Monday, May 30, 2011

Does Matthew 18:17-18 Apply to the Apology Demand Letter?

We are sometimes asked if any of the signers of the Apology Demand Letter of July 2010 had tried dialoguing with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood before demanding an apology for the damages done to both men and women due to the Danvers Statement.

Christians frequently attempt to align public efforts at reform with Matthew 18:17-18, and mistakenly suspect or accuse those who publicly rebuke error of not following scriptural protocol when addressing open sin.

Matthew 18:17-18, deals with the orderly process of resolving a situation in which one Christian commits a sin against another Christian. Although the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has committed grievous sin against women in particular and the Body of Christ in general, Matthew 18:17-18 cannot be applied to the Demand Letter issued by the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition. The following reasons explain why:

• The juristic person which is legally and commonly known as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), cannot be considered a Christian “brother” or “sister”. The CBMW is 501c3 corporation, which makes it a legal “person” (a “Juristic” person). Juristic persons (incorporations) cannot be redeemed or Baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, i.e., cannot be saved. Therefore, Juristic persons do not fall under the category of Matthew 18:17-18 which explicitly deals with living Christians, not juristic persons.

• The Letter demanded a public apology for public teachings now propagated by the juristic person known as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The Danvers Statement was not originally issued by the CBMW but by a body of leaders who decline to publish their names, but who shortly thereafter formed the 501c3 incorporation (juristic person) we now know as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

• The scriptures explicitly command that public sin be dealt with publicly (1 Timothy 5:20). Since its conception, the Council has made every effort to promote the oppression of women as publicly as possible, so 1 Timothy 5:20 would definitely apply in regards to the Demand Letter which demanded a public apology along with reform.

The demand for apology reads as follows:


July 24, 2010

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road,
Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280


Dr. J Ligon Duncan III, Chairman of the Board of the CBMW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.

For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.


Shirley Taylor
Waneta Dawn
Cynthia Kunsman
Janice Levinson
Jocelyn Andersen
Pastor Doug Phillips
and others....

In no way were the signers of the Apology Demand Letter in violation of scripture or out of order when addressing the public sin of the council.

No comments:

Post a Comment