CBMW web site: ‘Government has been instituted since the Fall, whereas manhood and womanhood, marriage and family, and the fellowship of all true believers are part of the design of creation.’

If manhood and womanhood was instituted before government was instituted because male and female are a “part of the design of the original creation”, then wouldn’t government have to be subject to the “rules” of manhood and womanhood since creation order came before government? How does a secondary institution circumvent creation? And lastly how come the discussion of “manhood and womanhood” overlooks the fact that in the original creation God created the male and female and gave them the exact same rulership over creation?

This documents the inconsistency of CBMW.

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, an organization that believes the bible forbids women from voting, has taken CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) to task saying that Dr. Gushee is right in his USA Today challenge that people like CBMW have experienced an historic change in their theological position. He writes:

Dr. Gushee’s point was essentially this: Christians must formally acknowledge that a historic change has occurred in their theological commitments and policy objectives, or reasonable observers must conclude that that their position lacks intellectual integrity.

While I do not agree with Doug Phillips at all regarding his very legalistic interpretation of women’s “roles”, he is right in pointing out that if one interprets the distinctions between male and female as rooted in the creation order itself, then it is inconsistent to not apply that principle to all three realms – marriage (home), church and society – instead of just in marriage and the church. If we are going to remove the realm of society and civil government, then we need to rethink our interpretation of Paul.

CBMW states that they are being consistent and that:

God’s design for male headship in the home and the church does not require the exclusion of women from leadership in public life, where spiritual headship is not involved. Such extrapolation carries the biblical teaching about the role of women beyond the Bible’s own application.

The apparent inconsistency according to CBMW only comes when one overlooks the priority of the church:

Complementarians only seem to be inconsistent if one overlooks the priority of the church and misses the distinction between the church and and civil government. This confusion is resolved when one understands that complementarians simultaneously hold a high view of Scripture, a high view of women, and a high view of the church.

I think it is time that we test CBMW’s claim to consistency and see what they have taught in the past regarding the role of men and women in Society.

In 1987 CBMW formed as a concerned group of individuals and in that year they created the Danver’s Statement which is a list of CBMW’s core beliefs.

Point 1 under Rationale, CBMW lists a concern:

The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

Note that the concern is not just about the home and the church but about “our culture”. Did CBMW believe in 1987 that the difference between masculinity and femininity would necessitate different roles in society? Their Danver Statement affirmations make it clear that they believe the “created order” that was ordained by God and it goes past an application to Christians because it is to be found within every human heart:

Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

We find in CBMW’s 1991 book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that there is a “breaking point” of femininity that makes some “roles” for women inappropriate, unproductive and unhealthy:

One or more of these roles might stretch appropriate expression of femininity beyond the breaking point. (pg 50 RBMW)

But as I said earlier, there are roles that strain the personhood of man and woman too far to be appropriate, productive and healthy for the overall structure of home and society. Some roles would involve kinds of leadership and expectations of authority and forms of strength as to make it unfitting for a woman to fill the role. (pg 51 RBMW)

Notice that in 1991 it was not just the home and the church, but there were limitations on women also in society. These limitations revolved around authority and leadership. What is the principle that CBMW claimed would controvert God’s created order?

To the degree that a woman’s influence over man is personal and directive it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.

A woman may design the traffic pattern of a city’s streets and thus exert a kind of influence over all male drivers. But this influence will be non-personal and therefore not necessarily an offense against God’s order. (pg 51 RBMW)

An offense against God’s order (and presumably an offense against God himself) would be if a woman exerts directive influence.

All acts of influence lie on the continuum between personal and non-personal. The closer they get to the personal side, the more inappropriate it becomes for women to exert directive influence. … It would be hard to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant over men without violating their sense of masculinity and her sense of femininity. (pg 51 RBMW highlighted text is my emphasis.)

It is clear from CBMW’s book that women are to carry forward a subordinate role to men even in society as a whole. In fact according to them, men will not flourish under the leadership of a female superior.

The God-given sense of responsibility for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior. (pg 52 RBMW)

Let me ask, would being a VP of a country put a woman into the position of giving personal, directive leadership over men? The answer is a resounding yes! What has changed in CBMW’s mindset?

In 1991 CBMW allowed women to lead in society as long as a woman gave signals to the men that she endorses his mature manhood and she does not exert directive influence.

There are ways for a woman to interact with a male subordinate that signal to him and others her endorsement of his mature manhood in relationship to her as a woman….Her demeanor – the tone and style and disposition and discourse of her ranking position – can signal clearly her affirmation of the unique role that men should play in relationship to women owing to their sense of responsibility to protect and lead. (pg 50 RBMW)

Even back in 1991 CBMW realized that this appeared to be a contradiction.

It is obvious that we are on the brink of contradiction – suggesting that a woman may hold the position of leadership and fulfill it in a way that signals to men her endorsement of their sense of responsibility to lead. But the complexities of life requires of us this risk. (page 50 RBMW)

But now in 2008, it is okay for a woman to exercise directive influence and leadership in society as long as it is not in the home and not in the church. Praise God that CBMW has come a long way. But they should be honest about the change in their view. They have not been consistent as they have claimed:

Complementarians hold a consistent view of the role of women in the church, home, and political office by keeping in mind the priority of the church with respect to civil governments.

