Friday, December 25, 2009

A CBMW-Correct Christmas Account

The Bible account of the birth of Jesus must be all wrong. According to Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, CBMW, God would never talk to a woman, like He did to Mary. He would have said something as important as that to Joseph. Since they were already espoused, Joseph would have been Mary’s head, and therefore would have authority over her. She would have had no right to agree to carry the Christ Child on her own. Joseph would have had to give her permission, or God would have asked Joseph to do it, since God never asks women to do service of significance. Therefore, Luke 1:26-38 needs to be rewritten in order to line up with the biblical principles expressed in CBMW’s teachings.

Cheryl Schatz discusses the teachings of CBMW in her blog post “Equal in Value and Worth = in Whose Eyes?”
In this understanding of “equality”, God is restricted in the work that He can do through women. His Holy Spirit cannot operate through women in the same way that He operates through men. He cannot gift women equally nor can He give an understanding of God’s Word to a woman without going through a man first. In the complementarian understanding, God has great limitations on what He can and cannot do through women.
According to CBMW and their complementarian teaching, the angel Gabriel would have had to go to Joseph, not Mary. The entire biblical account should be suspect, because God simply would not speak to or work through a woman. Instead, Luke 1:26-38 should read:
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a man espoused to a virgin, whose name was Mary, of the house of David; and the man’s name was Joseph. 28 And the angel came in unto him and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among men. 29 And when he saw him, he was troubled at his saying, and cast in his mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto him, Fear not, Joseph: for thou hast found favor with God. 31 And behold, thy espoused wife, Mary, shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Joseph unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing Mary knoweth not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto him, The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow her: Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, her cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Joseph said, Behold the servant and handmaid of the Lord; be it unto her according to thy word. And the angel departed from him.
Or the passage should read:
30 And the angel said unto him, Fear not, Joseph, for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Joseph unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I am a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto him, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, Elizabeth, the cousin of thy espoused wife, Mary, hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Joseph said, Behold the servant of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from him.
Indeed, there is a major discrepancy between CBMW’s statement and the Bible. Anytime there is such a discrepancy, the CBMW is correct and the Bible must be wrong. Perhaps Luke got confused or the translators got the facts twisted.

We don’t need the atheists, humanists, or liberals to misrepresent the Bible. Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are doing a super job of it themselves.

Merry Christmas everybody! God brought us His Son, through a woman. And when Jesus rose from the dead, He first appeared to a woman.


Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Husband Authority Doctrine of CBMW Supersedes Salvation

When pastors, churches, and organizations like CBMW elevate their doctrine of husband authority to the extent that wives are given no recourse when their husbands sin against them and their children, when husbands are not held accountable for verbal, emotional, spiritual, and power attacks against their wives, when wives are blamed for the sin of their husbands, it is clear the doctrine of husband authority has surpassed and become a priority above the doctrine of salvation.

When husbands obey only one verse in the entire book of Ephesians, and demand that their wives focus on obeying two verses in Ephesians, the husband authority doctrine has clearly reached the level of heresy. Husbands and pastors who insist on this heresy have become idolaters, who covet power and authority that belongs to God alone.

This is rebellion against God.

The command to husbands is to love their wives self-sacrificially, as Christ gave up himself for the church. Romans 12:1 calls it “a living sacrifice.” “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

Instead of sacrificing for their wives, the husbands rule over their wives and demand that the wives do the sacrificing. Instead of bearing the fruit of the Spirit, the husbands bear the fruit of darkness.

The fruit of abusive husbands is anger, wrath, clamour, covetousness, idolatry, bitterness, malice, railing, swift to shed blood, violence, easily provoked, unkindness, unloving, self-centeredness, puffed up, impatience, evil speaking, unforgiveness, hatred, lust, rebelling against God, respecter of male persons, despisers of women, oppressive, vile, blasphemous, lover of evil, lying, deceptive, manipulative, without mercy, murder, twisting the scriptures, the list could go on and on.

By listening to the reports of the wives, it is easy to ascertain that the husbands have put themselves above God.

It is time CBMW and those who embrace their teaching, put God above husbands. It is time they insist that husbands who do not have evidence of the fruit of the Spirit when they are behind closed doors be excommunicated from their wives, their children, and their churches.



Saturday, December 19, 2009

Declaration of Independence from Complementarian Church and Husband Tyranny

Complementarians insist on roles; subjection for wives and authority for husbands. Church leaders like Bruce Ware, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem, among others, offer little recourse when husbands view their role as one of absolute authority over their wives. They claim that a husband chooses to physically assault his wife BECAUSE she is not submitting, when the opposite is true, and they deny that a husband should be held accountable for non-physical abuse.

