Warning: include_once(/home/ccshell/shawnaatteberry.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/ccshell/shawnaatteberry.com/wp-settings.php on line 278

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/home/ccshell/shawnaatteberry.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/local/php5/lib/pear') in /home/ccshell/shawnaatteberry.com/wp-settings.php on line 278
Freedom for Christian Woman Coalition Demands an Apology – Shawna R. B. Atteberry
Jul 252010
 

Suzanne McCarthy at Suzanne’s Bookshelf has posted a letter from The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition demanding an apology from the CBMW for their dangerous and non-biblical views of men, women, and the supposed roles of each in life. She has asked that we link to the letter, and I am more than happy to do so.

July 24, 2010

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical 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

The 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.

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. 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;

6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;

7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are not accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;

8. 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;

9. 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;

10. 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:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. 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;

6. 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;

7. 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;

8. 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;

9. 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;

10. 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;

11. 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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Did you know there are only eight verses in the Bible that discourage women from speaking and holding leadership positions in the church? Did you know there are thousands of verses in the Bible that tell the stories of women who were leaders in their homes, towns, and religious circles? Meet the women in the Bible who were religious & civic leaders, business women, & women who challenged both Jesus and Moses in What You Didn’t Learn in Sunday School. What else didn’t you learn in Sunday School? Find out when you buy What You Didn’t Learn in Sunday School: Women Who Didn’t Shut Up & Sit Down from Wipf and Stock Publishers or Amazon.com today.

Related Articles

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

 Posted by at 4:53 pm

  10 Responses to “Freedom for Christian Woman Coalition Demands an Apology”

  1. I am so glad to see that you’re doing something about this. The most common excuse that abusive men use to control their wives, girlfriends and/or daughters is the Bible. Please continue this mission. You’ll be saving and changing lives.
    Thank you for stopping by and for the encouraging words. It’s appreciated. God bless you.

  2. By far the most thought provoking, intriguing blog I’ve come across during this challenge. I am spinning right now from a migraine, so I am going to come back later tonight for a good sit-down read of your site. In the meantime, high-fives all around. Incredibly interesting area to explore and challenge. And yes, I, too have been feeling a little, er, out of place? The feeling of relief is mutual. I’ve been jonesin’ for some brain stimulation.

    Your fellow feminista,

    Lojo.

  3. I haven’t read the Danvers Statement, but now I’m certainly intrigued. Take care.

  4. Hey Lojo, I hope you’re feeling better. I have migraines too, so I understand. Come explore when you feel better.

    Thank you for stopping by Helen. And don’t worry if you can’t finish reading The Danvers Statement. I couldn’t. Way too much neanderthal stomach turning crap there.

  5. Hello everyone,

    I am Cindy Kunsman, one of the speakers at Saturday’s convention. Thank you for making mention of the Demand for an Apology Letter on your blog.

    Shirley Taylor who wrote the Demand Letter has also written her interpretation of what the Danvers Statement REALLY says, and I posted it on my blog this week in two posts. http://www.UnderMuchGrace.com.

    It makes it a bit easier to get through when you can read her plain and well understood description of the meanings that the statement does not come right out to state directly. That is, I believe, part of why it has been accepted. It is disingenuous. I had to read for three years before I really understood that I only identified only with the veneer of the term “complementarian” and that I essentially reject the rest of their doctrine. So reading the Danvers Statement only gives you a small bit of information regarding the belief system itself as a whole.

    Thank you again.
    Cindy

  6. I feel like I’ve missed out on a ton of history here. Its the first of heard of Danvers and read it, and it doesn’t seem that offensive. What am I missing?

    • My big problem with the Danvers Statement is that I don’t believe male headship or the male as the Godde-ordained spiritual leader of the family is biblical (some fundamental branches to to far as to say the husband is the priest of him home; so much for the priesthood of all believers). My problem (and what makes me extremely angry) is that they don’t admit that there is another way to translate 1 Corinthians 11:2 without using “head.” The Greek word literally means “source” as in “headwaters.” So the verse can be translated: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the source of every man, and the husband is the source of his wife, and God is the source of Christ.” It doesn’t have to be interpreted patriarchially. They also do the same thing with 1 Timothy 2:12: “I permit no woman* to teach or to have authority over a man.” The word used for authority in this verse is not the word Paul typically uses for those in authority in the church. Authentein is used only here in the New Testament, and there are only 3 or 4 references to it in secular Greek documents of the time. In secular Greek it always means an abuse of power, coercion, or using power to abuse others. It is not Christlike authority. But they won’t admit that and keep making this verse, along with 1 Corinthians 11, to keep women as second-class citizens in evangelical and fundamental churches in the States. Because of The Danvers Statement pastors tell women who are abused that they need to submit more to their husbands and trust their husbands because they are “the head of the household.” It’s led to all sorts of abuse of power in conservative churches in the States. This is probably more of thing here. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal outside the USA. I get mad because they twist the Scripture to say what they want it to say and then make their interpretation the “Infallible Word of God” and anyone who argues with them is deemed as a heretic. OK enough ranting. If you want a less emotional response, ask Matt. In fact, Matt if you read this, I’d love to know your views, as a feminist man, on The Danvers Statement.

      • I would agree that women need not ever stay in a dangerous situation. Women need to not be abused by anyone. But, I have never in all my years heard preached from a pulpit,(and I have heard a lot of preaching) that a woman is a second class citizen. If you go to Genesis, why was woman created? To be a companion suitable for man, to be his helpmeet.

        • I’m glad you’ve been in churches that haven’t preached that. Unfortunately I have, along with several of my friends. We grew up hearing we were second-class citizens. I’m glad to hear there are people who have never heard that from a pulpit. It gives me hope.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

CommentLuv badge