I mean you do see this in politics, but this type of things shouldn't be done within the fellowship.
I want to show a classic example of a rebuke over opinions, but they never address the points. Today I will be using two newspaper stories.
I wrote about the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition a few weeks back, and mentioned a letter they had written to CBMW about their stand on biblical roles.
One of the topics brought up in a convention in Florida this year as CBMW's Danvers Statement. They had deep concerns over this Danvers statement, and also the effect it could have on both men and women.
The Women's Coalition decided it was time for a harder stand this time, and wrote their concerns in hopes that they would be addressed - unlike so many others that had gone before them. To this day they have been ignored just as others have been in the past. I predicted that happening, because it seems to be a pattern for them.
Shirley Taylor of bWe Baptist Women for equality was one of the authors of the demand for the apology, and she also followed up with an article written in the Baptist Standard, along with other newspapers.
When a theology is so bad, something must be done. A group of women took a bold step this summer and demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood for a subversive teaching of the Scriptures.
Texas Baptist Forum The council came into being with the express purpose of suppressing women and elevating men. That is arrogance, and they should bow before God and confess their sin.
From birth, boys are told they are to be the leaders over women. It begins in the churches and finds favor in the homes, and the result is these boys grow up with an inflated belief in themselves and their ability to speak for God.
We can find no words Jesus spoke that would give men authority over women or a man authority over his wife. We find redemptive power in the blood of Christ to both men and women equally. We don’t want to control anybody. Why should anyone be in control of us?
The council claims the redeemed husband has leadership over his wife, but when a boy is taught from birth he is superior to all females, his mother included, you cannot suddenly tell him he is to exercise this power only after he is redeemed. From his point of view, he was redeemed the moment he came out of the womb.
Will you speak up for women?
The concerns she speaks of have been brought up, and then dismissed shortly after wards to many times. Their teachings claim they mean one thing, and tell you that your worth is another. Talk about confusing!
The long and short of it is if you don't esteem and respect your leader within the home (man), then you (woman) are creating an atmosphere of gender confusion. If you are not being the proper man (leadership) in the home then you follow the 'feminized' church movement. Its shamed based teaching.
A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THIS
|I thought it was funny!|
It reminds me of the type of teasing that certain boys took while on the playground as children. "YOU throw like a GIRL!" type of thing. They take this hurtful circumstance from childhood, and place NICE adjectives in its place hoping you will start to tow the line as they see it. Its awful how they use this sensitive soft spot they knew would push buttons, and PUSH it!
What they don't seem to wish to admit is some get defensive, and are out to prove them wrong. I think we all know this doesn't include EVERYONE, as they seem to train people to react. I mean ever heard, "My husband/wife aren't like that!" You hear this when you are trying to make a point, and its a nice diversion tactic so they don't have to admit the point.
They speak a ton about 'submission', and yet the definition they use is substituted for subjection. They clarify by stating you don't understand the concept of 'complementary roles'. They changed Genesis around to read, 'Women will attempt to rule over' when the text clearly reads 'and he will rule over you'. You can't grasp the concept because your a feminist.
To me I see fear tactics in their teachings as well. I spoke about one story last time. Are we inclined to think the worse? From where I stood a women on an airplane made a comment out of frustration in life, and the author took it as she doesn't cherish her children - as with most of the culture - they way they should. Sometime back I wrote about another article where the author made comments due to his mother working, and how she wasn't able to do 'normal mother things'. He said, "so my brother and I would go grocery shopping, cook, prepare our breakfasts, and eat school lunches." He also used shamed based language about how women need to make sure they are buying their organic food out of the proper motive. lol Hinted how the TV dinners help the feminist get out of her responsibility for caring properly for her family.
GET IN THE BOX!
Lets look at a response in newspaper to Shirley Taylor's short piece you read above.
Speaking up for God
In her rebuke of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood (Aug. 16), Shirley Taylor rightly points out the obvious—men are pigs. She woefully omits the reality—women are too.
Experience should confirm what Scripture declares: The human heart is “desperately sick, deceitful above all else,” whether it’s wrapped in the stride of a man or the touch of a woman, the ebony of a Kenyan or the ivory of a Scot, the jingle of the rich or the groan of the poor. All wallow gleefully in the hog-slop of sin until the Savior washes them clean.
On the wickedness of both men and women, Taylor and I agree. When it comes to her assessment of the council, she flirts dangerously with libel. “The council came into being with the express purpose of suppressing women and elevating men,” she states. That’s a pretty stout accusation.
Her charge runs directly counter to the council’s stated vision—“proclaiming God’s glorious design for men and women.” I would not begrudge anyone who would want to argue those words spin cleverly from the world of marketing and politics, but I would simply point out the council has consistently affirmed a tenable biblical position “that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.”
Taylor wonders who will speak up for women. I’m thankful the council speaks up for God. Does not the Potter have a right over the clay?
First Diversion: Lets look at this gentleman's first diversion tactic in his very first paragraph. Was the article about 'men are pigs'? No. She was speaking about the teachings of leadership and submission. Elevating men and subjection of women. How its not true to scripture, and can have harmful effects on the families.
Second CONFUSING diversion: On the wickedness of both men and women, Taylor and I agree...
(I thought she said ALL MEN ARE PIGS...and he had correct that statement by saying BOTH are???)
Third Diversion: Using the flowering adjectives they have trained their followers to parrot:
- proclaiming God’s glorious design for men and women.
- That men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function.
With the fear mongering they do towards feminism, and how they place thoughts in men's minds about how if they don't do things in such a way they are effeminate?
Its very arrogant to think the council speaks for God. When people try to speak up about bottlenecks within the teachings, and they are ignored completely? God listens when will the CBMW? I guess they are to busy being the potter, and molding their followers.
FINAL DIVERSION: Did you notice he never addressed the true concerns of the coalition or her letter?
Divert! Divert! DIVERT!! Lets not address ANYTHING, and maybe no one will notice!
Hint! HINT! They do notice! I'm not the only ONE!
Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it: