Dealing With Danvers

With all of the debate and discussion about the issue of gender roles, I thought it might be best for me to articulate some of where I’m coming from and where I currently stand on this matter. It seems as though CBMW is increasingly redefining complementarianism to two key points of doctrine:

1. Ontological submission based on gender
2. Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS)

I am at a point where I increasingly feel like I must cut ties to a movement that I have appreciated and supported since the mid-90s. I don’t want to deal too much with the two doctrinal points I just noted, but it may be good for me to detail my specific objections:

1. “Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order” is the exact phrasing used by CBMW in the Danvers Statement and again in this recent article. This is an argument that is frequently advanced by CBMW, yet I have not seen a clear articulation or definition of the “role” that is allegedly ordained by God for women either from CBMW or in Scripture itself. I do agree with CBMW that the office of pastor/elder is closed to women. Outside of that, however, I cannot think of any passage of scripture that specifically delineates the ‘role’ of women outside of 1 Timothy 2 or Titus 2, and I do not want to get into that debate as it is outside of my intended purpose now.

2. CBMW continues to argue that ESS/EFS/ERAS is not mandatory for a belief in complementarianism [1], but like it or not, several of the most vocal proponents are key people at, or founders of, CBMW. Wayne Grudem, in particular, spends a significant amount of time in his Systematic Theology articulating and defending this view. There’s a lot to say about ESS/EFS, but I’ll note that it should be rejected as doctrinal heresy[2] and as out of step with the standard Nicene Creed. More concerningly, several CBMW articles continue advancing ESS/EFS concepts as the “biblical” principles underlying their position despite protestations to the contrary.

So what do I actually believe? Here are quick bullet points to list my points of agreement with CBMW’s Danvers Statement:

(Danvers, Pt. 1) — “Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26–27[3], 2:18).”

(Danvers, Pt. 3) — “Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16–18, 21–24, 3:1–13; 1 Cor 11:7–9).”

(Danvers, Pt. 4) — “The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1–7, 12, 16).”

(Danvers, Pt. 5b) — “Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21–33; Col 3:18–19; 1 Tim 2:11–15).”

(Danvers, Pt. 6) — “Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.”

(Danvers, Pt. 7) — “In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10–18; Acts 4:19–20, 5:27–29; 1 Pet 3:1–2).”

(Danvers, Pt. 8) — “In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11–15, 3:1–13; Tit 1:5–9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.”

(Danvers, Pt. 9) — “With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7–21).”

All well and good. Here are points of my DIS-agreement with CBMW:

(Danvers, Pt. 5a) - “Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21–24; 1 Cor 11:7–9; 1 Tim 2:12–14).” (Danvers, Pt. 2); The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women”

The key word there is “roles” — what do they mean by that, and is it (as seems to be the case, based on this issue of CBMW’s journal Eikon — note the introduction and article helpfully titled “Man and Woman: Toward an Ontology” by Patrick Schreiner) tied to the ontological differences between genders?

I will quote some sections of that last article just to save my readers some time:

I agree. Ontological, metaphysical, natural-law grounds are needed as a harmonizing foundation to exegesis for gender complementarity. To put this another way, it is hard to know the ought without an understanding of the is. As Alastair Roberts has affirmed, divinely commanded gender roles should be “understood as a clarification and intensification of internal beckonings of being that we experience as men and women in the world.”[5]

Too often gender discussions only focus on exegesis, which is of utmost importance. But complementarians have neglected nature arguments, thus chipping away the ground on which we stand. We thus unearth a structural weakness in the foundation of a complementarian position.

I find it amusing that he is ‘unearth[ing] a structural weakness’ while he is busily adding onto Scripture. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is sufficient. Adding ‘natural law’ to the Bible is akin to adding two gallons of water to your car’s gas tank and then wondering why the car isn’t working properly.

Anyway, let’s continue reading his argument…

While debates continue to rage about gender roles, headship and submission, or same-sex sexuality, more fundamental questions must undergird these discussions. For too long we have had the ought conversations without pressing into the is. A deeper why exists that grounds why men and women are equal in essence but complementary not only in roles but in being. Manhood and womanhood are not social constructs. They are written into nature.

In this essay I attempt to give a description of manhood and womanhood from a natural law perspective. These natural law arguments are based ultimately in Scripture, but provide the backdrop for many of the distinctions.

