state, point blank, that they are not exaggerating when the speak of the negative effects the Danvers and CBMW have caused.
It is well past time for such faulty, unchristian garbage to be challenged, and challenged strongly.
Demanding an apology is a waste of time. Rebuking them in love, is not.
Lydia, I would suspect you are right. Perhaps another statement could be made in rebuke if CBMW does not respond to this one. A rebuke is not wrong when an organization has done things that are harming the church.
I suppose they could try a different approach. It does read strong I agree!
They have been rebuked in love before(CBMW), and they never acknowledged it. They won’t acknowledge this either. They do have a habit or ignoring things that don’t go along with their doctrine.
It should be interesting.
I doubt if they reworded with the spiritual pixie dust that CBMW loves to use would change anything.
I have to admit I have no clue what approach would work. How do you approach those that stonewall? I never have figured that one out personally.
“I have to admit I have no clue what approach would work. How do you approach those that stonewall? ”
You put out the truth. And you allow debate using scripture. CBMW does not allow serious debate. And they resort to ad hominem that if you question them you are a liberal feminist and rebellious. It is almost impossible to get past that with them. Their goal is to shut down debate on interpretations.
In effect, we should not even be trying to change their minds. They will need a road to Damascus experience for that because they are too entrenched and this is also part of how they make their living and it is their identity…and they would have to give up their standing and authority.
We should be engaging everyone else…encouraging them to study the scriptures on their own and to question everything they are taught. Jesus said He left us the Best Teacher. Let’s start reminding their followers of that fact.
Let us remind their followers not to leave their FIRST LOVE.
While I agree 100% with the contents of the letter (I personally am still dealing with the damage caused by such teaching), based on CBMW’s general approach to those who dare to disagree with them I have the feeling that they either will ignore it completely or turn it into an opportunity to turn the guns on those “evil feminists.”
I have to go with the “more harm than good.” Personally, I’ve been praying for Piper…it seems that he has at least somewhat recognized problems in his own life from following a male-centered theology.
I’m with Kay.
I think it is important for egalitarians to keep getting their message across, and to keep substantiating that message with Scripture.
However unless we PRAY for true freedom and equality for all believers, many of the following generations of leaders will hold to (and propagate) the same rigid, patriarchal views as our complementarian bothers and sisters.
I agree with the approach in this CBMW case. There’s been too much damage done. I don’t think the letter is so much about the egal cause as it is about stopping what’s coming out of CBMW which has resulted and will continue to result in damage.
On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery Alabama.
That’s what it took. Her courage set in motion a whole series of events that ultimately brought down the Jim Crow Laws in the old South. Maybe a demand for an apology from CBMW for the violence done to the Good News of Jesus Christ as Mara so aptly put it in comment #2, is what’s needed now.
It will be read by many, and many will wonder what the big deal is. Wondering generates questions, and questions are the first steps toward changed beliefs. Wilberforce knew this well when he set out to abolish the British slave trade.
@11 Thank you, Greg! Excellent thoughts! Just some of what I’ve been thinking!
@2 Yep!
These ladies know what they are dealing with, and I’ve noted also that they have expertise in abuse… I can only imagine that they have a good idea of what they are doing when it comes to such a problem as CBMW.
What if CBMW says they apologize and then keep on doing what they have always done?
From Martin Luther King, Jr’s, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:
“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. ”
Here’s a link to the whole letter:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
The reason the “demand for apology” had to be worded as a “demand” was that other avenues for communication have failed. This one is likely to fail too, but that doesn’t mean it will have no effect.
If the CBMW ignores the letter, then coalitions like this one must continue to cry out. If they answer with apology and don’t follow through, then the response must be formal rebuke. If (as I think will happen) CBMW answers with a dismissive and demeaning letter, then such a letter will work against CBMW– particularly if it can be brought home that they are dismissing and demeaning women who have legitimate complaints as victims of violence.
Remember the African-Americans who were attacked with firehoses during their peaceful marches. This was one of the things that turned the tide of public opinion against them.
