Finding Grace by the Way of Learning What Grace is Not

 What is grace and how does one find it?  We all have the sense that we have “fallen from grace,” but how can we get back to that place that we lost and that from which we feel like we’ve fallen?  What if we’ve never really known grace at all?  I find it quite easy to feel more connected to my failures and imperfections, particularly when I try to measure up to the ideal that others have created for me.  Good performance often brings good favor, but that feeling is rare and always fleeting. It never satisfies for very long.  It stops when I inevitably show my human nature and acceptance ceases, sometimes bringing the pain of rejection and disapproval.  This is not grace.  I long for unmerited favor and joy, the expression of unconditional love.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:

It is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9

The Apostle Paul points out that to us that grace is a free gift from God that cannot be earned in any way.  Grace comes to us through faith and not by anything we can do.  We only need to believe in Jesus (God in sinless human flesh) and in the Blood He shed to pay for our sins.  God then sees our faith in Him and extends His favor to us for no other reason, for there is nothing about ourselves that merits His grace.  We then embark upon a journey of transformation as we become more like Him, the process of being made holy and set apart for Him (sanctification). 

Paul’s writings define “grace” as the antithesis of “works” and of “the Law” in a way that neither Greek nor Hebrew did before.  This grace originates unilaterally from within God Himself, favor that proceeds from God apart from anything that man does.  The understanding of grace as God’s gift describes something quite radical and difficult to understand in human terms, because everything else in life must be earned and always comes with a cost.  I believe that grace is something that the natural mind does not really comprehend, making it a true miracle when we receive it through faith and the Spirit which lets us see and understand.  Our minds of flesh cannot make sense of real grace apart from the Spirit.

Not unlike far too many Christians before him, Bill Gothard fails to fully grasp the nature of grace and sutbly redefines it improperly, understanding it in human terms.  He accepts grace as Paul defines it for one’s initial moment of conversion, but for the ongoing sanctification process of being continually changed by the Holy Spirit, he effectively teaches that grace must be earned.  In the Epistles of James and Peter, Gothard takes note of the proverb that God opposes the proud and gives grace to those who are humble. He concludes wrongly and too simplistically that grace should be sought, merited, and accumulated through acts of obedience, submission and humility.  Though these traits are desirable ones, they are not any kind of means that one uses to achieve the end of more grace and faith.  They are the effect, not the cause.  Gothard, the patriocentrics, and many of those of the Quivefull mindset reverse them, mistaking the effect for the cause.

Sadly, this makes grace out to be exactly the opposite of what grace really is, changing God’s gift of unmerited favor that comes through faith into a privilege that must be earned and merited.  Rather than the actions coming forth because of the desire of the heart to be obedient to God out of love, Gothard makes grace into a commodity that must be bought and paid for through following laws, particularly through acts of submission, humility, and suffering.  The follower believes the illusion that they are following God, but they are using God Himself as a mystical means to a desired end of power, safety, and acceptance.

Many unsuspecting and earnest people who desire to honor God unknowingly accept Gothard’s paradigm and proceed to understand saving and sanctifying grace as something that must be continually earned through good works like submission to remain in God’s favor.  Children learn that they are loved and get grace only when they perform through acts submission and duty.  Parents teach this to their children when they act out the new lessons they’ve learned, protective rules that were devised to keep safe and holy the precious things of God. Performance and comparison become the counterfeits for true intimacy and grace, but the system actually fosters duty and deadness instead.  Sometimes, it fosters bitterness because children recognize that what their parents define as love feels more to them like fear, obligation, and guilt.

These misguided parents should be shown mercy, because their own lack of understanding points out that they also do not understand love themselves, or they’ve set it aside for a plan that they believed would make them better lovers of God.  They understand that they are loved themselves only to the degree that they are able to perform and live out a list of laws and standards -- outward signs that prove that they belong to God on the inside.  Those who follow God in this way soon come to understand that can only be loved when they perform up to expectations.  They learn from their teachers to resist the true message of grace by wrongly discounting it as lawlessness.

God does not love this way.  This is NOT grace.  It is just the opposite.  Grace cannot be earned, and God offered it to us because we there was no other way to make our way to His heart of love.  He makes the way.

