As can be seen here and in Dalrock’s previous posts on the CBMW, they give real complementarianism a bad name, by tarring the term with their men-bashing churchian evanjellyfish ideology. No man with any brains should bother listening to anything they say (except to critique, of course).
*Update: More from Dalrock on the CBMW:
I was curious if the CBMW had a response to the decision to open all combat roles to women. I was curious given their great ambivalence regarding biblical gender roles if they would oppose the inclusion of women in combat, and if they opposed it, if they would call out the very obvious rebellion by women in this regard. Like Eve in Eden, women are envious of a position they don’t have, and are grasping for that which they should not grasp.
I don’t see a response to yesterday’s announcement, but I did find an article in response to the announcement back in 2013 that started this process. The piece was written by CBMW Executive Director Owen Strachan, titled Women in combat: A complementarian perspective
The piece doesn’t acknowledge that women are grasping for the roles of men. Instead it astonishingly presents this as a problem of men being unwilling…
View original post 493 more words