What Schreiner is saying is that we look to and use the “natural law” as a lens to supplement our understanding of Scripture. He continues:

Natural law is the revelation of God’s will through creation. It is the moral truth God has revealed in the created order and made accessible to human minds. There is a moral and meaningful natural order that corresponds to reality, and it is knowable…

…Natural law, our consciences, design, and the consequences of breaking this law teach us that an order exists to creation; and this order is discoverable, though it still needs to be interpreted. God is an intentional and precise Creator.

If this is the case, then natural law can be helpful for us in constructing masculinity and femininity. Paul and the rest of the authors in the Bible did not construct gender roles. They recognized them. They based sociological and organizational instructions on a deeper reality found in creational order (1 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2; Eph. 5).

Someone ought to remind Schreiner about the risk of “chipping away the ground on which we stand” as he continues to build his epistemological argument not on Scripture, but on anatomy:

The nature of things in terms of humanity can be viewed from a variety of perspectives, but a good place to begin is in adam’s (humankind’s) biology and sociology. If God created things in an ordered way with a purpose, then biology and sociology are key markers, pointers, and symbols in understanding the way things are.

Though biology and sociology do not exhaust this discussion, they are a good place to begin because the body and soul are integrated. Humans are psychosomatic unities; our bodies correspond to who we are.

In this section I simply want to note how male and female are the same, yet different, and different in complementary ways. Male and female fit together, physically and sociologically speaking. These complementarities provide support for moving toward a more philosophical and spiritual description…

So based on biology and sociology, how should we describe masculinity and femininity? If biology is aimed and ordered, if it is a bow pulled taught, if it has a telos, then at what is it aimed?

The most succinct and useful definition has come from J. Budziszewski in his book On the Meaning of Sex. Budziszewski begins with biology because the physical points to something spiritual. The body speaks and pushes us to more ontological and philosophical concepts. He provides the following summative statements based on a theology of the body.[25]

The fundamental meaning of masculinity is potentiality toward paternity.

The fundamental meaning of womanhood is potentiality toward maternity.

Quick — can someone please tell me where in Scripture potentiality towards parenthood is tied to being created in the image of God? And what the implications are if you never actually parent or marry?

Pope John Paul II, who has has written about the body and the relationships between male and female, says, “masculinity and femininity [are] . . . two ways of ‘being a body.’”

Is this where I remind everyone how savagely Aimee Byrd was treated for mentioning the work of Pope John Paul II in her latest book? Yeah, sure, let’s note that. In any case, I’ve made my point and will transition back to my main thought:

The only thing I found on the CBMW Website that even attempts to define the roles are these articles (Roles 1, Roles 2) by CJ Mahaney. It should be noted that Mahaney has remained under a cloud of suspicion regarding his treatment of physical and sexual abuse in the Sovereign Grace association for several years now and has refused all attempts to either reconcile or allow the matter to be fully investigated, although he hasn’t had any issues garnering support for his alleged ‘exoneration’. I would think that one should be careful giving advice on “biblical” gender roles when accused of covering up criminal sexual abuse but I supposed escaping all serious charges on the basis of the statute of limitations is a handy workaround.

In any case, CBMW places a significant amount of weight on the word ‘role’ and then fails to explain those roles biblically. Yes, Scripture refers roles like parent or pastor, but there are no vocational, cultural or social roles expressly prescribed by Scripture; furthermore all of those ‘roles’ are only such for a specific period of time in our lives. Someone in ministry will not be a pastor/elder for their entire life, and mothers are not mothers (generally speaking) at the age of thirteen. The only roles expressly delineated in Scripture on the basis of gender is that of elder/overseer (1 Tim. 3, Titus 2) which is a hotly debated topic. As I mentioned before, I believe that the office of pastor/elder is limited to men so I’ll not delve into the subject now.

The lack of Scriptural definition not the only glaring omission in CBMW’s repertoire. If you’re going to argue that a woman’s role is limited to working within the home (for example), you not only have to contend with the lack of argument in Scripture, but also historical, social and cultural objections. Women in the Bible are routinely noted as being involved with matters outside of the domestic sphere. Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche as having “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel” in Phil. 4:3; he also tells the brothers and sisters to “make it their ambition to lead a quiet life….[to] mind your own business and work with your hands…so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody” in 1 Thessalonians 4. One wonders how the sisters that labored at Paul’s side did so from the safety and comfort of their own homes. Another passage that needs to be explored is Proverbs 31 as well, which destroys the idea of a woman as the passive recipient of her husband’s delegated authority within the domestic sphere.

