I’m sure that CBMW has much good information to share and is represented by fine brothers and sisters in the Lord.

My basic objection to the position that CBMW takes can be summarized from this paragraph on their “About us” page;

In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism they articulated what is now known as the complementarian position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.

1. Their Complementarian position is a polar reaction to what they label as “feminist egalitarianism”. From my studied experience the Complementarian perspective is just as flawed as the “feminist egalitarianism” position. When Christians adopt an “-ism” or an “-arian” as a positional stance we usually over-run or fall short of the message of Jesus Christ and the examples He’s shown us in and the revelation of scripture. Egalitarianism and Complementarianism both represent flawed, partial understandings and expressions of the Life that we now should/could be living in Christ. To supply examples of my assertions would require a moderate length book. In lieu of a book I’ll copy/paste these statements from individuals of both positions;

Instead of focusing on what the Bible says about the relationship between men and women, complementarians too often give the impression that they care only about the place of women. This one-sided perspective is unhealthy and ultimately unbiblical. When God created humankind in his image, he created them to be male and female (Gen. 1:27). It is often said that men and women bear the image of God equally. But it might be more accurate to say that men and women bear God’s image together. Men and women collectively reflect the divine image; one without the other is incomplete. In addition, the Book of Genesis affirms men and women’s joint mandate to exercise dominion over creation. Men and women share this responsibility; neither can fulfill God’s mandate alone.

(That from a complementarian…http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/28.40.html)

I am a proponent of women in ministry leadership. In agreement with egalitarians, I believe that God calls both men and women to serve as pastors, preachers, and leaders of the full congregation. I also believe that Christ, not the husband, should be the leader of every marriage, since Jesus Christ alone is Lord and Savior. At the same time, I believe that many egalitarians have tended to appeal more to political liberal thought than to the Scriptures. In so doing, they’ve employed the language of rights in a way that is Kantian, not Christian. In Kantian ethics, everyone is bound by a sense of duty. It’s Kantian, for example, to say that it’s your duty not to drink and drive. This aspect of Kantian ethics overlaps with Christian ethics. However, Kantian ethics differs by extending the ideal of duty to mean that when you fail to perform your duty, you violate my right. Kantian logic says that because it is your duty not to drink and drive, I have the right to drive on a road without drunk drivers. According to Jesus, a Christian ethic says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:38). A Christian ethic ends at the point of duty; it does not convert others’ duties into personal rights. As a Christian I can say that God commands others to love me, but I cannot say that I have the right to be loved. I don’t.

(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/28.41.html
(Both of the above articles are very good. Recommended reading.)

2. I don’t find in the New Testament a statement or command that men are to “lead” and women are to be the “followers”. I do find that Paul tells women to “submit yourself” to the husband, and, husbands to “love your wives as Christ loves the church”. At the same time all Believers are to “submit one to the other”. A complex theology has been read into the admonition to “submit”—and that eisogesis has promulgated a perspective about male/female relationships which resulted from the Fall and do not reflect the type of relationships we should now live as Believers in Christ and the power of His resurrection life. Too often a sub-Christian perspective is lived out as “Biblical”. The great majority of the “evidence” for the complementarian perspective is derived from the Old Testament. In addition, a misunderstanding of “headship”, as expressed in I Cor. 11 for example, drives a perspective which focuses on “authority” and hierarchy in the Godhead instead of understanding the use of “head” as source or origin (Col. 2:19 for example). In the NT, “head” is never used to mean “authority over” as is the common meaning infused into the NT text by our English usage of the word.

3. ” In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” My response is—To say that “women share equally in the blessings of salvation” yet women do not share just as equally in other areas of the life of Faith is to actually say that women are really NOT equal sharers in the blessings of salvation but actually second class citizens of the Kingdom.

So, these are a few of my observations on the subject and why I have some objection to the basic stance of CBMW. Perhaps I’m wrong and misguided. Be that as it may, I have spent the majority of my 53+ years within a tradition which taught much the same as CBMW and in the not too distant past realized that much of the evidence for said position was more a reflection of cultural perspective than a Jesus perspective. And the same can be said for a radical, fundamental Egalitarian perspective.

I hope that in this somewhat lengthy response I haven’t used up too much of your storage space ;o)

Tom

What do you have against the CBMW?

While we’re at it, I have strong objections to some of the stances taken by The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood… ;o)

Tom