I’ve addressed the “Rationale” and “Affirmations” portions of the Danvers Statement in previous articles. In this final post we’ll examine its purposes. (They are italicized.)
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash
The section begins:
“Recognizing our own abiding sinfulness and fallibility, and acknowledging the genuine evangelical standing of many who do not agree with all of our convictions, nevertheless, moved by the preceding observations and by the hope that the noble Biblical vision of sexual complementarity may yet win the mind and heart of Christ’s church, we engage to pursue the following purposes:”
(The preceding observations mentioned are the ten points under “Rationale.”)
The introduction expresses the hope of complementarianism that its “noble biblical vision” will be more convincing to the church than the view of evangelical biblical mutualists on male/female relationships.
Here are the purposes of the Danvers Statement:
- To study and set forth the Biblical view of the relationship between men and women, especially in the home and in the church.
Having just acknowledged the genuine evangelical standing of biblical mutualists, complementarians present their interpretation as the biblical view on this topic.
It doesn’t matter that evangelical egalitarians base their view on an inspired view of Scripture, too; apparently, there is only one “biblical” view.
- To promote the publication of scholarly and popular materials representing this view.
At the 1986 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, five evangelical egalitarian scholars presented papers articulating their biblically grounded view on male/female relationships. Only one scholar with a view of male headship presented. Alarmed, he met with a few others to discuss what to do about the growing egalitarian movement.
In short order, the group formed the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, coined the term “complementarian,” and wrote the Danvers Statement to promote scholarly work and popular books on their view.
Egalitarian scholarly works and popular books abound as well, but complementarians have enjoyed the lion’s share of influence in the Christian publishing market for decades.
This advantage helps convince the average layperson the complementarian view must be the correct one, since so many Christian books promote it.
- To encourage the confidence of lay people to study and understand for themselves the teaching of Scripture, especially on the issue of relationships between men and women.
Amen to helping lay people study Scripture more deeply and understand it for themselves! However,
complementarians place a great deal of emphasis on what they call “gender roles,” even though the Bible neither mentions the term “roles” nor over-emphasizes gender its grand narrative of the story of God and his relationship with humankind.
The conversation keeps coming back to who’s in charge between the sexes (in the complementarian view, men). Promoting this idea is evidently of utmost importance.
- To encourage the considered and sensitive application of this Biblical view in the appropriate spheres of life.
The wording is unclear here, but it appears to mean trying to convince people to apply the complementarian view to life (the only biblical view, according to #1). The “appropriate spheres” seem to be the church and the home, as opposed to society in general.
In short, the belief is men should be in charge, and women should be subordinate at home and in the church.
5. “And thereby
—to bring healing to persons and relationships injured by an inadequate grasp of God’s will concerning manhood and womanhood,”
An inadequate grasp of man-made constructs doesn’t injure humans at all. However, an inadequate grasp of the mutual partnership which God intended for his male and female image-bearers certainly does cause harm.
Women are especially injured by the “role” assigned to them by complementarianism.
In complementarian spaces, women do not have an equal voice or place at the decision-making table, which leaves them vulnerable to all manner of abuse.
Story after story keeps coming out: an abused wife seeks help from complementarian pastors and elders, only to be re-victimized, gaslit, and told to submit harder.
Rinse and repeat.
Do we think God is indifferent to this egregious treatment of his beloved daughters? Do we really believe he elevates “womanhood” as defined by complementarians above actual women?
Let’s just say this “purpose” has not aged well.
Moving on,
“—to help both men and women realize their full ministry potential through a true understanding and practice of their God-given roles,”
This euphemism should be translated as,
“Only when women comprehend and embrace the restrictions that we say God puts on them will they realize their full ministry potential.”
Nonsense. Women cannot realize their full ministry potential when saddled with man-made gender roles.
When a woman senses God’s call to leadership, complementarianism tells her that her discernment must be wrong and there are plenty of other ministries she can get involved in.
That’s a far cry from helping women “realize their full ministry potential.”
“—and to promote the spread of the gospel among all peoples by fostering a Biblical wholeness in relationships that will attract a fractured world.”
Society finally understands that women are not inferior to men and therefore should be treated equally. Our conscience reinforces this truth.
Preaching a message of male hierarchy and female subjugation to a fractured world—and weaponizing Scripture to do so—only serves to repel the very people who desperately need the gospel.
16 million women have left the church in the last decade.
If complementarians think that presenting an airbrushed vision of male rule is going to bring them back, they are sorely mistaken.
Leave a Reply