Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Jocelyn Andersen presented this response to the Danvers statement at the Seneca Falls 2 Christian Women’s Rights Convention held in Orlando, Florida on July 24, 2010. For the sake of those who need to compare them, I reproduced it here next to the Danvers statement.* (Danvers in brown, Jocelyn in black.)

The Danvers Statement

Jocelyn Andersen’s response

Rationale

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

Rationale

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

1. The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

1. We are concerned about the widespread uncertainty and confusion within our churches regarding the divinely mandated equality between men and women and the inordinate attention given to the deeply harmful and prejudicial concepts of Biblical masculinity and Biblical femininity as perpetuated by the council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood;

2. the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood;

2. The tragic effects of this confusion in overturning the balance of perfect equality of men and women, within the church and marriage, is inestimable with men and boys assuming the posture of lords of creation, while girls and women fall prey to an unscriptural inferiority;

3. 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;

3. We are concerned about the increasing promotion given to male dominance along with accompanying distortions and/or neglect of the functional equality portrayed in Scripture between redeemed husbands and wives;

4. the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women

4. We are concerned about the widespread ambivalence regarding the value of women except in regards to what is perceived as their “roles” as “vocational” homemakers and other ministries historically performed by women.

5. the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal of human sexuality

5. We are concerned about the spurious charges that equality between the sexes leads to addiction to pornography and radical lifestyle/ world view changes in favor of homosexuality or lesbianism,  which it does not.

6.the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

6. We are convinced that the prevalence of abuse in within Christian families is a direct result of patriocentric theology;

7. the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness;

 

 

7. We are concerned about the growing number of churches enforcing rigid roles for men and women that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in perpetuating the oppression of women and in hindering and crippling men in their efforts at being biblically faithful witnesses;

8. the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;

8. We are concerned about the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities such as the trinity marriage paradigm based on the heretical Arian doctrine of an inferior Jesus.

9. the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity;

9. These hermeneutical oddities pose a threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people, is withdrawn into the restricted realm of Hebrew and Greek “scholars” who attempt with “scholarship” to refute that in Christ there is neither male nor female Jew not Greek slave nor free but that all are one.

10. and behind all this 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.

10. And behind all this, is the apparent accommodation of leaders within the evangelical church to the spirit of male dominance at the expense of biblical authenticity.

Affirmations

 

Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:

We Affirm the Following, Based on our Understanding of Biblical Teachings:

1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).

1. Both man and woman were created in God’s image and are equal before God in every way both in theory and in practical function and application.

2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

2. Distinctions in “masculine” and “feminine” roles are man-made ordinances and were not ordained by God as part of any “created order.”

3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

3. The man’s headship in marriage was not established by God before the Fall, nor later as a result of sin. The doctrine of male “headship” does not exist in scripture.

4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

 

a) In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

 

b) In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women, the most significant being the universal dominance of males over females as both prophecy and all history attest.

a) In the home, the husband’s loving, humble, companionship tends to be replaced by domination or, if he cannot be in charge, by passivity, and if a wife does not joyfully submit to male domination, she is accused of usurping his supposed authority.

b) In the church, sin inclines both women and men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines such women as are called to the ministry to view such calls as gender inappropriate and to rebel against the legitimate call of God in accepting limitations imposed upon them by the unbiblical injunctions of men.

As women, we assume full responsibility for our own neglect of the use of our spiritual gifts in ignoring the call, the responsibility, and the authority to carry out whatever ministry God has called us to do.

5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the work and words of godly men and women. The New Testament affirms the overriding principle that all individuals, whether male or female must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. The patriarchal and racial hierarchy evident in parts of the Old Testament, which is exclusively prophetic and applicable to the Old Covenant Nation of Israel only, is lifted completely, in the New Testament from both Jew and Gentile by the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. There are no longer any legitimate hierarchies involved in race or gender.

 

6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.

a) In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).

b) In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.

a) In the family, husbands should forsake harshness and the selfish idea that they are mandated by God to rule their families and, instead, to grow in love for their wives; wives should forsake blind submission to the false doctrine of male headship. Wives and husbands should grow in love for each other preferring the other before themselves.

b) In the church, There are no governing and teaching roles restricted to men only. Redemption in Christ gives both men and women equal share in the blessings of salvation as well as in governing and teaching roles within the church.

7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).

7. In all of life, and in every situation, domestic or otherwise, Christ is the supreme authority and guide for both men and women. Men are not mandated by God to replace the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christian women.

8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.

8. In the church, both men and women should repent of gender prejudice and respond obediently to a heartfelt sense of call to ministry. Obedience to God should never be set aside in favor of submission to traditions of men. Commands to abstain from obeying the Holy Spirit in regards to ministry gifts and callings are blasphemous and heretical. Biblical teaching—not traditions of men—should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.

9. With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).

9. With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless people in those societies who have never heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed can be excused for ignoring a heartfelt call to the ministry. Gender will not be excused in the day of reckoning for neglecting to fulfill any ministry to which we are called by God. With all authority, for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world. We should obey God and not man in all things.

10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of obedience to the Word of God, and to the Spirit of God, in regards to the authoritative function of women, ,as well as men, in the home, church, and society will lead to increasingly destructive consequences within our families, churches, and the culture at large.

Jocelyn also discusses her view in mp3 format.

————-

*Note: Jocelyn’s site gives permission to reproduce her words for non-commercial purposes. My only change to her words as reproduced in the PDF was to change a minor numbering error.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Jocelyn Andersen responds to the Danvers statement" (3)

  1. “8. We are concerned about the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities such as the trinity marriage paradigm based on the heretical Arian doctrine of an inferior Jesus.”

    I would love to learn more about these oddities… especially on the one of an inferior Jesus…

    Thanks for posting this!
    C. Dunamis

    Like

  2. At the Seneca Falls 2 Convention we also demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Fedexed it to the Chairman and President of CBMW. In it we list 10 concerns and 11 demands based on those concerns. This can also be found in my book “Dethroning Male Headship.” I presented it at the convention and Fedexed it the following Monday.

    My book goes into great detail regarding what the Danvers Statement really means. The authors of the Danvers Statement are still professors and presidents of Southern Baptist Theological Seminaries, so this continues on through them in daily teaching.

    If your reader Dreams of Dunamis really wants to know about the oddities of the Trinity marriage paradigm he will find this in my book also. In my book we deal with the Eternal Son Submission heresy, which is the sole basis for the continuation of female subordination to males in marriage. We don’t explain it because such a theory cannot be explained; however it is taught by Bruce Ware of CBMW and others. Many have swallowed it. But that should not be surprising. Jesus himself said that the religious leaders swallowed a camel and strained out the gnats.

    Simply put, the inferior Jesus refers to the teaching that Jesus is eternally submissive to God. However, that makes 3 Gods: The Father God, and two inferior Gods – Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And then when we add Husbands to that mix because they are inserted inbetween a woman and God at marriage, which makes them part of the Godhead as they are given rulership by those who teach female submission

    You really have to read my book “Dethroning Male Headship.” It is 192 pages and cannot be explained in this short space.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: