How its own official statement reveals the flaws of complementarianism

In my last post, I addressed how legalism is inherent in complementarian theology, something I noticed during Alisa Childers’s recent interview of Denny Burk, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Image by Ioana Radu from Pixabay

Burk pointed listeners to the Danvers Statement as the go-to document for the basic tenets of complementarianism. According to the CBMW website, this statement summarizes the need for the organization and serves as an overview of its core beliefs.

The Danvers Statement was prepared by several complementarian leaders in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December of 1987.

It opposes biblical mutuality.

Let’s examine the ten points in the first portion called “Rationale.”

(A single post is not sufficient for detailed counterpoints on these items, which are italicized, but I’ll respond briefly as I go. I’ve written on these topics in other articles.)

The Statement begins,

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

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

Complementarians emphasize the differences between the sexes over their shared humanness, but those “differences” always boil down to one thing—only men may lead in the church and in the home.

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

This implies biblical mutuality destroys what God created marriage to be, which, according to complementarianism, is husbands leading and wives following.

Male rule does not make marriage beautiful. Mutual love and submission does.

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;

Using the inflammatory term “feminist egalitarianism” conjures up an image of radical secular feminism and unjustly paints it onto fellow biblical scholars who hold to a high view of Scripture.

“Distortion” and “neglect” are also inflammatory terms aimed at criticizing biblical mutualism, while “glad harmony,” “loving, humble leadership” and “intelligent, willing support of that leadership” serve as yet more euphemisms endorsing the complementarian view.

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

In other words, women allegedly only ever ministered in non-leadership capacities throughout the history of the church; therefore, women should value their domestic duties and be content not to lead in the church.

But women did lead, even in the Old Testament, and certainly in the New Testament and early church.

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;

I share this concern, as long as it does not underhandedly imply that biblical mutuality leads to embracing extra-biblical sexual ethics. It does not. Numerous denominations who ordain women have held that line for well over 100 years.

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

100 percent, this is a huge concern. But what will reverse this upsurge?

Promising to protect women while keeping them out of decision-making spaces, silencing their voices, and sending them back to abusive husbands with instructions to submit even more?

Hardly. Yet this is the “solution” complementarians keep offering, thereby enabling abuse to hide and thrive.

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;

I find this statement confusing, but it looks like attempted camouflage for the idea that women leading in the church makes the Bible and the Christian faith look bad.

Complementarians obsess over gender roles and insist that failure to adhere to them is sin. This is legalism, because it adds to God’s Word and loads heavy burdens onto people (in this case women).

No wonder young women are leaving the church in large numbers. Women leading in the church does not damage the gospel’s reputation—but restricting them does.

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

This is another inflammatory statement whose purpose is to promote distrust in faithful evangelical egalitarian scholars and their careful work.

Biblical mutualists do not employ devious methods of interpretation to change the meaning of Scripture.

Rather, their scholarly work offers far more clarity than the “plain reading” of an English Bible translation potentially tainted with doctrinal prejudices.

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;

This statement is also confusing, but it seems to mean allowing Joe or Sally Smith to be trained in basic hermeneutics is a threat to the Bible’s authority, and/or that mutualists make the Bible less clear or accessible by using study tools which not everyone possesses.

But it doesn’t threaten Scripture when complementarian scholars use such tools? This is nonsense.

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.

Complementarians accuse biblical mutualists of merely copy-catting a sick society, but it is they who conform to the world—not today’s culture, but the staunchly hierarchical Greco-Roman culture which the good news of Jesus radically subverted and transformed.

Such cultural conformity is neither biblically authentic nor powered by the Holy Spirit.

The world has finally figured out women should be treated equally, and complementarians’ refusal to recognize the truth only denigrates the gospel.

In a subsequent post, we’ll examine the ten affirmations of the Danvers Statement.