Deconstructing Rationale #3 of the Danvers Statement
Atheists experience more happiness in marriage and have a lower divorce rate than complementarian Christians
The Council is concerned with: 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.
Read the introduction to this series HERE.
My Commentary on Rationale-3
Aside from within the minds of complementarian leaders, so-called distortions [caused by equality] within a marriage are non-existent. If there are problems in a marriage, we can be sure mutual autonomy is not one of them. Among Christians, complementarian marriages, in which the husbands have autonomy, but wives do not, experience the most problems, seven times as many more than egalitarian marriages. Even atheists experience more happiness in marriage and have a lower divorce rate than complementarian Christians. Yet, the Council is concerned with the increasing promotion given to what they call, “feminist egalitarianism.”
To complementarians and most conservatives, whether Christian or not, feminism is the ultimate evil, destroyer of families [most especially of males], and the enemy of all that is good. Controversial social issues abound, many of which oppose biblical Christianity. I do not support calling these agendas “feminist” agendas. Call them by whatever name their agenda is but stop congregating every controversial social issue under the umbrella of feminism, which is simply advocating for the rights of women based on equality of the sexes.
The semantics of this issue are multifaceted and nuanced. It doesn’t do to wade into these waters half-prepared. That’s why understanding the history of the words feminism and feminist is vital. As far back as 2016, I called for conservatives to stop painting every agenda they feared as a feminist agenda. Space doesn’t permit going into details on that, but the article can be found on my blog, Jocelyn Andersen: Many Feminists are Pro-Family & Pro-Life. Complementarians weaponize the word feminist, using it against anyone they want to marginalize and cancel. I write about this in my book.
From the beginning, complementarians adopted the strategy of calling every agenda they fear and hate a “feminist” agenda, even when the agenda has nothing to do with equality/autonomy of the sexes.
Complementarians have a morbid fear of female influence. The following quote, from a Church of God pastor, illustrates perfectly how they view feminists, and who they are eager to call feminists. While reading the quote, keep in mind, this pastor belongs to a denomination that considers itself egalitarian and is talking about Bible-believing, church-going, Christian women (who are the majority of members and the back-bone of virtually every church). He wrote that, “The feminist and diabolical spirit has invaded every major Christian movement. Their goal is to place women right beside men in administration, decisions of doctrine, and practice, and superintendent responsibilities. They would rather the church cease to exist than to fail their goal, and, in fact, the church will cease to be a part of Christ’s body if they succeed.” -- Pastor Joseph Chambers
The actual definition of a feminist is a person who supports women’s rights on the basis of equality of the sexes, i.e., someone who supports mutual autonomy. What’s wrong with that? In calling shared autonomy “feminist egalitarianism,” the council is deliberately [and falsely] using semantics to cast a bad light on a good thing. Mutual autonomy is a good thing.
Choosing words that transform shared autonomy into “feminist egalitarianism” was a manipulative masterstroke of semantics on the part of the Council. Egalitarianism simply supports mutual self-governance of the sexes. Nothing wrong with that.
Rationale number three claims that shared autonomy of the sexes distorts complementarian marriage. Thank God it does. Complementarian marriages are the most at risk because they require conflict to maintain the male-centered balance of power. How else to establish the husband as family governor, tiebreaker, and last word in all disagreements?
Mutual autonomy distorts the governance of wives by husbands. Thank God it does. Whether governed by a good master or a bad master, complementarian wives struggle to submit. It is painful for them. It causes them unhappiness. Elisabeth Elliot, who was against autonomy for women, wrote that women cry. She wrote that they cried for no reason. Elliot was wrong. If someone cries, it is always for a reason. People cry because they are hurt, sad, angry, frustrated, frightened, or downright miserable. People cry for lots of reasons, but, unless they’re shedding crocodile tears, they never cry for no reason. Obviously Elliott cried about things she refused to admit to, things she may not have had the courage to face. So she cried. And then painted herself [and all other women] as silly criers.
Elizabeth Rice Handford, whose book is still widely promoted among complementarians, wrote, “Alas fellow women, I confess that obedience, even to a good husband, isn’t easy, and sometimes it is nearly intolerable!”
So much for complementarianism leading to “glad harmony.”
And so what if some complementarian marriages “work?” Many marriages are complementarian in name only. The couple claims to believe the doctrine but live their lives entirely egalitarian. Everyone knows more than a few couples like that. They’re happy, because while they give lip-service to soul-draining complementarianism, they are actually practicing egalitarians.
Of course, anything will “work” for some. Elisabeth Elliot wrote that she saw happy polygamous marriages. They “worked.” But she never declared polygamy as God’s great design for marriage.
Failed complementarian marriages are often blamed on “warped models.” The mother of Elissa Wall, blamed Elissa’s nightmare of a polygamous marriage on a “warped model.” Elissa grew up in a happy polygamous family. He mother had been a happy “sister wife.” Elissa wrote about it in her book, Stolen Innocence.
The men and women of CBMW are concerned with the wrong things. It is male governance and not mutual autonomy that causes distortions in the “glad harmony” (who talks like that?) between husbands and wives. The correlation between strongly held religious beliefs about gender-based-hierarchy and misery in marriage are well-established. There are numerous problems in marriage that can cause women to cry, but paired autonomy is not one of them.
When was the last time anyone heard anyone say, “I want to be in subjection, I want to be dependent, I do not like having self-rule over my own person?” I guarantee no one has ever heard anyone (in their right minds) say such a thing. You know why? Because God created every human in his image. We are beings who love liberty because our Creator loves liberty. For where the Spirit of the Lord is…there is liberty.
Jocelyn Andersen is a Bible teacher, author, and blogger. She writes and speaks about a variety of topics with an emphasis on the subject of God and Women. She 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." She is currently working on her first novel and is a member of AWSA (Advanced Writers & Speakers Association). Her work has been featured in magazines, newspapers, radio, and television.
Jocelyn is open to requests for writing assignments, anthology contributions, and conference speaker.