It doesn’t matter whether a letter like this is perfect or not– it doesn’t matter whether or not we agree completely with its tone or manner of address. What matters is that people who are being oppressed in the name of Christ are lifting up their voices. I say let those voices be a catalyst for more tension, more non-violent confrontation– until organizations like CBMW HAVE to listen! More of us– especially men who support the cause of women’s freedom in Christ– need to speak up. If someone doesn’t like the format or tone of the letter, then let them add their own voice in whatever manner they think best. But the time for accommodation of abusive religion needs to be over.
Sorry, what I meant to say was:
Remember the African-Americans who were attacked with firehoses during their peaceful marches. This was one of the things that turned the tide of public opinion against the oppressors.
To those who are posting graphic and disturbing comments off topic from the issue of women in ministry and who have been warned before not to do this, you will not have your comments go through. Please read my disclaimer tab at the top and follow the rules if you want any of your comments to show up. This is my last warning or I will permanently ban these comments so that they won’t even come through to me.
Kristen: the other thing that will work in getting the complementarians to listen to us: loss of income. Has anyone ever thought of the money that is potentially involved in complementarian conferences/resources, and just how profitable those things might be? I’d love to see the financials on an organization like CBMW and see if my theory that they’re making money like nobody’s business is right. If it is, then that has to change.
Kristen, in #14.
I was moved by your comment. Reminded me of this:
“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
–Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin
@Kristen: I love Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Ironically, I, too, had thought of that after I had posted my earlier comment, and while I’m still cautious (that is my nature), I think you (and MLK) may well be right.
Kristen, You make some good points I had not considered.
“I’d love to see the financials on an organization like CBMW and see if my theory that they’re making money like nobody’s business is right. If it is, then that has to change.”
It is the speakers who make all the money. As a matter of fact, I heard through the grapevine (I cannot substantiate this at all) that donations to CBMW were down last year.
Their mailing address is at SBTS which means the SBC is paying their rent. But I do know the big money is in speaking fees, books, seminars, etc. Just look at their website.
I came to believe a while back that CBMW was established more to market a doctrine and make money for a select few.
Preach it!!
I bet it’s true, Lydia along with some other things…
Elastigirl,
Rebel time! Woo Hooo! lol
Either way, they are stuck. lol They’re in between a rock and a hard place. If they apologize it will hurt them, if they are dissmissive it will also hurt them. Too bad for them! They are not in a good position at all with this letter.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5370/53
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5370/53
After I read the first paragraph above I immediately thought “Grudem was behind that” and then I went on to read the next paragraph an lo’ and behold LOL!
Kristin@14,
You certainly gave me pause to think (and after all, one of the major reasons I read this blog in the first place is to learn from Cheryl and all who comment here)…so, I’ve really been thinking about your perspective. Perhaps the time has come. I hope you prove correct.
Alison@17,
I really think they must be - because publishers grind out their books, etc… by the boat load. And publishers don’t do that if it’s not selling. “$$$” I’m not “Reformed,” but have friends who are and they tell me they are sick and tired of the materials offered for women’s studies. All roads on any subject they study somehow lead to “women submit and men lead.”
@Kay (27): I’m Reformed (Presbyterian) and REFUSE to attend women’s Bible studies and/or read any sort of Christian books geared for women. Besides being total fluff and theology lite (the very accusations many Reformed folk lob at others!), those views of women come through loud and clear. *sigh*
Oh, please, don’t even get me started on women’s Bible study materials. There’s so much junk (that’s the nicest word I can use) out there disguising itself as truth, and that junk, unfortunately sells. The only ones getting rich off this pablum are the authors, whose writings inevitably lead to the “man leads and woman submits” paradigm, as predictably as thunder follows lightning. There is precious little room for critical thinking in these fill-in-the-blank, “follow these 5 (or however many) steps and you’ll be a new woman in 6 months!” studies, and that leads me to question their value in truly edifying the sisterhood they’re aimed at. Their real value is in shoving the submission agenda down the throats of the already-convinced, so they can pat themselves on their collective back and air their superior virtue like peacock feathers. NO real learning (perhaps that’s a little harsh; maybe very little learning) is actually accomplished in the teaching and dissemination of this claptrap.
