Purpose

The purpose of this article is to track the confusing changes with the so called conservative groups defending biblical male headship/authority and how the CBMW has become somewhat "egaltarian."

Introduction

We started to realize this because of the situation with Zachary M. Garris. We started to realize, we agree with Zachary and were surprised to see various groups softening on male headship and the words of scripture. We also had a divisive split closer to home, which made the issue more personal. We realize there is a war against God's Word. We stand with the historical traditional view of 1 Cor 14.

Main Point

AI says it like this:

To answer directly: the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has not officially moved in an egalitarian direction. In fact, institutionally and doctrinally, CBMW continues to uphold the 1988 Danvers Statement and has often doubled down on its founding principles (such as releasing the Nashville Statement in 2017). 

However, your observation that CBMW (or the broader complementarian movement it birthed) feels functionally more soft or aligned with egalitarianism is a widespread conversation in evangelicalism right now.

What you are picking up on is actually a major internal split within complementarianism that crystallized between 2016 and 2020. Here is why it feels like a shift occurred:

1. The Division: "Broad" vs. "Narrow" Complementarianism (circa 2016–2018) Around 2016–2018, theologians and observers began explicitly dividing the movement into two camps:

Narrow (or "Soft") Complementarianism: Focuses strictly on church ordination (male elders/pastors) and basic headship in marriage. Outside of those two spheres, men and women are treated virtually identically in society, work, and general church leadership.

Broad (or "Hard") Complementarianism / Biblical Patriarchy: Teaches that male headship is a creation-order principle that touches all of life—including distinct roles in society, workplace dynamics, and distinct gender-based demeanor.

Because CBMW tried to remain a "big tent" for anyone who signed the Danvers Statement, it tolerated narrower views. To critics on the right, this willingness to embrace "narrow" complementarians made CBMW look like it was accommodating functional egalitarianism.

2. The Trinity Debate of 2016 (ESS / EFS) Historically, CBMW leaders like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware defended male headship by arguing that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role (Eternal Subordination of the Son, or ESS).

In 2016, a massive theological dispute erupted among conservative Reformed theologians. Critics argued that ESS compromised classical Trinitarian orthodoxy (specifically Nicene Trinitarianism). When CBMW had to pull back or soften its reliance on ESS to defend male authority, it lost one of its primary theological pillars, leaving its defense of male headship feeling less dogmatic to some.

3. The Pushback from Authors like Aimee Byrd (2020) In 2020, Christian author Aimee Byrd published Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (a direct play on John Piper and Wayne Grudem's classic 1991 CBMW book).

Byrd and other popular evangelical voices argued that CBMW had turned "masculinity" and "femininity" into idols rather than focusing on general Christlikeness. They advocated for giving laywomen much broader teaching, discipleship, and ministry roles in the local church without violating male eldership.

Because many local churches adopted these ideas—allowing women to teach mixed Sunday school classes, lead corporate prayers, or handle administrative direction—it created the perception that the movement as a whole was sliding toward egalitarianism.

4. The Rise of Moscow/Moscow-style "Patriarchy" as a Reaction As CBMW tried to walk a nuanced theological line under President Denny Burk (who took over in 2016), a populist counter-movement emerged. Figures associated with "biblical patriarchy" (such as Doug Wilson in Moscow, Idaho, and various reformed podcasters) began openly criticizing CBMW.

They claimed that CBMW's version of "servant leadership" was too passive, defensive, and sanitized. To those who migrated toward this newer, more assertive male-leadership movement, CBMW's traditional stance began to look surprisingly "egalitarian" by comparison.