This is absolute tyranny.

In 1776, the King of England chose to usurp a similar authority over colonized people in the Americas, denying them the right to govern themselves or address their concerns in a timely fashion. The result was the Declaration of Independence.

The tyranny of church leaders and abusive husbands has reached a similar intolerable level. It is time women put forth their own Declaration of Independence. I offer an abridged and edited version of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men {and women} are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness …{W}hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over {women}.
(see for entire original declaration.)

Indeed, many Christian women and their children have never experienced the freedom the Declaration of Independence seeks to guarantee. The church has stripped from them the right to pursue life, liberty, happiness, and safety. Instead, they live in a culture of death, danger, and destruction and many church leaders minimize the problem, deny it exists, or blame the women.

When are church leaders going to stop denying women the right to liberty and freedom from tyranny that males have enjoyed for over 200 years?


Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Tyranny of Indian Tribal Government

Monday about 25 people from this area drove 5-6 hours each way through freezing rain, heavy winds, blowing snow, and glare ice in order to try to influence an American Indian court to allow a half-Indian 2 year old to return to his foster parents and their family. It was the only family he knew. He was traumatized when strangers came and took him away. Since that time he has been terrified of a black person, although he had no such reaction before being taken from his loving home.

The judge said he had to follow the law; he had no choice. The Indian Child Welfare Act states that any Indian children, who are taken from their own parents, must be raised by a relative, by another member of their tribe, by someone of another tribe, or as a last resort by a non-Indian family.

My sister and her family had the child since his birth, but it wasn’t until he was nearly a year old that the tribe got involved. They allowed him to stay with my sister’s family for more than a year, since they could not find an Indian home for him. The Indian social worker said my sister and her husband could become legal guardians, but they could not adopt him. She brought petition papers for them to fill out and sign, but didn’t leave a copy for them. It appears the papers never got to a judge.

1-2 months later, she called to tell them the judge had ordered the child was to be removed from their home in 10 days. Talk about having the rug jerked out from under one’s feet! It turns out the judge made the ruling at the social worker's urging.

Although we prayed, fasted, and trusted, they came on November 23rd and took him away. They put him with an Indian woman who already had 2 two-year olds, 1 one year old, an eight year old, and who lived at least 2 hours away from the reservation. Why they thought a woman who was already overwhelmed with toddlers should have another to care for is beyond me. As I suspected, the placement with her is temporary. The child I consider to be my nephew will be shuffled from home to home, never having anyone to call his parents, and never having a place to call home. He begged “home, please,” to his new foster mom. My heart aches for him. I hope he knows how badly he is wanted, that my sister’s family did not choose to send him away.

My brother-in-law appealed, and was granted a court date. Both the judge and the man who was advocating for the tribe, indicated they knew the boy would be better off with my sister’s family, but they had no choice but to keep him with the tribe. It was the law.

What are citizens to do when a law, which was intended to preserve a people and a way of life, ends up harming its own people?

Some folks may dismiss this; after all, the child was only 2 years and 4 months. He’ll forget about it.

Really? When I was 2 years and 4 months my parents left me with neighbors while they went on an out-of-state trip to attend a family wedding. Being left with strangers was so traumatic to me that I remembered it.

Years later I became aware that that traumatic event had colored my whole life. I never quite felt safe after that, and was an angry child, who felt she had no way to stop bad things from happening to her.

I suspect this Indian child will suffer from the same things. The difference, however, is that he will be raised in an environment where a high percentage of his tribe turn to drugs, alcohol and violence in an effort to deal with life’s problems. If he is raised there, he is likely to become a wife beater.

After the hearing, a woman who worked in that area informed me that in a town of 900 people, around half of them had fetal alcohol syndrome, and many were so mentally affected that they could not advance beyond a fifth grade reading level. Few made it all the way through high school.

But the Indian Child Welfare Act requires that this bright, loving child, who does not have fetal alcohol syndrome, be taken from a loving, vice-free, two-parent family, so that he can be raised to maintain his Indian heritage.

In trying to right a wrong that they did to the Indian tribes, the US granted the tribes the right to raise any child who has a small percentage of Indian blood. So the tribes tyrannize any child whose parent isn’t fit to raise him, by yanking him out of a kind and loving non-Indian family and forcing him to grow up in a culture of drugs, alcohol and violence.

It sounds like tyranny to me.


Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The Proverbs 31 Woman--A Career Woman

The excellent wife in Proverbs 31 has been used by males who claim to be Christian to push their wives as well as other men’s wives to work harder, to carry a larger share of the workload. Women, you don’t have to hurt over this anymore. Proverbs 31 means exactly the opposite of what males have told us it means.

Look at verse 15, the one that suggests she gets by on 4-6 hours of sleep:
The word “maidens” is key. First of all, it does not make sense that the maidens are her daughters, because her daughters would already be a part of the "household." Strong’s Concordance, #5291 is the same word that is used in Exodus 2:5
And the daughter of Pharoah came down to wash herself at the river; and her MAIDENS walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her MAID to fetch it.
And Esther 4:16
Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my MAIDENS will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.
In both these verses, the word MAIDEN is referring to HIRED HELP. If it does not refer to hired help, then the maidens with Pharoah's daughter and Esther's maidens would also have to be their daughters, and Proverbs 31 would have to be speaking of the Proverbs 31 woman's daughters as not belonging to her household, or as not normally being given food along with the household, which is ridiculous.

Although the Proverbs 31 woman is accredited for doing all those things, a reasonable interpretation of the text says she has HIRED MAIDENS to help her. She was the CEO of her business, not the main labor force. It appears she was such a wise business woman that she was wealthy, and this is what freed her husband to serve at the city gates, and brought them both respect.

I would guess at least some of the activities she, herself, did. If she sought the wool and flax, she could do this because she had maidens tending to things at home. Other activities her employees did. Perhaps when she bought food from afar, she took employees with her to load and carry the food she selected. She may personally have got up while it was still night and fed her entire household, including her staff of maidens, or she may have had a cook make the meal and a staff to serve it-—especially if she was off seeking wool, flax, food, buying a field, or had returned late from a business trip. She herself may have gone to help the poor, or she may have sent her maidens with baskets of food that the maidens prepared.

This is the opposite of what Christian wives are taught today. They are told to LIMIT their activity to their own homes. They are NOT to be CAREER women or to have goals of their own--other than those of serving their husbands. Due to economic need, some are allowed to have jobs--if their husbands agree--but generally not careers or businesses that take subtantial capital and time.

In contrast, the Proverbs 31 woman was a BUSINESS woman with female employees, probably both in her household and in her business. She makes decisions about the big stuff, like what parcels of land and what produce and resources to buy. She also went on business trips where she buys and sells items. She DOES NOT ask her husband's permission for every move. She was praised because she widened her horizons. She took a risk and started a business and hired help. She made enough money that she had plenty to give to the poor and needy, as well as plenty to cloth her family in expensive silk and purple.

Notice also that her husband trusts her and does not supervise her or boss her around. This gives her freedom to make decisions and not constantly have to second-guess herself. He treats her as the adult she is, rather than keeping her in a child-like state. In her adult state, she serves her husband by hiring help and running a business, thus bringing wealth to her family. She neither mothers her husband, nor behaves as his innocent and ignorant child-bride. She does, however, help others in need.

According to Strong’s, #5291 is “fem. of 5288, a girl (from infancy to adolescence).” But if you check 5288, which is the source of #5291, you’ll find that maiden is the feminized form of boy, lad, young man, or SERVANT. Indeed, in the other contexts where #5291 is used, it is referring to female servants or to working girls from poor families.

The male establishment has used scripture to stomp on women and hold them down, making them into their personal slaves and prostitutes and giving themselves license to control and abuse their wives with impunity. Just like they did with the wife submission and husband authority doctrine, scripture has been twisted to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says. (Remember 1 Timothy 2:14, where “younger women…guide the house” means “younger women…be ruler of the house?” And Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands to love their wives, not to rule them?) see: Instead of the wife doing all that work, her hired maidens did a substantial amount of it. Her staff may be the ones who got up early to feed the family and their employees.

If males refuse to rightly divide the word of truth, but instead institute norms that are contrary to scripture, are women required to obey the oppressive males instead of God? Absolutely not! In Galatians 2:5 Paul did not subject himself to oppressive doctrine--"no, not for an hour."

Rise up, women, make straight the paths for both yourselves, other women, and your daughters! Go forth with joy into the freedom and purpose God has given each of you.


Monday, December 7, 2009

When Truth Drives Out Oppressive Lies, Rejoice!

I just have to share this. One of the women on my networking team, I’ll call her Kathryn, gave a copy of my novel, “Behind the Hedge” to her sister, who had endured domestic violence for 23 years and finally left her husband. After her sister read the novel, she was open to becoming a Christian, and Kathryn led her sister to the Lord. I praise the Lord that another sinner chose to follow Jesus! The angels are rejoicing; let’s rejoice with them.