I apologize for my tone if I’ve offended anyone. I simply can’t stand these things, nor can I stand the fact that people are profiting off of a doctrine that’s been linked to abuse, degradation and dehumanization of God’s precious creation in women. It’s disgusting, and CBMW sorely needed to be called out on it.
(This is my first time commenting and the following is a re-post of a comment I left underneath an entry from the Wartburg Watch blog.)
At the moment, my greatest problem with the Reformed community is the lack of prominent, public female leaders, speakers, and thinkers. They don’t have to be “pastors,” but why do only MEN get to speak at conferences such as “Together 4 the Gospel?” Why is it that only MEN are allowed to attend annual “General Assembly” meet-ups, where key decisions are made with regard to the direction of their prospective denominations? Why is it only MEN who are writing on subjects such as Reformed theology, church history, and culture?
Why is that the women’s voices are only relegated to the subject of Titus 2 revivals and feminism bashing? It seems these days the only way for women to have a voice is only if they have an Oprah-like persona with an “expertise” on the subject of “Biblical Womanhood.”
Why is that we aren’t considered valuable assets and contributors to the OVERALL theological, intellectual, and scholarly discourse as it relates to the church and its future?
I notice too, ther’s a fraternity-inspired lingo that surrounds and characterizes these male-dominated conferences and settings. Speakers and pastors constantly make statements like “I enjoy the privilege to get to speak with these MEN,” or to “thankful to be around like-minded MEN” or “to study under great MEN of God such as…” —
There’s this overwhelmingly constant referral to themselves and to their events as “MEN” events. So it’s very clear to me, that that’s part of their appeal!
It’s not that there’s a problem with brothers-in-Christ fellowshipping at all…but why can’t they make fraternities and old boys clubs out of “male-geared” events and conferences on “male-specific” subjects such as “Fatherhood,” and “Marriage from a Husband’s perspective? ”
Yet the “women-geared” conferences are only on such things!
I don’t appreciate that only MEN are considered the torch-bearers and passers of the “general” subjects like theology and the very GOSPEL itself!
And don’t even get me started on the utter lack of attention devoted to celebrating the great WOMEN of church history who did not exactly fit into the established “complementarian” mold…
Great comments Radiance, and welcome to my blog!
Radiance,
I too am amazed that gender specific male conferences are on things that are not male specific like the gospel. To keep women out of these meetings. But the gospel and doctrine does not apply just to men. You were very articulate on your comments, and I thank you for sharing!
The greatest weakness of the CBMW apology demand is that no men were signatories. Perhaps I am prejudging, but I believe on that fact alone, prominent complementarian Evangelical leaders will dismiss the document as a mere “feminist rant.”
Which leads me to my next thought, which is a continuation of my previous post:
The complementarian camp’s idolatry of their Titus 2 interpretation leads to this implied assumption that because women are primarily called to be “keepers at home” they’ll have no other insight to offer the church except “homekeeping” advice - for other women of course.
Okay let’s say for a second then, all women are truly called to be full time “keepers at home” in the way the complementarians understand it.
What about the “keepers at home” who spend hours and hours of their day (at home) reflecting on Scripture, studying theology, reading about current events, and examining the state of the church? Why aren’t these women allowed to have a public voice on these matters? Why can’t a homemaking “wife and mother” be allowed to represent her denomination and the greater church in debate with a prominent atheist in a public forum? Why does there have to be an emergency meeting of the Sanhedrin to discuss whether a such a woman can lecture seminary students about the lives of early female martyrs?
