Paula

Egalitarianism is so simple: everybody “esteem[s] others as better than yourself”, serve means serve, and equal means equal. But male supremacism has to have disclaimers to explain what limits a “king” has, where the line is between a boy and a man, and Pharisaical nonsense like whether a woman giving directions to a man is “authoritative”. That’s why there is no consensus on it, and why people keep claiming “misrepresentation”, and why egals are always having to deal with “well, that’s not what I personally believe so I don’t have to defend that teaching”.

If the Bible’s statements clearly supported male rule, then there’d be no room for so many variations in male-centric theology, or any need to figure out what to do with men who are abusive, especially when it is their own theology that is often cited as giving men this right. Of course they issue disclaimers about men needing to be kind, but they never can agree among themselves on the definition of abuse, or whether a truly subservient wife has the right to complain. There are too many stories of pastors telling abused women to just take it joyfully, even to the point of death, and using standard CBMW-type theology to justify it.

Yes, we can indeed lay much blame for such things on CBMW. They give legitimacy to male supremacy, and people trust them. Their teachings have consequences, including the silencing of women’s spiritual gifts and the turning of many from the gospel because it is alleged that God created all women as the inferiors of all men. Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah would stand up in the last days and condemn towns that had rejected him, and I believe the world will likewise stand up and condemn the silencing and suppression of women as taught by CBMW.