Deconstructing Rationale #1 of the Danvers Statement

A false premise and a strawman argument

Rationale #1

QUOTE FROM DANVERS STATEMENT: We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern: The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity. END QUOTE

See introduction to this series HERE

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is concerned with the widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the “complementary differences between masculinity and femininity.”

The drafters of the Danvers Statement begin their definitive theological articulation of complementarianism with a FALSE premise, a strawman argument. Within the mainstream and evangelical Christian communities, there has never been uncertainty about, or confusion concerning, differences between the sexes…aside from those created by the Council and their adherents.

It’s an interesting aside that egalitarian Christians were the first to use the term complementary in describing differences between the sexes. Complementarian leaders then usurped the term and created a strawman argument which they used to create unbiblical roles which cause confusion among complementarians when they fail to conform to the entirely manmade, environmental, and cultural constructs of masculinity and femininity.

Complementarian leaders busy themselves with creating strawman arguments, such as Rationale Number One of the Danvers Statement, intended to distract attentions from the fact that egalitarian Christians have never denied differences between the sexes. Indeed, Christian egalitarianism affirms the complementary nature of biological and physiological differences between the sexes without assigning hierarchical, restrictive, and unbiblical gender-roles based on the social constructs of femininity and masculinity.

It benefits the complementarian cause to stir up elevated emotions regarding the issue of gender roles. In truth, complementarianism cannot flourish outside of confusion, contention, and strife. That is the only environment where male authoritarianism can actually be seen in action. Where better than family or church disagreements to provide the needed visual demonstrations of patriarchy? Contention within homes and churches are where complementarian men showcase their status as the final decision-makers, the bottom line, the tie-breakers, as supreme leaders over women in all things.

Lest anyone should be offended by our use of the word patriarchy, be informed that Owen Strachan, former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, stated that complementarianism is patriarchy. The council has no problem with this statement and no problem with Owen Strachan to this day, despite the fact that Strachan also stated that our Creator has staked EVERYTHING on men. 

This is heresy. Yet, despite his grossly unbiblical statement, Owen Strachan is still a respected leader within the complementarian camp.

The idea of gender roles is not biblical. It is a 100% man-made concept in large part dependent upon the limitations provided by the artificial constructs of femininity and masculinity.

Without denying differences between the sexes, actually appreciating differences between the sexes, this writer asserts that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are unbiblical and purely social constructs, which evolve and vary according to different cultures, time periods, and religious paradigms. Both men and women suffer terribly from these constructs, which are embedded into our psyches and the psychological development of children through positive and negative reinforcements within homes and social environments.

Complementarian-designed roles are deliberately intended to limit women in their gifts, callings, and obedience to God, by telling them that they are subjectively imagining these callings. Women are instructed to ignore the calling and it aside because God “doesn’t call women to these things.”

Complementarianism-designed roles are deliberately intended to revoke a woman’s God-given right to adult autonomy and the pursuit of happiness.

The pursuit of happiness is an assumed masculine right that is somehow transformed into a “self-centered” and “evil” desire when applied to women. The pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with femininity or masculinity. The pursuit of happiness is a biblical and God-given blessing for both women and men.

It is God’s express and written will that we prosper and be in health as our souls prosper. Who can disagree that prospering includes the successful pursuit of happiness? Pursuing happiness is not selfish or evil. Happy people are generally better people. Happy people tend to contribute to the happiness of others. Children raised by happy parents tend develop in far more healthy and stable ways than children raised by unhappy parents.

When Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth uses the word, rights [regarding women], she often puts it in quotes, as if “rights” is an evil and selfish concept when applied to women. In fact, complementarian writers frequently precede the word “rights” with the word “selfish” when speaking to or writing about women.

In her booklet, “Biblical Portrait of Womanhood,” DeMoss advises women to yield all their “rights” to God, as if every Christians, regardless of sex, should not yield our all to our Creator, purely out of love for HIM. But DeMoss doesn’t mean it in that way. She means that women should give up their unassailable and God-given right to law-abiding adult autonomy and lay her precious right to the pursuit of happiness at the feet of men, most especially at the feet of husbands. 