That the novel was instrumental in bringing someone to Christ is sobering to me. How could a NOVEL have that kind of influence? As I mull it over, I realize how non-Christians view Christianity. They see it as oppressive to women. They see the Apostle Paul as a woman hater. They see males in Christian churches as women haters, too. It is no wonder they despise Christianity! And it is no wonder so many women want NOTHING to do with Christianity and feel contemptuous toward Christian women who appear so stupid that they not only stick with a religion that harms them, they also subject themselves to cruel and abusive husbands.

I am so humbled that a mere novel can show them the love of Christ, the compassion, mercy, and freedom from oppression that He extends to women in His word. I am so humbled that a mere novel can help clear away the lies.

Yet, God knew that a novel could bring people to Himself; that is why He directed me to write it. I was merely writing at His direction.

All glory be to God! Praise His precious and holy name!


Saturday, December 5, 2009

Complementarian Husbands: Leaders, Supervisors, or Rulers?

I had an enlightening discussion with an ex-military man, who was taking 3 months of leave from work due to the non-leadership style of his supervisor. He told me he had been a leader in the military—an excellent leader. He told me that a leader empowers others to be all they can be. A leader trains others so they can grow and be promoted. A leader encourages others to make their own decisions, and to trust their ability to make those decisions. Leadership is not about nitpicking, ruling, over-ruling, or serving oneself. It is about empowering others to shine, about building their self-esteem. People tend to flock to leaders, because they feel so empowered to be all they can be by beginning exactly where they are.

Supervisors, on the other hand, watch over the minute details of whatever they are trying to accomplish. Some supervisors are kind and try to include those under them in decision-making and in coming up with ways to be more productive. Other Supervisors are all about experiencing and retaining power for themselves. They put limits on those under them. They watch for tiny mistakes. They impose a particular amount and standard of work in a squeezed amount of time. They demand to have the final decision-making power, humiliate those under them for any reason they can dream up, and obstruct them from promotions.

Rulers, whether kings or congress-people, usually focus on maintaining and increasing their power first, and much of their law-making is aimed at accomplishing this goal. The needs of the people are frequently secondary. If they gained their power through elections, they focus on pleasing those who have money to finance their campaigns. At times they ignore the majority of their voters if they think their bread is buttered elsewhere. If they gained power through military might, they favor a few to gain the help they need to intimidate the masses. They make special laws that further limit the freedom of those they rule, thereby forcing them to be subject. Sometimes their rulership is extremely oppressive. Frequently, those they rule have no recourse to stop whatever laws the rulers impose, or, as here in the USA, those they rule have to wait for the next vote to make their voice heard.

Where do complementarian husbands fit in? Are they leaders? Do complementarian husbands empower their wives to develop their God-given interests and talents as individuals? Do they make sure there are no roadblocks limiting their wives from achieving their goals? Or is their focus their own comfort and the pursuit of their own goals? Do they limit their wives to serving as homemakers, husband-pleasers, and child raisers?

The complementarian teaching does advise husbands to be kind, but much more emphasis is placed on telling wives to conform to their husbands, build them up, and help them reach their goals. This means the wives are in the leadership role. The wives are empowering their husbands.

Complementarians are calling the husband’s role “headship” or “leadership,” but in actuality that is not what they teach husbands. They do not teach husbands to empower their wives to be anything other than house-hold help, or domestic slaves. Instead, husbands are given authority to over-rule their wives, which suggests they are performing the role of RULER.

Can rulers be kind? Certainly. But they are still ruling and in control through whatever means necessary to maintain that control. In the case of complementarians, the church steps in to pressure wives to empower their husbands and to be loyal subjects. If husbands do not choose to be kind rulers, many pastors and churches blame the wives, saying they have not subjected themselves to their husbands enough. Just as with the rulers of the world, those under them have no recourse to stop whatever evil laws the ruler-husbands impose.

Ruler-husbands who also perform a supervisory role are often the most damaging. These husbands (it is a shame to call them husbands, because the word implies care-taking and empowering those in their care toward growth, instead of self-centered demanding and stomping on those they at one point claimed to love) look at everything their wives do with a critical eye. They constantly demand more work in a shorter amount of time, look for tiny mistakes, and generally do anything they can to feel a sense of power of over their wives.

Frankly, a pig by any other name is still a pig, and a ruler by any other name is still a ruler. It is time complementarians stop lying to themselves and acknowledge the “headship” and “leadership” they teach is actually rulership.
