A Response to the Danvers Statement: Difference between revisions

==About the Author==

==Commentary==

Since this first statement merely asserts the obvious, that God created a distinct male and female in Adam and Eve, one might be tempted to. pass on to No. 2. But the word "distinct" is ambiguous and the words "manhood" and "womanhood" are in fact synonyms for the highly dubious notions of "masculinity" and "femininity." In what senses are the sexes "distinct" apart from sex itself? These terms are heavily freighted with hidden presuppositions and cultural prejudices about how people "ought" to behave. In fact, there is nothing very clear about these distinctions which is not either a physical (sexual) difference, (different gonads and so hormones, etc.), or a culturally-induced difference which may or may not be in harmony with what God wants for a particular individual. The question of what counts as "truly masculine" or "truly feminine" soon comes to a head with the introduction of the term "roles" in the next statement.

There are at least four distinguishable points made here, all of them false.

These considerations alone amount to the evacuation of the fundamental content of the whole project from the outset. Biblical egalitarians should be properly thankful for what is virtually a logical expose by John Piper of the vacuous distinctions at the foundation of the traditionalist vision. The present writer was rather startled to read such a disappointing exegetical effort from Piper, after reading with profit and delight his excellent treatise on pauline predestination in Romans 9. The difference seems to be that the doctrine he wanted to exegete from Romans 9 actually exists in the texts treated, while the doctrine he wants to get from the Bible on male supremacy does not. I have not seen so clear a case of the difference between exegesis and eisegesis in the writings of one single evangelical scholar for a long time. We now continue with the Danvers articles.

This statement has no Biblical support, but simply presupposes the validity of a traditionalist exegesis of such verses as Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. That Adam was the "federal head" of the race (including Eve) may well be true in some sense (without accepting the more speculative elements of historical "covenant theology") but this is because he was the origin of our humanity and acted on our behalf, in a sense as our representative. It does not follow that Adam was always to be "in authority" over Eve, or that because Adam was made before Eve, they were not equal in their marriage in status and responsibility. Danvers uses the term "headship" without defining it, leaving the traditionalist reader to read hierarchical prejudices into it as one wills, thus skewing the results.

There can be no doubt that the Fall caused all sorts of distortions in the created pattern. This is called the "curse" in the Bible, and we notice with delight that one of Isaac Watts' Christmas carols points out that redemption will finally extend "far as the curse is found" (Joy To The World!, 1719). But Ephesians 5:23 is capable of far better treatment than that assumed in the statement "In the home..." would allow, for to presuppose a hierarchical background to the idea of a husband's being the "head" of his wife in a manner analogous to the way Christ. is the head of the Church | leads to disaster. Verse 21 supplies a prior context for the mutual submission of verse 23 which logically eliminates hierarchy altogether, and ethically conditions both the "headship" and the "submission." The absurdity of reading exclusive role-playing characteristics into these verses may be exposed merely by asking, "Is it seriously claimed that a wife should not love her husband as Christ loved the Church, nor give herself for him? Or that a husband not reverence his wife?" Ephesians 5 is about holiness, not hierarchy, and there is no place for "roles" suggested by these verses. The arbitrary nature of the thought behind this fourth article may be further exposed by noting that (varying the language of the Statement) "sin inclines the sinner to either domination or passivity, to either usurpation or servility, and toward a worldly love of power, abdication of spiritual responsibility, and neglect of their gifts in appropriate ministry." The concept of "roles", is a nest of problems, and the wise will not treat, it as a mystical clue in answer to the exegetical, understanding of personal relationships.

As for "In the church...", once again there is no verse in Scripture to justify the notion that males and females have distinct and immutable "spiritual responsibilities" based on sex, although there are several verses which have been so interpreted traditionally, in violation of the plain statement in Galatians 3:28. We notice again that the cogency of the Statement depends wholly on an undefined but traditionally prejudiced understanding of the term "roles" when referring to gifts of teaching and leadership.

On the contrary, the OT and NT never give roles any "value" or "dignity." Only persons can have such qualities if the question is the status of men and women. It is humanness which has dignity, not the abstractions of masculinity or femininity. And the so-called "principle" of exclusively male leadership is nowhere defined in either Testament. Rather, numerous exceptions to it are found throughout the Bible, from Sarah and Deborah in the OT, to Phoebe and Phillip's daughters in the NT. The mere existence of these exceptions shows that God recognizes no rule of "roles" in this matter. "Roles" considered simply as patterns of behavior grow out of the obedient use of gifts by individuals led of the Lord, and are never presupposed by themselves as if they were to be adopted as standards or patterns of conformity. Gifts, and not abstract "roles," determine paths of obedience.

This last sentence produces a curious logical dilemma: Either some "governing and teaching roles" are not "blessings of salvation," or "an equal share" in the blessings is the same as some blessings being "restricted to men." How these conclusions are to be made compatible with such verses as Ephesians 1:3 and Galatians 3:28 is not made clear.