I read a quote the other which said, “Dissatisfaction with the status quo is not a vision.” I believe that rather than attempting to engage in back and forth debate with the staunchest of the patriarchalists, dissatisfied believers must take action:
*If seminaries and theology schools discriminate against women, women must found and start their own.
*If patriarchal churches are on the rise, egalitarian men and women must plant their own, do the most evangelism and reach out to the lost by giving them a new sense of what “church” looks like in practice.
* If women are dissatisfied with their frilly, dumbed-down Bible studies, they must start their own.
* Parents must raise their children to value Biblical equality and warn them of the dangers that befall the church and society whenever equality is not cherished, fought for, and preserved.
All this must be done without the need or expectation of validation or affirmation from the leaders we disagree with–validation, affirmation, agreement, and RESPECT which may never come.
There is so much in this declaration by the Freedom for Christian Women that is so true and right on, I could not help but be moved by it. Though I do agree with Radiance that it would have been good if FCW had gotten other groups, with significant male membership, to join them, confirming this to be, not a “feminist ranting,” but a clear prophetic call to erring Christians to return to a truer and deeper knowledge of the Gospel Faith they profess to affirm and guard. And perhaps such a coming together of like-minded Christians, we can pray for, hope for and encourage?
And when I refer to a prophetic call to confront erring Christians who are blind to their departure from Christ and his Word, calling them back to a truer and deeper knowledge and practice of the Gospel Faith, I have in mind what Timothy Keller wrote in THE REASON FOR GOD regarding Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil rights movement:
David L. Chappell demonstrates that it was not a political but primarily religious and spiritual movment. White Northern liberals who were allies of the African-American civil rights leaders were not proponents of civil disobedience or of a direct attack on segregation. Because of their secular belief in the goodness of human nature, they thought that education and enlightenment would bring inevitable social and racial progress. Chappell argues that black leaders were much more rooted in the Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of the human heart and in the denunciation of injustice that they read in the Hebrew prophets. Chappell also shows how it was the vibrant faith of rank-and-file African-Americans that empowered them to insist on justice despite violent opposition to their demands. Thus Chappell says there is no way to understand what happened until you see the Civil Rghts movement as a religious revival. When Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted racism in the white church in the South, he did not call on Southern churches to become more secular. Read his sermons and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and see how he argued. He invoked God’s moral law and Scripture. He called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible teaches. He did not say, “Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.” If truth is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the South to give up their power. Rather, Dr. King invoked the Prophet Amos, who said, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). The greatest champion of justice in our era knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity (pp.64-65).
In our struggle to win our erring brothers and sisters back to what the New Testament really teaches about the true unity and equality of men and women in Christ; of our mutual support and partnership in Christian ministry, based on the gifting and calling of the Spirit; of our having equal Kingdom privileges and responsibilities to rule and reign with Christ because we are all citizens of heaven and God’s royal heirs, as Paul teaches in Galatians, Romans and Ephesians; we must do so in the power Spirit, using rigorous, tough-minded argumentation that exposes the false and shallow foundation on which their view rests, while at the same time showing them love and compassion and expressing a true desire for reconciliation. And here again, Dr. King and his followers give us a Biblical model to follow.
I believe the same thing. But I also believe that the document will have served it’s purpose in the end.
Radiance,
Unfortunately I think that is how CBMW will see the demand for an apology. Why do they even need to consider answering when there is no one “worthy” who is on their level who needs an answer. I suspect that they see women wanting the wrong interpretation corrected for the health of the body of Christ as mere pests biting at their ankles.
What do you think would happen if a godly group of men created a document to complement the women’s demand for apology letter? That would certainly get more attention and maybe even make the annoying little pests have an appear of a much taller opponent.
Radiance,
You quoted:
I agree with this advice to move ahead. We need to grow where we are planted and unfortunately we cannot always expect our brothers in Christ to open any spiritual doors for us. That is their responsibility. If they fail, that doesn’t mean that we are meant to fall behind too. Our Master is Christ and we obey Him foremost and His marching orders have already been given to us.
Frank,
You also have excellent comments!