The Current State of Complementarity
Complementarity, as it is unfolded in the Danvers Statement and Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is still as urgent as ever. The Nashville Statement may feel more urgent because it addresses the current tragedies of so-called same-sex “marriage” and so-called “transgenderism.”
In 1987, I wrote the first draft of the Danvers Statement. Thirty years later, I gave input on the final draft of the Nashville Statement (2017). The former was foundational for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; the latter expresses the Council’s abiding relevance and maturity.
Here at the five-year anniversary of Nashville, the leadership of CBMW asked me to reflect on similarities and differences between the two statements for their journal, Eikon (and allowed me to publish the article here as well).1 I address their question below, and then, as one of the early shapers and promoters of a “complementarian” understanding of manhood and womanhood, I also respond to some recent criticism.
Profound Unity
First, as a shaper of both documents, I see a profound unity and prophetic difference between Danvers and Nashville. The unity can be seen, for example, in the following similarities.
The Danvers Statement affirms that “both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood” (affirmation 1). The Nashville Statement affirms that “God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female” (article 3).
Danvers laments “the widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity” (rationale 1), and the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling “the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood” (rationale 2). Nashville similarly laments the fact that “it is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, [so that] God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives” (preamble).
Danvers cites the “growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse” (rationale 5). Nashville names them: “It is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism” (article 10). “We deny that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship” (article 1).
Both statements challenge “the spirit of the age,” especially its encroachments into Christ’s church. Danvers warns of “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” (rationale 10). Nashville sounds a similar alarm: “Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life?” (preamble).
Prophetic Difference
The prophetic difference between the two statements is that Danvers confronts women who intend to be pastors, while Nashville confronts women who intend to be men. Danvers confronts men who are unwilling to lead their wives; Nashville confronts men who can’t lead their wives because they don’t have one — they are “married” to men.
As the term “complementarian” was coming into being in the 1980s, the antagonists were different from those of the Nashville Statement. For example, the subtitle of “the big blue book” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Thus, the antagonists that we were addressing in those days were voices like Paul Jewett, Margaret Howe, Gretchen Gabelein Hull, Gilbert Billezekian, Aida Spencer, Patricia Gundry, Craig Keener, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. I regarded all of these men and women not only as Christian but also as evangelical — at least at first. Danvers was, you might say, an in-house plea to family members to reconsider how they read the Bible.
-
Don’t Sacrifice Your Children
To all the Christian parents who still have your kids drinking from the filthy waters of public education, you also need to repent. Stop sending your children to Baal. Stop sending your children to Caesar. Go and get your kids and give them the education they deserve. Christian children have a right to a Christian education, and one day you’ll have to give an account to Jesus Christ himself. You already know this and therefore have no excuse. To whom much is given, much is required.
About 12 years ago, my wife and I decided to pull our kids from the government school system and commit to giving them a home education. When we did that, some of our friends and family members thought we were crazy: “What do you mean you’re homeschooling?”
We explained to them that God’s Word commands us to raise our children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord.” We explained that every successful student becomes like his teacher, just as Jesus said, “Every disciple who is fully trained will be just like his Master.”
We told them them that because we didn’t want a godless, anti-Christian, government-run school system to disciple our children, we were willing to sacrifice up to half our total income to protect the hearts and minds of our little ones. Some nodded of course with eyebrows lifted, eyes glazed over, and the little corners of their mouths pointed downward. But that was okay. We knew they didn’t understand. We knew we would have to bear the shame of stepping out in faith and obedience to God’s Word. We knew we would be characterized as religious fanatics and regarded as overzealous and extreme.
But you know what? Today more than ever we are proud of the decision we made. Our walk with the Lord has been greatly strengthened and our faith has been confirmed time and again throughout the past 12 years. Especially, as we look around at the current state and condition of our nation, we know that we did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. The degeneracy of public education is manifest.
In the picture below you can see just how far we’ve fallen. What “show and tell” used to be and what it is today is a clear testimony to the absolute corruption of our society.
And no, this is not one of those “I told you so” kind of rants.
Read More
Related Posts: -
An Overture Before the PCA General Assembly: Toward Better Protection
In thoughtful consideration for the safety of children, many churches in the PCA already perform background checks on individuals who help directly or tangentially with children’s ministries. Background checks help validate the qualification of every believer to “keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable,” (1 Pet. 2:12). The wisdom of the practice applies even more to the men who shepherd the church. They are to be “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:7) and “proven blameless” (1 Tim. 3:10).
In 2019, nine presbyteries (10%) overtured the General Assembly for a study committee on domestic abuse and sexual assault. The assembly approved the formation of the study committee with amendments by the Overture Committee that restricted them from bringing recommended changes to our Book of Church Order.