Grace says, "I love you, forgive you, and grant you mercy, despite your imperfections."  Grace says that though you fail and are weak, though you sin and make mistakes, I love you anyway and think you’re a most remarkable and wonderful creature.  Grace sees past the flaws and loves the good potential it sees in you, and it makes you realize that you want to be better than you are now.  It helps you see what it sees, that which you cannot yet see in yourself.  It holds out hope for you and creates a place of joy and healing, even though you really don’t deserve it.  None of us deserve it, yet it is freely, freely given to us out of love.  Grace believes the best about you until circumstances and that sanctification process can catch up to where you’re meant to be.  It is God’s willful act of mercy, giving you all the wealth of benefit that you could never earn in a million lifetimes.

If you’ve never known grace, the expression of what a friend of mine calls “ego-free love,” I hope and pray that you will begin to know it.  It makes you feel wonderful and safe, not ashamed and hopeless. This is the spirit and attitude that we should have for one another, not benchmarking and performing that we might understand from our churches and from within our families.   It is the center of the loving, forgiving heart of God who has renewed mercies for us every morning. His grace and Spirit fill our hearts so that we no longer need the lists of duty, doing the right thing out of joy because we love Him Who delights in us.  God extends grace to us, and grace makes the way for us -- for there is no other way.  Grace is God’s heart for us that delights in us, His gift to us, freely given.

A Brief Overview of the Development of Eternal Subordination of the Son Doctrine: What You Must Believe to Fully Embrace the Danvers Statement

I have stated many times that if the Council on Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) actually came right out and stated what they believed about basic doctrines, far more people would have challenged and rejected their ideas.  By making statements vague and ambiguous and by relying on linguistic boobytraps, groups like CBMW can entice a person and get them committed to the surface doctrine, and by the time they reveal the unpleasant or questionable aspects of their beliefs, people are too deeply committed to them to just walk away.  The most troubling doctrine that is foundational to CBMWs complementarian ideology is their concept of the Trinity.

But how did this concept come about?

Attaching All Doctrine to the Doctrine of God
First, consider what J. Ligon Ducan had to say about Reformed Theology when discussing the implications of gender at the Different By Design Conference in 2008 (04Feb08, Session1).  He mentions that RC Sproul was once asked what made Reformed Theology unique.  Sproul reportedly answered, “In Reformed Protestant Theology, all other theology is seen in relation to the Doctrine of God.  That every other area on which the Bible teaches is seen in relation to the Doctrine of God.”  Duncan asserts that many of our doctrinal issues and problems in Christianity arise because we do not properly connect all other doctrines back to the Doctrine of God.  Thus, the “Biblical foundation for women’s ministry in the local church is going to root it’s teaching about Christian womanhood in the Doctrine of God.”

Covenant of Redemption
Noting that Ligon notes a standard of linking all doctrine back to the God’s identity and character in some way to be legitimate, consider Covenant Theology’s “Covenant of Redemption,” a concept that is not held by all Reformed Believers and rejected by Dispensationalists.  Monergism.com defines the “Covenant of Redemption” in this way:

In Reformed theology, the pactum salutis has been defined as a pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son in which the Father promises to redeem an elect people. In turn the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate...by acting as surety of the covenant of grace for and as mediator of the covenant of grace to the elect. In his active and passive obedience, Christ fulfills the conditions of the pactum salutis...ratifying the Father's promise, because of which the Father rewards the Son's obedience with the salvation of the elect. And because of this the Holy Spirit applies the Son's work to his people through the means of grace.

David Van Drunen & Scott Clark: Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry, p. 168    

There are some problems with this idea.  The details of this covenant are not spelled out or told to us in any Scripture.  It depicts no scene where the Divine Persons interacted and came to an agreement, nor does it describe an account where God had a conversation with aspects of Himself before time and creation began.  It is an assumption based upon the speculation of men.

What we do know is that while on earth and while incarnate, Jesus had to empty Himself of some  divine aspects in order to be fully human, temporarily setting aside His rights to “grasp” those abilities in order to become the Son of Man (Phillipians 2).  It does not necessarily or need imply that Jesus was eternally void of this power, and the concept of the knosis or the emptying can account for this .  Jesus states in Gethsemane that He could have called twelve thousand angels to rescue Him, demonstrating that He had the option to decline the Cross and was not compelled by the order of the Father (Matthew 12:53).  His purpose in the Garden involved making the decision to go through with the process, fully committing to it because the option to decline was open and available to Him.  It all depends on your presuppositions, doesn’t it?

Keep in mind that those who govern CBMW follow Reformed Theology, noting Ligon Duncan’s words about and goal to connect all doctrines back to the Doctrine of God.  Please note again that not all who follow Reformed Theology embrace the Covenant of Redemption as legitimate (myself included).

Addition of Gender Hierarchy and the Juvenile Jesus to the Covenant of Redemption
The Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) takes the Covenant of Redemption a bit further by adding a concept of hierarchy to it, a concept that Kevin Giles claims was introduced by George Knight in his 1977 book. It suggests that Jesus was and always will be an “eternal son,” and many who believe ESS suggest that Jesus was a youthful God that required growth and development before His incarnation.  If an agreement was made, they add to this covenant a hierarchy and a power structure.  

Some suggest that Jesus had to choose between incarnation and equality with the Father, as though he was a developing youth before the earth was created (Denny Burk at the Evangelical Theological Society).  Some homeschooling advocates claim that Jesus was homeschooled by the Father in heaven, long before creation and human history, during His development period (Doug Phillips in at homeschooling conferences in the late ‘90s).  And some maintain that Jesus does not have the authority to hear an answer prayer but only delivers prayer to the Father (Bruce Ware in private communications to verify his beliefs).

Along with the immature Jesus concept comes the idea that God the Father rules and reigns over God the Son -- that the Father always has and always will.  Why is this significant?  It allows men like Ligon Duncan to claim that their view of marriage and gender derives directly from the Doctrine of God, and it gives them the illusion that their doctrine is therefore sound and just.  It also suggests an elite status for those who agree with them or are numbered among them.

What Should We Believe and Why?
We must ask ourselves just who it is that we believe.  Do we believe what is actually written in Scripture first about who God is, or do we just trust in what people tell us we should believe?

Ralph Smith claims that there were four Reformed theologians who first accepted the Covenant of Redemption.  Three of those men were Dutch Reformed theologians (Johannes Coccieus, Herman Witsius, Gisbertus Voetius), and one was a German theologian who helped pen the Heidelberg Confession (Caspar Olevianus).  Where can you find a clear support in the Bible for the “Covenant of Redemption”?  If you do accept their concept, do you believe that this indicates that their is an obligatory hierarchy among the persons of the Godhead? (Many believe that this distorts the Covenant of Redemption and falls into a semi-Arian heresy that makes Jesus a lesser God.)   And if you go this far in your ideas, do you believe that gender is a reflection of this presumed hierarchy in the Godhead and that gender is directly connected to God’s identity?  What Scripture tells us this clearly?  Do you have to review two or three CBMW publications or published works to answer that question?  If you believe this much, do you believe that rejection of CBMW’s concept of gender renders those people open theists who reject God’s identity and those who worship a false God?  How far are you willing to follow?  Ask yourself just who and what you are following.

I believe that Ephesians 5 directs all believers to submit to one another and that wives should submit to their own husbands as husbands love their wives by treating them in the same way that they treat their own bodies.  We are called to service as Christians and to be patient as well.  We need not create doctrines or teachings that are not clearly found in Scripture in order to affirm these principles.  I do not believe that the Book of Ephesians or any other Scripture affirms any kind of intrinsic, ordained gender hierarchy based on creation order, ontology (essence), or teleology (purpose).  And I definitely deny that this hierarchy connects back to a hierarchy among the Persons of the Godhead because I deny that there is one.  Jesus was no developing youth god who had to choose between equality with and any other aspect of Himself, and as the Author of Creation, He didn’t need to be homeschooled by God the Father before the creation of the earth.  

Is this what you believe?  Think about what you have been taught and upon what principles these ideas have been constructed.  The choice is yours.

Read more about the concept of the Trinity on the archive site HERE.

Link to other posts on UnderMuchGrace HERE.


.

My Critique of the Danvers Statement, Part VI of VI (Rationales 7 - 10)

Link HERE to a my Reponse to the Affirmations.

Here, I offer my own response to the Danvers Statement, but I also draw from Dr. Robert K McGreggor Wright’s response as noted in the Journal of Biblical Equality.

Responding to CBMW’s Danvers Statement Rationales:

• CBMW’s statements are noted in DARK BLUE.
• Dr. Wright’s commentary or references to his work are noted in PURPLE.

The Danvers Statement Rationales 7 - 10
We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

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

As in previous posts, these assumptions beg the question and rely upon circular reasoning.  One must accept a their complementary canon in order to rightfully and truly embrace their rationales, but they do not make the more disturbing points of their canon readily known or clear to the reader of the Danvers Statement alone.

 

 Rationale 7
One must presume that “roles” are appropriate in the church as opposed to “function” or “operation”, a drift in language that author Kevin Giles traces in his book, “Jesus and the Father.”  As previously established, the word and concept of “role” is actually consistent with how the word “hypocrite” is used in the New Testament.  The statement also makes vague references to hierarchy, as it is assumed that all proper function and operation of men and women in the church are rightfully encompassed and attributed by CBMW, and that CBMW represents the pure, plain and clear teachings of the Bible.  Plenty of devoted and honorable Christians reject these concepts and live out Biblically faithful witnesses.  This Rationale subtly masks the elitist and very cultic nature of the divisiveness of complementarianism.  If you do not agree with their concepts, you cannot live a faithful life as depicted and defined in the Gospel, an erroneous concept.  If you do not agree with them, you are not really Christian.

Russell Moore has stated many times in several venues that if one rejects complementarianism, by default, that person rejects God’s Lordship over all creation.  To believe and practice anything other than the paradigm that CBMW defines equates to fundamental rebellion against God because CBMW presumes that Jesus is subordinate in authority to the Father, though they deny the statement.  Bruce Ware maintains that Jesus does not have the authority to hear and answer prayer, only to carry prayer to the Father.  Though he maintains that God the Father gets the “ultimate” and “supreme” worship and authority within the Trinity, Ware also simultaneously denies that this means that the Father possesses more of the praises and authority than does Jesus (verified via private communications).  Denny Burke says that Jesus had to choose between equality with the Father and incarnation, and Jesus chose incarnation instead.  Doug Phillips has said at homeschooling conventions in the late ‘90s that “the Father homeschooled Jesus” before the earth was created.  Denial of any of these principles and living accordingly constitutes denial of God’s Lordship and amounts to open theism.  This is spiritual abuse, folks.  This is the Dispensing of Existence, a technique used by cults to bully followers into accepting their doctrine.

Rationale 8
On this point concerning the pejorative of term of “hermeneutical oddities,” I will defer to Dr. RK Wright’s Response to the Danvers Statement:

People threatened by newness often appeal to what to them seems to be "obvious" as the correct meaning of the Bible.  Hence it was once "obvious" that the Bible legitimized slavery, and even that it taught that the world was flat and geo-centric.  Advancing scholarship inevitably means that "apparently plain" verses will turn out to mean something else entirely, but this only shows that a fully Biblical conservatism will continually ask itself whether it is conserving the right things or merely falling back into a reactionary traditionalism.  The claim that Romans 16:1 teaches that the NT churches normally had female deacons is hardly a "hermeneutical oddity."  The KJV rendering of diakonos in Romans 16:1-2 by "servant" is very definitely a hermeneutical oddity, and reflects clearly the prejudice of 16th Century Anglicanism against women in ministry.  Why should E. M. W. Tillyard's Elizabethan World Picture define the world view which should be the standard for the twentieth Century translator?

Rationale 9:
This is hysterical to me and psychological projection at it’s finest, accusing others of what the person who makes the accusation does themselves!  CBMW does exactly what Rationale Nine points out as one of their concerns.  Why do they so heartily contribute to this problem if its occurrence is a matter of their concern?  It is CBMW who has established a group of their own demi-gods and system of popery to discern the Word for Believers and then declare that their critics aren’t legitimate, orthodox Christians.

I can’t do the topic the justice that Dr. Wright does in his response (emphasis mine):

an illegitimate discouragement to legitimate enquiry.  The often-expressed notion that the Bible's incidental mention that Phillip had four daughters that prophesied (Acts 21:9) is "the exception that proves the rule" is as clear a case of "technical ingenuity" as I can think of.  The reference is really the exception that proves the rule never existed!  I am reminded of a friend who once commented that the Bible has always made more sense than its interpreters.

The real problem is that the traditionalists have finally woken up to the fact that "prophesying" in the New Testament (as well as in the Old) normally involves preaching and teaching and counseling, along with the general application of the Word of God to the life and culture of God's people, and that if this is allowed, the traditionalist case against women preachers is seriously weakened.  In this instance therefore, "hermeneutical ingenuity" must be employed to prove that "prophesying" is always distinct from "preaching."  In fact one of the originators of the Council which produced the Danvers Statement (Wayne Grudem) having located himself in a highly charismatic church of a type which has traditionally given great freedom of leadership and preaching to women, has seen the problem clearly, and has recently published a book trying to prove that prophesying never included teaching or preaching!  [Blog host note to the reader:  Please note that this paper was originally authored/presented in the late eighties and was revised in the early nineties.]  It might be worth remembering in this connection, that during the 1500-1600s, when male supremacy was virtually unquestioned, the Puritans held preacher-training sessions called "prophesyings" and wrote books promoting preaching with titles like The Liberty Of Prophesying.  As long as male supremacy was unquestioned, it never occurred to the Puritans that prophecy was anything but mostly just preaching, although it might have been on occasion modified in an extraordinary way by the Holy Spirit's acting sovereignly as he willed at any moment, as was the case with the inscripturizing of the Canonical books.  Grudem's tour de force is an attempt to block a hole in the traditionalist fence, which women preachers have always managed to get through!

Rationale 10
I understand this as the principle that should have been stated and addressed at the outset:  claims that, in terms of gender and how it is understood, the Church has capitulated to the culture.  This assertion is saved until the end after the reader has hopefully accepted the other assertions because they have been so vaguely defined.  It remains so vaguely defined, most people gloss over this point and find it too vague to discern.  But it sounds intellectual...

This is a subtle declaration of their radical gender war.  It is wrong to be kind to the sinner, or worse yet, to those Christians who do not agree with you on all points of doctrine because “winsome” Christians have capitulated to the culture and have thus been overtaken by it.  I think that those who crafted the Danvers Statement are reading the Bible through a grid of what Chip Berlet calls “Right Wing Populism.”



If the Church has actually capitulated to the culture so significantly in terms of gender, what then stops this movement for rallying to reverse Women’s Suffrage and freedom for slaves.  During the “War of Northern Aggression,” arguments were made that slavery was a legitimate means of dealing with poverty and debt.  Doug Phillips does not openly promote his idea that slavery of some type should be reintroduced in this country, but he has taught this to his congregation and to people who’ve attended his “Faith and Freedom” Tours.  How extensive does CBMW think that the distortion of the rights of women extend?  Does it extend as far back as the arguments to free slaves that were deemed slaves based upon race?  Where does the regress stop?  It stops when CBMW says it stops, based upon whatever it’s whims of preference determine.  It depends on how far their concerns of conspiracy and fear of women, inspired by their Right Wing Populist pessimism and paranoia extend.

Again, I will defer to Dr. RK Wright:

Historical study is increasingly demonstrating that there have always been at least some Evangelicals at the vanguard of movements for the emancipation of women from the arbitrary restrictions of a male-dominated traditionalism.  Janette Hassey's No Time For Silence is a good example (1986).  To paraphrase a famous Puritan pastor as he sent some of his flock off to the New World, "The Lord hath yet more light to break forth from the history of women's ministry!"  And much of this history does not particularly flatter our male traditionalism.  Have we forgotten how bitterly the reactionary conservative clergy inveighed against even so elementary a development as allowing female citizens the right to vote?  Would a modern signatory to the Danvers Statement like to argue that the women's vote is the cause of today's social corruption?  Since the "spirit of the age" is still male-supremacist, and the suppression of women (in cheerful fulfillment of the prediction in Gen. 3:16) is the natural stance of all heathen cultures, I fail entirely to see how our practicing the implications of Galatians 3:28 could be rationally thought of as conformity to the spirit of the age . . . .

I encourage the interested reader to also review the writings of Kevin Giles, principally both Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity and Subordinationism:  The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate.



Robert K. McGregor Wright, "A Response to the Danvers Statement:  Part I". The Journal of Biblical Equality, July 1992; (copyrighted revision, Aquila and Priscilla House Study Center, Johnson City, TN, 1995):3.




Please Visit the archive which consolidates this series and also includes the summary of Shirley Taylor's interpretation of "What the Danvers Statement Really Says."

My Critique of the Danvers Statement, Part V of VI (Rationales 4 - 6)

Link HERE to a My Reponse to the Affirmations.



Responding to CBMW’s Danvers Statement Rationales:

• CBMW’s statements are noted in DARK BLUE.

The Danvers Statement Rationales 4 - 6
We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

4. the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many 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;
6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

Rationale 4
I would agree that neglect of the home and duty to the home has contributed to the decay of our culture, but can that be traced back to Christians who are living rightfully according to the Bible and to all those who reject gender hierarchy / ontological equality of women?   Jocelyn Andersen calls this the “evil woman mantra,” an a priori assumption upon which most of CBMW’s presuppositions rest.  Those who are committed to living according to the Word of God and do so are not ambivalent about family and responsibility.  Again, if the issue is lack of concern for the Bible, that should be stated. The Danvers Statement makes many leaps in connection without justifying them and the presuppositions required to arrive at the conclusion.  Abandoning responsibility to care for family is a separate issue from the ideas about gender hierarchy, yet egalitarianism is blamed again, the scapegoat for all of the fault in the world, just like Adam’s response to God in Eden.  [“It’s the woman’s fault, and it’s Your fault for giving this woman to me”  (Gen. 3:12).]  The term “historically” would be more honestly stated as “traditionally,” as not all history confirms their claims, though certain traditions of bias do.

Rationale 5
Can homosexuality truly be blamed on women as Rationale 5 supports?  I believe this represents a Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy.  Because there is so little written establishing the details in support of the causal relationship between a non-hierarchical view of the nature of women and homosexuality, the argument is fallacious.  First, it presumes that a non-hierarchical view of women and an equal ontology is sinful and is clearly sinful in the Bible in the same manner that the Bible so clearly addresses the sin of homosexuality.  This is a presupposition that is not clear in Scripture but is one made and forced by CBMW, as if egalitarian behavior and homosexuality are varied degrees on a continuum describing sexual sin.

The strength of the argument derives from the connections between the presumption of causal relationship between an egalitarian view of women and homosexuality.  From my readings, CBMW ignores all references to Church history and looks only at the secular feminist movement to support this claim of causality.  The history of women teaching and preaching throughout the history of the Church weakens their claim, so it is excluded from the discussion.  This point is not presented at all in the Danvers Statement, and one must read through volumes of information to find support for the assertions made.

Rationale 6
Women and their failure to submit and obey the principles established by CBMW account for the rise in incidence of abuse in the home, according to the Danvers Statement, though the specifics about the principles must be studied and researched in order to discern what is truly meant by this statement.  Women are the obligate cause of all problems in the family, and churches who follow the ideology of CBMW focus on women’s behavior as the root cause.  If a husband starts looking at pornography, very little is said to men about this overt sin, but women are blamed for being inaccessible to their mates.  Women then pay the wages for their husband’s sin, and the husband is justified.  Whether this was intended by CBMW in the beginning, I do not know, but this is certainly what results. If there is any issue in the family regarding abuse or otherwise, the woman is always to blame.

The problem here comes from CBMW’s squeezing in of culture in place of the Bible, and the cultural ramifications come through brilliantly in CBMW’s true colors.  Abuse of women is supported by heathen culture, and it is the presumption of the Baal marriage over a Biblical model that predisoposes CBMW’s paradigm (complete with cultural pagan ideas) to the abuse tendency.  The New Testament establishes a separate ideal for marriage that CBMW tries to dilute with pagan cultural principles of the Baal marriage concept.

From the Encyclopedia of Religion:

In marriages under the system of male kinship in Arabia, the wife—whether obtained by capture or by contract—" who follows her husband and bears children who are of his blood has lost the right freely to dispose of her person ; her husband has authority over her and he alone has the right of divorce." Among the Arabians, Hebrews, and Aramaeans the husband in this kind of marriage was called ba‘al, " lord " or " owner." Robertson Smith therefore describes it as Baal-marriage (p. the term be`ulah of a subject wife, Isaiah lxii. 4). In this way such a marriage is distinguished from a Beena-marriage (q.v.). Robertson Smith contends that before the separation of the tribes Beenamarriage or matriarchy was the universal practice among the Semites. But Prof. Wellhausen has proved that Baal-marriage or patriarchy can be traced back to primitive Semitic times. 

. 

Critique of Rationales 7 - 10 to follow.

My Critique of the Danvers Statement, Part IV of VI (Rationales 1 - 3)

Link here to a My Response to the Affirmations.

Responding to CBMW’s Danvers Statement Rationales:

• CBMW’s statements are noted in DARK BLUE.

Preceding the Affirmations in the Danvers Statement, those who drafted it first established “Rationales.”  They note in the short preamble:  “Prior to the listing of the actual affirmations that comprise the Danvers Statement, we have included a section detailing contemporary developments that serve as the rationale for these affirmations.”  As I was unsure that I would be able to make it through very much of this document, I addressed the “Affirmations” first.  I find that there are a few things that do need to be clarified.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve read somewhere elsewhere that people are questioning why anyone would respond to a document that is so dated.  The Danvers Statement was written in December of 1987 and subsequently published in 1988, and it serves as the foundational document of the Council on Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).  As stated previously on this blog, I’d never heard any reference to this document and didn’t know that it existed until June of 2007 when I began working on research for the 2008 apologetics workshop that ENMR asked me to present on the patriarchy movement.  

Secondly, Wayne Grudem published his Systematic Theology in 1995 and popularized many of these teachings.  Kevin Giles reports in Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity that, at the time of the writing of his book, Grudem’s Systematic Theology (ST) text was the most commonly used ST in English-speaking Seminaries and Bible Colleges.  Grudem’s presentation of the Eternal Subordination of the Son Doctrine in his ST has been taught in many seminaries without challenge, so that at this current time, many parishioners have been taught falsely by their authorities that this doctrine is legitimate and above reproach.  

In 2000, the language pertaining to the “priesthood of all believers” was changed in the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) statement, the foundational document of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).   Subsequently, the Danvers Statement gained even more traction, deepening the Roman Catholic Theology related trends in the Baptist Church, as the major push for these trends has come from those also affiliated with CBMW.  As I understand matters, the SBC is a loosely affiliated group of churches who joined together to raise more financial support for seminaries and missions, but the 2000 BF&M and the influence behind it sought to consolidate power in order to make the SBC more authoritarian, being ruled by a group of leaders at the top as opposed to a congregational government with their previously loose affiliation for the purpose of raising funds only.

[To the Catholic friends of this blog, please understand that this discussion concerns Protestant ideas that govern the Protestant Church, a group that is so defined because of their dissent from fundamental concepts of Roman Catholic Theology.  Protestants and Catholics share essentials of the faith but differ in “saving” and “non-essential” doctrine.  Protestants should be very much unlike the Catholic Church in these respect to the denial of a formal priesthood in support of “the priesthood of all believers,” that which defines them as Protestant.  In the current era of the Church, I think Roman Catholic tradition, Vatican II in particular, is actually much more gracious to women and does a much better job of honoring Biblical principles concerning gender.   Protestant complementarianism is far more damaging to women than the Roman Catholic Church has been in my own lifetime, empowering women to serve God through various sorts of ministry by comparison.]

For these reasons, the document deserves to be re-addressed and openly challenged.  Based on my personal experience in the cultic Shepherding Discipleship Movement and in my efforts to combat the effects of thought reform in Evangelical churches, the Danvers Statement and its principles have been used to justify the growing incidence of the physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse of women.  The CBMW continues to ignorantly and staunchly deny that their teachings have had any impact on such abuse, and the group maintains that their ideology is in no way culpable for fostering any abuse.  Based on my personal experiences and the reports of others over the course of my work, I wholeheartedly disagree with CBMW’s claims.

The Danvers Statement Rationales 1- 3

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;
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;
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;

 The Danvers Statement introduced the term “complementarian” and argues that its principles represent the clear implications of Biblical Doctrine, establishing and restating these Biblical principles regarding what they call “masculinity” and “femininity.”  I assert that the standards that they define are culturally biased and that their interpretation of these Scriptures has been read through a grid of their preferred view of culture and primarily reflects these cultural biases.  The Bible does not clearly define these concepts in the way that CBMW would like Evangelical Christians to believe.  (If it did, their organization would be unnecessary, because the principles could be taught directly from the Word of God and they would be established as essential doctrine per the claims of CBMW.  CBMW exists to articulate their ideology because their concepts are contrived and are not clear from Scripture another indication as to why issues of gender classify as intramural or non-essential Christian doctrine.)

I’ve read more reports on the degree of “Biblical illiteracy” in recent years than I can recall.  In surveys, most Christians do not reflect beliefs that support the clear elements of essential Bible doctrine.  Increasingly larger numbers of Christians cannot articulate anything of Bible doctrine or principles.  Could we not say then that the primary problem in the Church concerns this issue of our day?  Well, CBMW to the rescue to tell the poor masses what the Bible really says about it’s contrived concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity.”  The “widespread confusion” in the culture has always been there, but if there is widespread confusion in the church, what is the source of this confusion?  Does Biblical illiteracy not account for the deficit?  How does a Christian deal with “uncertainty” and “confusion”?  Does that Christian not go to the Word itself to seek out the answers?

I have no problems with the concept of the male and female genders complementing one another.  The problem arises when one tries to assert that this complementary nature of gender must also encompass and incorporate the standards established by CBMW in their volumes of writing to articulate what should be clear truths (as they assert).  One doesn’t need a tome to articulate the simple meanings.  One does need a tome to justify a created concept.  Complementarianism as a term hides the dark underbelly of blame and scapegoating of women in order to elevate men to a type of human deity through contrived hierarchy that is also not found clearly and plainly in Scripture.  There is no complementarianism apart from hierarchy, and to support it, the pleasant-sounding facade hides the fact that to accomplish its hierarchical ends, it has compromised and rewritten the Doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing to Semi-Arianism.

Rationale 2 & 3 states that the “unraveling of the fabric of marriage” has occurred because of the effects of “confusion and uncertainty” in our culture, presumably culture outside of the Church.  This statement makes numerous logical leaps that are not even made remotely apparent, and to truly agree with these dubious statements, one must agree to the presuppositions of CBMW about the nature of the Trinity and the ontological subordination that supports hierarchy.  They don’t tell you enough about these “strands” which they call “beautiful” and I call strictly cultural, bordering on heresy, and what others call semi-Arian.  Cults do the very same thing by failing to tell the unpleasant truths about their doctrine, only revealing the plain truths clearly until well after the individual has strongly identified with the group through commitment, a powerful appeal to the human trait of consistency.  Jeff VanVonderan called this power of identification and commitment “sweat equity” in his book, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.”  If the Danvers Statement rightly came right out and clearly stated the actual presuppositions instead of burying them in volumes of writing, communicating them through the use of the tricks of rhetoric, informal logical fallacy, and propaganda, most literate Christians would have rejected the Danvers Statement outright.

A few years ago, Russell Moore stated in a 9 Marks round table interview that he prefers the term “patriarchy” over “complementarianism.”  But CBMW and those who contrived the Danvers Statement could not have used the term “patriarchy” because of the negative connotation. They sought to hide the ugly underbelly.  In the same manner, CBMW hides the doctrinal presuppositions that actually support the rationales of the Danvers Statement in order to circumvent and bypass criticism.  It is fine deception and craft.

The flowery and poetic imagery of “fabric” and “strands” presents a Red Herring that uses an emotional appeal to divert the reader away from questioning these presuppositions.  What is the real matter of concern and what constitutes the source of the problem?  They are saying that the Church has capitulated to the culture, and it has allowed the secular culture to permeate the Church with confusion and uncertainty.  Why have they not directly stated this?  They don’t want anyone thinking about Biblical illiteracy but about their ready-made solution to the problem which they have ill-defined.  If the Church has capitulated to the culture, the answer is to teach the Bible.  But CBMW does not want that, otherwise, people will challenge their doctrine based on their knowledge of what the Bible actually says.  They want to provide people with their ready-made solutions that they’ve contrived to combat their ill-defined problem.  We need the new high priests of patriarchy to tell the poor masses what the Bible says, the time-honored tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.  (Please recall disclaimer in the fourth paragraph above, introducing the discussion of the Rationales concerning Roman Catholic Theology versus guiding principles that are appropriate for Protestants.)

Among the many undefined presuppositions that CBMW hides in its many writings or communicates via propaganda techniques of fuzzy logic and unstated assumption which the reader is expected to assume, the term “Biblical Egalitarian” becomes a pejorative with a very negative connotation that intensifies the first two rationales.  Note that the term is undefined by the Danvers Statement, something that the Statement presumes to be sinful.  Without statements establishing justification for the claim, Egalitarianism is blamed for the “confusion and uncertainty” asserted in the previous Rationales, the presumed true source of the problems in the larger secular culture, and by extension, the destruction of marriage.  Yet this is not directly stated in the beginning, because the point needed to be softened in order to be accepted.  It is sin in the culture which rejects God that causes confusion and lack of order, not egalitarianism.  In fact, CBMW wants Christians to remain ignorant of the rich history of egalitarianism in the Church and that the Bible has presented great support to the cause of freedom of all individuals in society as an outward manifestation of the effect of Biblical Principles on the secular culture.

I addressed the remainder of this rhetoric (found in the end of Rationale 3) under my response to Affirmation Four.  (Note that they also evade their theology about how women are really responsible for sin entering the world, that they do not have responsibility under their teaching of primogeniture to bear responsibility, so Paul blames Adam in the New Testament, and that all women are deceived and have greater capacity for sin than men.  They do not clearly state this, but this is the foundation upon which the Danvers Statement rests.)


Also of Interest:     What the Danvers Statement Really Says (per Shirley Taylor of bWe Baptists for Women's Equality 

.