Disappointment with CBMW

I am a regular reader of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website and I am becoming increasingly unhappy with some of the terminology used. This is partly because what I have seen written by some of their contributors differs widely from where I see myself on the scale.

The sermon at our church this week was more a practical discussion rather than a massive theological defence of our position. This is a subject to be engaged with, not retreated against.

This article doesn't stack up for me, unless the only people to ever preach in any Church are elders of that Church or appointed elders of other Churches. Does that rule out any preacher ever who is currently not an active elder in a local church?

"And second, whether one believes that women should exert elder authority in the local church by preaching a sermon is ultimately a much larger question than merely that of church order"

I just don't see "preaching a sermon" in that light. Laurence Singlehurst came and served our Church faithfully by preaching to us a couple of weeks ago. He is not, to my knowledge an elder of his local church. He came to serve the vision of our church as laid down by the elders of this Church who have responsibility before God to shepherd the people here. He did not usurp our authority by preaching here, as he was fully qualified to teach on the subject and yet willingly submitted to the brief we gave him in order to serve our vision.

He did not preach as an elder, he preached as a servant to God's word and our church vision laid down by our eldership. Did we falsely allow him to exert elder authority by letting him speak?

And then when we define elder, how far do we restrict what we mean by it in all the different forms of church government? If we have a fairly clear definition of elder which includes a gender distinction (which we do), then should we invite a fellow church leader who does not hold the same definition of elder? Someone who does not work clearly in a team, for example? Is that ok as long as they are a bloke? That would also compromise what we meant by "elder".

Some of the tone of the CBMW website is unsettling. Looking at the CBMW vision they state it "Serves as the evangelical voice for the biblical view of gender to the Christian community and the world" which is not true. Exchange the word "biblical" for "complimentarian" and remove the word evangelical (for evangelicals inhabit both sides of the discussion) and they are correct.

Mary Kassian states on a front page quote "Feminism and christianity are like thick oil and water: their very natures dictate that they cannot be mixed". This is a ludicrous generalisation.

Firstly - what do you mean by feminism? Radical feminism? Feminist scholarship? Liberal feminism? Evangelical feminism?

Secondly, feminism has brought massive social benefits to women such as better pay and flexible working hours, maternity rights etc. At the same time it brings certain challenges that the Church must respond to according to scripture, but no more than the subjugation of women in previous generations and even now brought challenges which needed to be responded to. In fact had the Church responded to scripture sooner in defence of women there would have been no need for the feminist movement, in many ways. It all depends on how you understand or define feminism.

"Perhaps more than ever before, it is clear that this debate is unfolding as a contention about the authority of scripture itself." is a difficult statement to read. I appreciate greatly the work of Grudem, Piper et al and find is sad that CBMW is drawing a line where it is. It excludes any that uphold male headship but define it more softly, and uphold male eldership but define church preaching differently, and it appears to label anything not four square in its position "egalitarian" and then imply that egalitarianism is the product of feminism, and feminism and christianity should not be mixed.

That is a massive wedge to drive between two churches who believe in male headship but define it slightly differently.

NB: I have amended the name having had my mistake pointed out!

What is biblical headship?

This is an interesting question posed on a few forums I read regarding headship in marriage.

Here are six pointers for blokes:

1. Be selfless and always loving to her: Eph 5:25
2. Love her as you love yourself: Eph 5:33
3. Do not be harsh to her: Col 3:19
4. Be considerate, treat her with respect : 1 Pe 3:7
5. Grant her honour as she is a fellow heir: 1 Pe 3:7
6. Know you will be judged by God for what you do: Col 3:25

That is not a comprehensive list of roles, but rather gives us a flavour of what husbands are to aim for as part of the outworking of their headship. If we are not hitting these targets, then whatever we are doing is not headship in a biblical sense.

I think sometimes the headship discussion becomes all a bit too technical and hierarchical and talks about the actions of the man without due regard to the benefit for the woman. Would your wife volunteer 1-5 as being true for you?

If we look at the example of Jesus, he is inclusive to women beyond what his culture was comfortable with. On top of that Jesus cooked: John 21:9-12 and did "menial" tasks: John 13:3-5 normally reserved for servants.

So does headship mean we always get to decide everything? Well God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah Gen 21:9-12 when Sarah was closer to God's heart than Abraham was, even when Sarah had already called Abraham "Lord" (1 Peter 3:5-6).

Who else gets to be called Lord? Well - Jesus for starters. Did Jesus rule with an iron fist or was he worth following (or even submitting to) because of his intense humility, compassion and godliness? Because of his selfless love that cost him everything?

Maybe humble, compassionate and godly men are the answer, as they are worth "following".

Jesus was not some big softie though - he challenged hypocrisy, he hated sin, he lashed out at mammon, he was jealous for His Father's house, but he was also the fullness of God, gracious, compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.

I don't see headship as something we "are" by rights, by some rudimentary biological difference, but rather a responsibility and calling we can choose to live in the fullness of, by the grace of God.

The flip side is that it is also something we can fail in, horribly, as Adam did. It is a duty we can only uphold on our knees before God, without a hint of pride or self seeking.

2 years...

It seems odd that all the harsh criticisms of people who err on the side of male headship when discussing gender roles I read often involve a portrayal of nasty power hungry chauvinists keeping overpowered and undervalued women in some sort of religious and emotional slavery.

Yesterday marked Esther's 24th Birthday and our 2 year wedding anniversary.

So having done a bit of research and a bit of saving off we went to Saracen's in Hadnall followed by a lovely stay at the Albrighton Hall Hotel.

What struck me was just how happy my wife was.

I find it difficult to reconcile the growing trend to harshly criticise the complimentarian position with my own experience. I don't see it as a massive issue and wonder why newfrontiers gets bashed on that issue alone?

It seems to me that we live in a world where there is still such a clear and unmitigated subversion and abuse of womanhood and women within society. From average salaries through to pornography through to absent fathers - it is there for all to see.

How can it help any woman to give up on a form of masculinity that demands being willing to lay down everything for the sake of the woman? Surely they are the net beneficiaries from a masculinity that deems its very role, its very nature to be the loving and honouring of the woman and providing an environment for her security, protection, betterment and fulfillment?

If headship is a God given service responsibility then why should it lead to any inequality? Do we assume governance involves power or service? If biblical authority is a voluntary decision for both parties, based in relationship with each other and God, and on trust, looking to scripture, looking for godliness and demanding a selfless desire for service from those holding it then what is to fear for anyone other than being selflessly served?

Oh well, enough of such matters, I think I will just continue to do everything I can to love my wife.