When I wrote to you last time about an article CBMW put up regarding ‘Headship is Heaven’? People from all over the internet were talking about how the article went offline after some serious criticism of the opinion given in the article itself. It wasn’t so much that the website no longer showed the article, but the substance within the article that was seriously troubling.
Since that time Associate Baptist Press took up the story, and went into more details about the troubling nature of the content of the article. The fact that the article was taken down? It was more of a side note, as you can read for yourself in:
Owen Strachan, executive director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) responded finally to the uproar over the article. Unfortunately, he didn’t address the concerns about the article itself. Instead, he complained that it was website glitch, and mentioned a ‘standing tendency on the part of a small group of anti-CBMW folks to misconstrue our motives’
Below are the bullet points he felt were ‘misinterpreted’
1st paragraph: “…article posted online recently…” (His point was the article is rather old, and was reprinted)
2nd Paragraph: “A 7,000-word article… apparently was taken down” (website glitch)
5th to last paragraph: “the group’s executive director said in a blog post…” (He was saying that week’s article had nothing to do with the website glitch, and yet that wasn’t the context of what Bob Allen said either.)
3rd to last paragraph: “Denny Burk, associate professor of biblical studies and ethics at Boyce College, is the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood editor.” (His point was Denny Burk wasn’t even there at the time the article was written. Bob Allen never said he was, and again took what was said out of context.)
So for whatever reason he deflected the controversy over to something that really had nothing to do with it. The Bob Allen of the Associate Baptist Press wrote a follow up article, Director of gender-roles council denies scrubbing article.
Shortly there after the article in question was back online, but concerns about the article itself? Still go unanswered.