Despite no formal recommendations, one of the most straightforward and essential pieces of wisdom from the report is protecting the church through background checks. The report specifically suggests the following:
“Presbyteries enacting policies to require background checks and abuse training for all ordinands and transfers, and policies to protect whistleblowers against retribution” (emphasis added, DASA Report, M49GA, p. 949)
And:
“Candidates for the gospel ministry and others employed for spiritual oversight (Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, etc.) should be examined carefully to determine their godly character. Presbyteries and Sessions are encouraged to carefully investigate a candidate for leadership roles including but not limited to the candidate’s knowledge of theology. Background checks, social media checks, and careful reference checks should be used to screen for abusive leadership.” (emphasis added, DASA Report, M49GA, pp. 1128, 1159, 1183)
In thoughtful consideration for the safety of children, many churches in the PCA already perform background checks on individuals who help directly or tangentially with children’s ministries. Background checks help validate the qualification of every believer to “keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable,” (1 Pet. 2:12). The wisdom of the practice applies even more to the men who shepherd the church. They are to be “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:7) and “proven blameless” (1 Tim. 3:10).
Officers of the church “watch over the souls” of the congregation (Heb. 13:17); and warnings against mistreating children and those with childlike faith indicate how seriously Jesus took this shepherding (Matt 18:5,6). Additionally, the Westminster Larger Catechism, when discussing the “sins of superiors” under the fifth commandment, warns leaders against the “careless exposing, or leaving [those in their care] to wrong, temptation, and danger,” (WLC 130).
In light of these things and in response to the advice from the DASA Report, a group of elders in different presbyteries crafted an overture to address this issue. As part of that group, I brought a version to my session which then referred it to South Texas Presbytery. The overture proposes an amendment to the BCO that church courts perform a background check on all potential officers (TEs, REs, & Deacons). This proposed amendment will come before the 50th General Assembly as Overture 6.
Some presbyteries already make provisions for background checks for all TEs by way of their standing rules. However, no such mechanism exists for REs and Deacons except that every congregation adopts their own policies. While specific policies within presbyteries and congregations can be further developed beyond background checks, this overture, and its recommended placement in the BCO, suggests that background checks should be viewed as an extension of the existing responsibility of church courts to perform “a careful examination” including “personal character” (21-4.c; 24-1.a) and “Christian experience” (13-6).
Background checks are not a new exam but a wise addition to existing requirements. The secular courts and agencies are not being brought into the evaluation process of potential officers. Instead church courts are utilizing all available information for the preexisting requirement to judge the character of officers. There may be cases in which exams contain information that is not disqualifying. There may be cases in which the exam contains information that pre-dates conversion and does not indicate a sinful proclivity in the potential candidate. Any performed background is not to be treated as a pass or fail situation but additional information to in wisdom evaluate the character of a candidate (more on this issue is addressed below).
That said, few overtures are sent to the General Assembly in perfect form. Overture 6 is no different. There are things that could eventually be added or removed to improve it. However, the amendment as it stands makes a clear declaration that protection of Christ’s flock is as important as protecting the Church’s doctrine. There is not likely to be significant disagreement on the underlying principles of the overture.
However, a straightforward writing and reading of such an overture still creates issues, questions, and concerns. The same questions that were anticipated by the authors of the overture and that were discussed on the floor of South Texas Presbytery will likely come up again during the debate of the Overture Committee. In light of this, it may be helpful to report some of the deliberations made in the drafting of the overture. I hope that a review of these issues will help the Overtures Committee further improve the amendment.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Notion of Authority in God’s Created Order
God built authority into creation from the beginning, and Satan’s strategy—his plan for maximizing the humiliation he wanted to inflict on God—was to tear down those good and beautiful structures of authority. Do you realize the importance of this? It’s nothing short of profound: to tear down good, God-ordained authority is to join Satan in his rebellion against God; it’s to do serpent-like work.
How God Set It Up
Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (Gen. 2:19–20)
Have you ever thought about why this odd little story is included in Scripture? Obviously, it shows Adam beyond any doubt that none of the other creatures God created would make a good wife for him. You can imagine Adam’s dismay as the last animal walked by and Adam said, “Zebra. Yeah, that’s not going to work either, but I do admire your creativity, Lord!”
But there’s another reason Moses records Adam naming the animals. By doing so, Adam exercised the authority God had given him over all creatures (1:28). Even in modern culture, we recognize that naming something is an act of authority. When parents name their children, they’re showing their authority over them. When some people name their cars—my wife once named hers “Jellybean”—that’s an act of authority, in that case derived from ownership. Anyway, you get the point. When Adam named the animals, he acted as their king. He carried out the authority and dominion God had given him over the cosmos and its inhabitants.
But look at what happens next:
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen. 2:21–23)
Adam names Eve. Of course, that doesn’t put Eve on the same level as animals. Genesis 1:26–27 says at least four times that she, just like Adam, was made in the image and likeness of God. What’s more, the phrase “have dominion” in Genesis 1:28 is in the plural, applied to both the man and the woman. Yet even as Adam and Eve both rule over the cosmos as king and queen, God still institutes even within their marriage relationship a structure of authority. Adam is given the responsibility of holding loving authority over his wife, Eve.In this booklet, Greg Gilbert explains why God reserved the office of pastor and elder exclusively for men by examining the structures of authority God established from the very beginning. Part of the Church Questions series.
Do you see what God did in these early chapters of Genesis? He designed a beautiful framework of royal authority throughout his cosmos. Adam and Eve exercise godly dominion over the animals, while within their relationship Adam reflects God’s divine character as he holds authority over his wife. Ruling over it all is the High King of the cosmos, God Himself.
Authority often strikes people as an inherently negative, abusive, or tyrannical concept. That’s understandable, given how sinful human beings have abused it throughout history.
Read More