Back to Rationale Number One of the Danvers Statement, which states there is “widespread confusion about masculinity and femininity.” This “confusion” is illustrated in the following statement made by a complementarian wife known as “The Transformed Wife” who goes by the handle @godlywomanhood on Twitter. She is a Danvers Statement disciple who subjectively defines what is and is not masculine or feminine. She then exposes her own confusion concerning Rationale Number One when she hypocritically disregards her own authoritative statement about what feminine “godly womanhood” is. She wrote: “GOD DOESN’T WANT US (women) TO BE COMBATIVE, AGGRESSIVE, AND LOUD. THESE ARE ALL MASCULINE TRAITS…” Emphasis added.

She became confused about the Danvers Statement: Rationale Number One, when she crossed the line, and, by her own definition of “masculinity,” became combative, aggressive, and loud herself. This happened when she later tweeted: “THE ONLY FEMALE PREACHER/TEACHER IN A CHURCH NAMED IN THE BIBLE IS JEZEBEL. BEWARE OF WHO YOU’RE LEARNING FROM, WOMEN.”

Can anyone disagree that comparing egalitarian women to the evil queen Jezebel is a loud, combative, and aggressive posture?

Complementarian women are sometimes discouraged from biblical scholarship or higher learning. The Transformed Wife (who also tweeted her disapproval of higher education for women) shows that she is somewhat biblically illiterate. Jezebel was not a teacher or preacher in any church, ever. She was an evil queen who was, among other things, a mass-murderer.

The “qualities” described as “masculine” [by the Transformed Wife] are actually behaviors the Bible describes as sinful. Yet she considers these sinful behaviors as acceptable “masculine traits.” What an insult to good and god-fearing men! She is definitely confused as to what constitutes a godly person, regardless of sex, and this confusion stems from the fact that she buys into Rationale Number One of the Danvers Statement. It is not Ok for either women or men to be combative, aggressive, or loud. Yet, due to complementarian gender-role-religion, some Christians believe some sinful behaviors to be acceptable “masculine traits.”

We propose that the only ones who are confused about complementary differences between the sexes are the complementarians themselves, who are obsessed with the idea of gender-based submission and authority. Complementarianism is a sinful paradigm that creates confusion, strife, and contention on every front. It creates men who would be god and idolatry in the women who worship them.

It is the unbiblical Danvers Statement itself that causes confusion. There are no such biblical principles as the femininity or masculinity depicted in the complementarian paradigms of godly womanhood or godly manhood. The phrases [or even hints or suggestions of them] cannot be found anywhere in scripture.

Those of us who are born-again are commanded to live godly lives and are given the same set of gender-neutral biblical principles to live by. God’s ways are not divided by sex. Christians are commanded to love the Lord our God with everything in us and love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus said everything in his Word hinges on these two things. By this, he said, shall all know that we are HIS disciples…that we have love one for another.

Proverbs thirty-one is often cited as an example of godly womanhood. Be reminded that Proverbs thirty-one was written by a woman, the mother of a king. Many believe this to be Bathsheba mother of Solomon. King Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines. The “Proverbs-Thirty-One-Woman” was not necessarily a wife. But even if she was, she was one of hundreds [or a concubines/sex-slave]. Regardless, she ran her own household and had a large amount of personal liberty in a time that was not known for female autonomy[2].

Rationale Number One of the Danvers Statement is all about the socially constructed traits of masculinity and femininity. Definitions of these traits are subjective according to who is defining them. The Bible does include some specific gender and age-based instructions for God’s people, but this in no way undergirds or even resembles the complementarian concept of “gender-based-Christianity.”  

Jesus said if we love the Lord our God with everything in us and love our neighbors as ourselves…we do well.

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

This concludes “Deconstructing the Danvers Statement: Rationale One.” The Danvers Statement consists of ten rationales, five purposes, and ten Affirmations. Will deconstruct Rationale Two in the next segment.

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.