Moving on to different points of disagreement with Danvers:

(Danvers 6:1) — “In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21–33; Col 3:18–19; Tit 2:3–5; 1 Pet 3:1–7).”

The consistent call and command within Scripture is for all believers to act in the best interest of others, a statement made by Christ himself on several occasions (Matthew 20:24–28, 22:34–40, 23:10–12; Mark 9:35, 10:43, 12:31) and repeated by Paul in other places (Philippians 2 for starters). Furthermore, there are times when resisting the husband’s authority is not only appropriate, but biblically necessary to protect other people, including their physical well being and material assets. The murder of Sisera in Judges by a housewife is commended as a righteous and praiseworthy act, although I will admit that Jael didn’t have to leave the confines of her home to save the lives of hundreds or thousands and carry out God’s plan, although Deborah did. This, of course, omits the biblically praised efforts of Abigail, who saved dozens from murder and David from ruining his life. It does not discuss the example of Ruth, who clung ferociously to her mother in law (and also to YHWH) and not only ended up saving her life, but being grafted into the lineage of the Lord. There are several other examples, but I digress.

(Danvers, Pt. 10) — “We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.”

The Danvers statement here is true in part — denying or neglecting many of the principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences and we are seeing that play out repeatedly.

What we are also seeing is that many of the Complementarian principles are being used (or co-opted) by people who are interested in establishing a gender-based authoritarianism which diminishes women as ‘less than’ and fit only for those tasks circumscribed by a cloistered few who are increasingly irrelevant to the church as a whole, the most common of those roles being summarized as “sex object, domestic servant and sandwich maker.” The people who are doing this should be held to account for their actions instead of fêted and invited to speak at conferences, sell books, and build platforms for the aggrandizement of themselves or their friends.

You see, the real issue here isn’t CBMW, but authority. The Biblical principles underlying CBMW or “Complementarianism” will always be Biblical principles, and men and women all throughout the ages will follow and obey them as they listen to the voice of the One who calls them as His own. A parachurch organization like CBMW is just that — an organization, which one day may exist and the next may be as a vapor that is gone, having fulfilled its’ purpose. In my eyes, CBMW continues to exceed both its’ scope and its’ authority to prescribe extra- biblical and legalistic standards on the souls of men and women. The only true ground of authority for a believer is what the Bible actually teaches; it is a wicked thing for CBMW to add legalistic burdens by developing a set of expectations that are not defined or defended on the basis of Scripture alone and then promulgate them as “biblical” to Christians.

Several years ago, a separate parachurch organization asked the Church “By What Standard?” We must now apply that same question to CBMW and its’ works. By what standard is any of this defensible? By what standard is any of this Scriptural? By what standard is it Biblically prescribed for the church? By what standard does CBMW exercise this authority in Evangelicalism that it arrogantly claims for itself? The answers, it seems, are “because we said so” and “because that’s what we say”. That isn’t good enough for Christians, nor should it be accepted as such. If CBMW is serious about the Biblical in Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, then perhaps they ought to get Biblical instead.

— — —

[1] “I am a Danvers complementarian. That view of gender is not and never has been reliant upon an analogy to the Trinity. Biblical complementarianism neither stands nor falls on speculative parallels with Trinity. It may be that some writers have pushed such analogies, but that has never been an essential ingredient of Danvers complementarianism. I encourage readers to take a look at the The Danvers Statement and note its contribution to the current debate. It contributes almost nothing because the Trinity is not even mentioned. That is not to say that the Trinity is unimportant. There are lots of important doctrines not mentioned in Danvers. It is simply saying that analogies to the Trinity are not the emphasis of what the Bible teaches about gender and sexuality.“ My Take-Away’s from the Trinity Debate” by Denny Burk.

[2] I cannot, for the life of me, understand how those who understand and confirm ESS can also insist with a straight face that they agree with the Nicene Creed. I’ll give Owen Strachan the credit for at least recognizing that.

[3] I should note here that Genesis 1:26 is in the plural form — ‘man’ should have dominion, but God would let ‘them’ should have dominion over the animals. While I supposed it is not impossible that the ‘them’ is strictly referring to the male gender, I do not find that argument persuasive.