Another potential trap is the introduction in this Article of the word "authority." What Bible verse even refers to, let alone defines a "husband's authority" over against his wife's? The Biblical emphasis is always on responsibilities rather than on rights. It's no accident that there are no biblical references in the Danvers Statement, and the doctrinal statement of Christians For Biblical Equality should be contrasted with it at this point.

This article may be thought of as a waiver designed to obviate an important error which is often derived from hierarchical notions of human relationships. It is sometimes concluded from the notion of a hierarchy that the lower elements on the hierarchy have no recourse past the next highest element. But the disclaimer expressed in this Article is not enough to remove this difficulty. The problem remains that if a wife must always. submit to her husband (and never vice versa, since Ephesians 5:24 says "in everything") in the same way as she submits to Christ, how can it be argued that she can ever disobey him? It has often been taught (e.g., by the Jesuits in the past) that the grace and merit of obedience absolves one of other (lower?) responsibilities. Some evangelicals teach this today in the shepherding cults, and this is all based on the unquestioned assumption of Chain-of-Being hierarchical notions of how things have to work. If these structural assumptions are questioned at any point, however, the whole fabric collapses. Ethical Structures tend to necessitate the corresponding ontological structures required to support them, and the presupposition of a hierarchical ontological structure to reality will inevitably affect the way we relate ethically.

Article 8 is another disclaimer intended to obviate the objection that if God does not want women in leadership, (i.e., in pastoral or teaching positions), why does he so consistently give them the gifts so necessary to fit them for such positions? The secular world admitted this absurdity decades ago, amid much conservative reaction and resistance. (Is it not "obvious" that no decent Christian woman would want to be a medical doctor?) Much of the evangelical Church reacted with anger to this, instead of speaking the whole liberating counsel of God with a prophetic voice, as Paul had instructed them in Galatians and in Acts 20:27.

The point is that the NT refers to two classes of apostles. The first type was with the Lord in his ministry, or at least saw him in his resurrection body, being "sent" (apestello) by Him directly. John and Paul fit this category. The second type was sent out by churches on missionary tasks at a distance, Silas and Barnabas being of this second category. So that morning, I witnessed the ordination of a woman apostle whether the senior Pastor there was able to recognize it or not. This experience illustrates something already pointed out: Even when they are determined to take the question of "biblical roles" seriously, and seek to practice them in the local church, the traditionalists have no hope of doing so consistently, and finish up with randomly-chosen contradictions, amounting to whatever the local leadership decides, and whatever the long-suffering women in the situation will let them get away with.

Finally, as a clincher to remind us of all the frightening results which will befall us if we do, not maintain a male-supremacist church, we are warned that we biblical feminists will be responsible for the destruction of our families, our churches and the "culture at large" (whatever that is) if we "neglect or deny" the traditionalist status quo. Let me state flatly that I not only deny the traditionalist stance as unbiblical, but that I am conscience-bound not to neglect it, either. Rather, some of us will probably spend the rest of our lives trying to reform it one way or another, in terms of the whole counsel of God, and let God take care of the consequences.

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

2. the tragic effects of this confusion in unravelling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful strands of manhood and womanhood;

3. the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands, and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives;

4. the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women;

5. the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal of human sexuality;

6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

7. the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness;

8. The increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;

9. the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity;

10. and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical, Biblical authenticity which in the power of the Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture."

10. Historical study is increasingly demonstrating that there have always been at least some evangelicals at the vanguard of movements for the emancipation of women from the arbitrary restrictions of a male-dominated traditionalism. Janette Hassey's "No Time For Silence" is a recent example (1986) To paraphrase a famous Puritan pastor as he sent some of his flock off to the New World, "The Lord hath yet more light to break forth from the history of women's ministry!" And much of this history does not particularly flatter traditionalism. Have we forgotten how bitterly the reactionary conservative clergy inveighed against even so elementary a development as allowing female citizens the right to vote? Would a modern signatory to the Danvers Statement like to argue that the women's vote is the cause of today's social corruption? Since the "spirit of the age" is still male-supremacist, and the suppression of women (in cheerful fulfillment of the prediction in Genesis 3:16) is the natural stance of all heathen cultures, I fail entirely to see how our practicing the implications of Galatians 3:28 could be rationally thought of as conformity to the spirit of the age.

One can only hope as the subject continues to unfold in the public forum of evangelical scholarship, that the promise of Isaiah 55:10 and 11, that God sovereignly supervises the effectiveness of His Word as He wills, will be increasingly made real in the life of Christ's Church. Reformation-minded saints must continue to pray that the light of God's Word will eventually reform the traditionalist vision into a closer conformity to the whole of Scripture. In this way "the noble Biblical vision of sexual complementarity" may be seen to be fully compatible with that life in Christ in which "there is neither male nor female" but only redeemed children of God growing more and more into the grace of mutual submission, and exercising freely the gifts with which God has wisely graced them.