Deconstructing the Danvers Statement

Introduction

Traditional-role-religion has always been with us. This series is about The Danvers Statement which defines complementarianism, a paradigm this author calls traditional-role-religion-on-steroids.

In a nutshell, traditional-role-religion teaches that inequalities between the sexes are due to the Fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden, that the inequalities are temporary and limited to this life only. It has been traditionally taught that inequalities between the sexes will be abolished in eternity, where resurrected men and women will enjoy equality forever after.

Complementarianism sees traditional-role-religion as providing unacceptable loopholes for women to eventually (in eternity) enjoy equal status and autonomy with men. So, beginning with the Danvers Statement, they began “plugging the holes” with the uniquely complementarian view of “God’s Created Design” for men and women, who were supposedly created unequal from “The Beginning,” and were meant for different but complementary “roles” in marriage, home, church, and society.

To complementarians, the term complementary does not simply refer to biological and physiological differences between the sexes but rather, more specifically, to differences in gender “roles” and preconceived notions of what constitutes the social constructs of masculinity and femininity.    

Introduction to and comments on the Danvers Statement

The Danvers Statement, drafted in 1987, officially created the theological position of complementarianism. As of this writing, over three decades later, complementarianism is still being aggressively implemented in a systematic way into virtually every modern church, many Christian homes, and most Christian media and para-church organizations.

Complementarianism is the theological view that men and women are limited to different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership. Although most limitations apply only to women.

Complementarian women have limitations imposed on them in virtually every sphere of life. Limitations applied to men are usually only for the purpose of reinforcing the subordinate role of women. An example of this can be found in male students being excluded from the homemaking course offered at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary [1].

At the time the course was first offered, it was a “women only” course and that appears to be the current status today.

The CBMW and the SBC tout homemaking as a high calling but curiously demean it at the same time by excluding men from taking their homemaking course. Some see this as a form of ridicule towards men who enjoy many aspects of homemaking themselves. But aside from the fact that some husbands and fathers choose to become homemakers (a high calling according to the CBMW and SBC…and even to this writer, who was a stay-at-home-parent by choice), what about single fathers who find themselves in that unenviable position (as many women are) of being both breadwinner and homemaker? Why wouldn’t a college-level homemaking course benefit male students and their families/future families? Why won’t the SBC permit male students to take their homemaking course?

The answer to this riddle is obvious. The complementarian SBC, influenced entirely by the Danvers Statement, believes homemaking to be beneath men.

Complementarianism, first outlined and defined in the Danvers Statement, continues to influence the lives of virtually every Christian alive today, even if they have never heard the term.

The Danvers Statement was prepared by several evangelical leaders at the first meeting of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in Dallas, Texas in 1987. They met a second time in 1987 [in Danvers, MA] to formally adopt the statement of their new theology, which they called complementarianism. The Danvers Statement was published in its final form by the CBMW in Wheaton, Illinois in November of 1988. In this series, the statement is reproduced in its entirety along with commentary by the author.

The following is taken from the CBMW website in June of 2023: BEGIN QUOTE “The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [CBMW] has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, S. Lewis Johnson, James Borland, Susan Foh and Ken Sarles (emphasis added by the author).

These figures were concerned by the spread of unbiblical teaching. Under Piper’s leadership, the group drafted a statement outlining what would become the definitive theological articulation of complementarianism, the biblically derived view that men and women are complementary, possessing equal dignity and worth as the image of God, and called to different roles that each glorify him.

The group next met at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers, Massachusetts, on December 2-3, 1987, before the 1987 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The draft was adopted in meeting and called the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The group then voted to incorporate as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” END QUOTE

Complementarianism, via the tenets of the Danvers Statement, undergirds theological positions on marriage relationships and gender-based hierarchies within virtually all Christian churches, denominations, and para-church organizations.

CBMW was the instigator and remains the mover and shaker in promoting the complementarian message of female submission to male governance. But without its many allies, its influence could not have been as pervasive. Early on, the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] gave media and financial impetus to this movement. The complementarian Danvers Statement is the basis for the “Family” portion of the “Baptist Faith and Message 2000”and following that, the “Nashville Statement” issued by the SBC in 2017.

Although CBMW is headquartered on an SBC campus, the signatories of the Danvers and Nashville statements are not all Southern Baptists. Complementarianism, via the tenets of the Danvers Statement, operates in virtually every denomination.

To date, the message of the Danvers Statement retains its massive reach and influence along with enormous financial backing via popular Christian personalities and organizations. Just to name a few: Randy Alcorn, John Piper, John MacArthur, Moody Bible Institute, Lifeway Bookstores, Christianity Today, The Assemblies of God Gospel Publishing House, along with virtually every publisher of Christian literature that is affiliated with major denominations or theological seminaries, including those denominations that “allow” women to preach and pastor but not to oversee.

This writer has sat in Sunday School classes in churches where the pastor was a woman, and in their discipleship material, read quotes from CBMW, John Piper and Wayne Grudem. At one church, when I brought this to the attention of the leadership, they shrugged it off. Because even though the pastor was a woman, respected enough to lead the church (she had, in fact, 40 years prior, founded that church). Even so, they expected her to revert into the “little woman” at home and saw no contradiction in that.  

Denominations that allow women to lead in church, also teach complementarian submission to male authority in the home. One of the most extreme voices against women in leadership [that this writer has ever heard], comes from a Church of God pastor and author who wrote that if women were ever to be equal to men in areas of administration, decisions of doctrine and practice, and superintendent responsibilities, the church would “cease to be a part of the Body of Christ.” Chambers penned these words almost ten years after the publication of the Danvers Statement, in his 1996 book, A Palace for the AntiChrist.

This statement, coming from a Pentecostal pastor, is unbiblical in more ways than we have space to address in this segment, but the fear and hatred of women is clear and is preached from pulpits on a weekly basis. Was Chambers’ prejudice against women shored up and reinforced by the Danvers Statement? Probably.

Material created by the CBMW has found its way into discipleship material of every denomination, including Pentecostal and charismatic denominations, which have historically been woman friendly and do not always officially admit to being complementarian but teach and practice it, nevertheless. The past and present influence of the Danvers Statement cannot be underestimated, allowed to be forgotten, or ignored.

Throughout this series, CBMW, which is the linchpin of all complementarian influence, will also be referred to as “the Council.” Complementarians come in all stripes and colors. Complementarianism has a spectrum that spans the gamut, from so-called “soft,” where women are permitted to hold some leadership positions in church, to the extreme, where women must keep absolutely silent in church. Regardless of where on the spectrum a complementarian church or organization falls, it is universally agreed that wives must submit to the “authority” of husbands. Most complementarian churches adhere to the Danvers Statement and CBMW’s taboo against women authoritatively teaching or preaching the Word of God.

The Danvers Statement authoritatively describes what complementarians claim is God’s glorious and created design for women and men. Extravagant and flowery language deceptively camouflages a very ugly and dangerous paradigm.

The statement restricts the authoritative teaching of the Word of God to men. And yet, from the website of CBMW, we know that the Council practiced hypocrisy, even in this, from the very first when they invited a woman to participate in the drafting of a statement that authoritatively teaches both women and men. Why did they invite a woman to help draft “THE” definitive theological articulation of complementarianism?

The answer is simple. The woman they invited to help draft the Danvers Statement is Susan Foh, the architect of what this writer calls the “Evil Woman” doctrine. Foh teaches that all women are the enemies of all men, most especially that all wives are the enemies of all husbands. She comes to this conclusion based on a skewed interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Foh believes the desires of every woman for their husbands are against them entirely. The men of the Council agree and placed her work on their website. No doubt, feeling it was better for their image if this hard-hitting diatribe against women was delivered by a woman.

In her 1975 book "What Is the Woman's Desire?", she wrote, “Sin’s desire for Cain was one of possession or control. The desire was such that Cain should master it, wrestle with it and conquer it; it required an active struggle…[In Gen. 3:16] there is a struggle…between the one who has the desire (wife) and the one who must/should rule or master (husband)…After the fall, the husband no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. The woman’s desire is to control her husband…and he must master her, if he can. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. And so, the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny, domination, and manipulation.”

The Danvers Statement consists of ten rationales, five purposes, and ten Affirmations. We will begin with the rationales, in which the Council states they have been moved in their purpose by the following contemporary developments which they observe with deep concern.”

This concludes the Introduction to Deconstructing the Danvers Statement. Will discuss Rationale Number One in the next segment of this series.

---

[1] Homemaking House complete at seminary - TEXAN Online

Southwestern Seminary’s Homemaking Concentration | thoughtweavings (wordpress.com)

[2] Jocelyn Andersen: The Proverbs 31 Woman: You've never seen her like this!

Jocelyn Andersen writes and speaks about a variety of topics with an emphasis on the subjects of domestic violence awareness and God and Women. She is working on her first novel and is the author of several non-fiction books including, "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence" and "Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery, and the Evangelical Caste System." Her work has been featured in magazines, newspapers, radio, and television. She is open to requests for writing assignments, anthology contributions, and conference speaker.

Click HERE for links to all Jocelyn’s Substack columns. Connect with Jocelyn on Goodreads and LinkedIn.