Paula

Let’s not bring the “misrepresentation” charge here. I’ve seen it done elsewhere and no matter how much clear evidence is presented by us, they still make the claim. In order to back up the claim, they’d have to cite wording from the document in question which indicates it, rather than simply assert it.

Another issue is when they (I refer to pro-CBMW people who cite misrepresentation) say for example, “Yes, that document says the husband has authority over his wife, but this document says he has to be godly and kind”. The problem there is that the quality of rule isn’t the issue, but the fact of rule. If CBMW says the man rules over the woman, qualifying the character of such rule does not make it better. In fact, when pressed to answer whether a husband who does not rule kindly is still in charge, they have either been silent or evasive. If CBWM were not teaching male rule, they’d need no such disclaimers anyway.

I’ve seen attempts to have “dialog” with CBMW supporters, and so far they have failed. The CBWMs insist upon equal representation in egalitarian venues, but never allow such fairness in their own. They insist on having control of the vocabulary and topics of the discussion, making restrictions on egals, but do not permit such restrictions on themselves. This is exactly in keeping with the teaching that men have no restrictions in the church or home, but feel qualified to define such restrictions for women, even though the Bible never gives them that right.

I say we need more egal-only venues, or the word won’t get out.