It is not a consistent view if one claims that God created a difference in the roles that men and women are to have because of creation. The change from things “unfitting” for women back in 1991 according to CBMW are now no problem as “fitting” in 2008. Is it a “timeless” command that a woman cannot have directive authority over a man in society and in civil government? In 2008 the answer must now be shown to be “No”. I applaud CBMW for seeing that this issue is not a “timeless” law of God. Their move towards allowing women like Sarah Palin to be nominated as Vice-President, shows that they have thought through the contradictions of their former position and have moved towards a more biblical approach. There is more work to be done but their words below show a good start:

Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.

This is amazing really since the traditional view held that women were inferior to men. What happened to real traditionalists? Today’s compism is truley NOT traditional, hence it’s called ‘complemetarian’ (with hierarchy) verses patriarchy anyway. Even I am a complementarian (without hierarchy).

Therefore, when Paul says a woman should not coerce a man, he really means that a woman cannot be a church leader, because men are to coerce people as leaders, that is what a leader does, as Christ coerces us. Is this what you are saying?

Be honest. What do you think this means?

Didn’t say there was. I said analogous.

Have a superb day!

Re: the boatman’s transaction, would you say that because a plaintiff and a defendant bear animosity towards one another, a judge’s ruling is negative

There is no judge in this transaction. One private individual MADE another private individual do something. The interaction is considered hostile. Grudem appears to agree with this.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the law, or jurisdiction or leadership, or any kind of authority. It is about force.

The notion that authenteo was in any way related to authority first appeared in Erasmus Latin translation of the NT. Even then he said “autoritatem usurpare.”

You agree then on other points that Luther did not understand that male headship existed in creation but came with the fall. I wonder how Luther would fare today. The gender imparity in the creation order was not traditional theology.

How can you say that women were created for subordination and the fall makes them resist it, when the Bible that all the early church fathers and reformers had clearly said that women were made subject to their husbands in the fall.

Yes, I will repeat it ad nasusema. Complementarians are out of step with tradition in their interpretation. The common denominator is the subordination of women. If one way to subordinate women falls into disrepute, then find another one.

Otherwise, why wouldn’t these authors openly admit that the evidence on authenteo is not what it was in Baldwin’s first study.

Re: the boatman’s transaction, would you say that because a plaintiff and a defendant bear animosity towards one another, a judge’s ruling is negative (that sounds analogous to what the boatman’s transaction situation is)? If I understand, this is about paying the wages, not forcing someone to pay without cause (despotically). But that is a path we’ve been down, I believe.

I would say that the theology you mention is not “odd”. It’s something that has been out there. I think part of the difference in our contemporaries now is that peering into the why (as Luther did, saying ‘twas b/c women were inferior), the complementarian view more accurately shows a true complement than an inferiority (as many previous have tried to demonstrate). And order does not equal inferiority (or despotic subjection), or else the animals would also be placed along side man in an unfallen world (so it would seem). Again, though, I think that is also something that has been discussed ad nauseam here.

Basically BGU 1208 is the only occurrence of authenteo that everyone accepts as evidence. This is a letter from a landowner to his brother about how he got someone who sold sheep/cattle to him to pay the ferryman to bring the cattle across the river. Authenteo appears to mean “I made him do it” as in compel of force.

Authenteo does not appear to have anything to do with actual authority in this letter, but rather force.

My sense is that Kostenberger and Wallace argue that the evidence is too slim to be relevant and therefore, from context, we can read any meaning we want into the text that APPEARS to make sense. They further argue that didasko always has a positive meaning in the pastoral epistles and must be positive. Teerefore, authenteo must have a positive meaning in 1 Timothy as well. However, didasko does not always have a positive meaning, see Titus 1:11.

The problem is that none of these men argue their case from the evidence, as it exists. None of them deal with the facts.

“Have authority” was first used for authenteo in Tyndale’s Bible. In the Latin Vulgate authenteo was translated as dominari which was used elsewhere in the scriptures as something that a people ought not to do. For example, dominari is the Latin found in Gen. 3:16. Eve will be “dominari” by her husband. Not a good thing. Chrysostom said that a husband must never authenteo a wife. Not a good thing.

Egalitarians have very good reason for being skeptical about complementarian theology.

Here is another odd example of theology found on the CBMW site.

Compelemeentarians cannot argue that their translations or interpretations have much to do with classic theology. The fact is that the ancients subordinated women for their own reasons, and complementarians subordinate women for a whole new set of reasons. Since the old reasons, the inferior mental capacity of women, is now our of vogue.

Authenteo means authority in spite of the fact that BGU 1208 demonstrates it is power used in a hostile situation. (Grudem)

Authenteo means authority since we don’t have enough lexical evidence to say what it means so we can deduce what it means from didasko, and didasko is always positive [not]. (Kostenberger)’

This is a joke, right? I just didn’t get it, as usual…