In these last Affirmations we finally come to the end of the misogynist document. And no, the Danvers Statement was not written in the interest of integrity to the Scriptures. It was written expressly to keep women in their places in the church and home after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave white women the same rights that white men already had.
Affirmation #7. Wifey is supposed to determine if he is asking her to sin (paraphrased here as all are. Read the Concerns and Affirmations on http://www.cbmw.org website.)
My Response. According to the CBMW, the woman is supposed to determine if her leader-husband is asking her to sin. This puts no accountability on the husband. It all becomes her problem. This woman who has to be led, now has to be able to recognize and determine if what she is being led to do is a sin. And it is up to her to say “no.”
This Affirmation is really strange in that it contradicts “male headship” because it puts a limit on what males can demand. They say that wives are exempt from engaging in sinful demands by their husbands. However, the very word and concept of male headship is that males make the rules for their wives, and they set the parameters for female obedience.
This is affirmed by Dorothy Patterson, one of the founders of CBMW and the wife of Paige Patterson who is also a founder of CBMW, when she said, “As a woman standing under the authority of Scripture, even when it comes to submitting to my husband when I know he’s wrong, I just have to do it, and then he stands accountable at the judgment.” From Dorothy Patterson’s statement, it appears that she must follow her husband into sin if that is what he asks of her.
Their Affirmation #8. If a woman claims she is called to preach, she can’t set aside church doctrine to do so, and must say “No” to God who called her.
My Response. If a woman is called to preach or serve in some other leadership capacity, she must deny that call because, according to the Council, God cannot call a woman to preach. Men are never called upon to set aside their heartfelt sense of a call because of their gender.
Their Affirmation #9. Now they are worried that they may have limited women too much because who else is going out help those who are ill, and the miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness (yes, they list all of these) of this “fallen world.”
My Response. Look at the hypocrisy and condescending attitude here. They are willing to allow women to go out into the gutters of the streets where the homeless, drug addicts, and criminals are, but will not allow them to serve behind the safety of a pulpit.
They will send women to foreign mission fields where the people are often darker and do not speak the same language. A woman said after the SBC missionary commissioning service of her granddaughter, “How can they send girls out to these dangerous places?” Yet they do. But they will keep the white, English-speaking churches for males here in the U.S.
Jesus saw the whole world as a field to harvest, and called for laborers. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field” (Matthew 9:37).
The Council finds it all right to send women missionaries to dangerous places in the world, even though they teach that women are unable to protect their families or themselves. It is a testimony to women and their love for God that they are willing to serve wherever they are called. It is a testimony against restrictive churches that decide that women can only be called to serve in a church far away from their homes and families.
Affirmation #10. Same old, same old. Women are causing increasingly destructive consequences families, churches and culture.
My Response. According to the Danvers Statement written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, whatever happens to families, churches, and culture depends upon the willful decision that women make of whether or not they will submit to male domination. In their prediction, any decision other than to submit to male domination will lead to the destruction: 1) of the authority of scripture; 2) of the home; 3) of the church; 4) of worship; 5) of Bible translations; 6) and of the gospel. This is found on their website under Mission and Vision.
This is the end of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s signature statement “The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Thank God. I am tired of reading this crap over and over. (And no, the Danvers Statement was not written in the interest of integrity to the Scriptures. It was written expressly to keep women in their places in the church and home after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave white women the same rights that white men already had).
Shirley Taylor Books (available on Amazon in print and on Kindle)
The Biblical Marriage Myth: The Devil Comes Calling
The Power of a Book: The Street Evangelist
Raising the Hood: A Christian Look at Manhood and Womanhood
Women Equal – No Buts: Powered by the Same Source
Dethroning Male Headship: 2nd Edition
From Wife to Widow: What I Know Now
Well, if Dorothy Patterson believes that women are supposed to submit to their husbands even when they sin then she is deceiving herself. And if she really believes that then she should lobby for women such as Nancy Garrido who submitted to her husband by acting as his accomplice when he kidnapped, held captive, and repeatedly raped a young girl. Mrs. Patterson should go before the courts and tell the judges that Nancy Garrido was only following what the Bible says: 1 Peter 3:1 NASB, “In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives…” Nancy Garrido’s behavior was to submit and follow her husband into sin, and she justly faced the consequences of her sinful actions. So just as the courts know that a woman (or anyone) following someone into sin is wrong, so do most Christians. That is why it just blows my mind that Christians do not understand that the Scriptures are mistranslated on these passages. The apostle Peter would NEVER tell wives to be subject to their husbands even if they are disobedient to God’s Word because that would cause women to be disobedient to God’s Word!
It is time for Christians to stand up to the lies that men have put in our Bibles. The word “hypotasso” is not a word of “submission.” It is a word of “placement” and means “to place, to put, to set.” Peter is not asking wives to submit to their husbands. He is asking wives to stand their ground to their husbands against all unrighteousness by following the ways of God so as to be an example. Indeed, just before Peter gave the instructions to wives, he told them that Christ suffered for them and left them an example to follow in His steps. He explained how Christ committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth, and while being reviled, He did not revile in return. He then went on to explain that while Christ was suffering, He uttered no threats but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously. That is why Peter then says, 3:1-2, “In the same way [that Christ was set], you wives, be set to your own husbands, so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives, by observing the reverent and pure way you live your lives.” Again, Peter is asking for the opposite of submission. He is asking wives to follow the example that Christ set, committing no sin (pure behavior), and not reviling in return (respectful behavior).
I would like to tell the men and women at the CBMW that you are basing your teaching on mistranslations that have been put in our Bibles. It is time for Christians to stand up to these mistranslations. If they do not, then these lies will go on. It is time for our Bibles to be accurately translated.