Rodney Holloman

With so many controversial subjects such as the war raging in the Ukraine, the complete polarization of politics in the West, rampant plagiarism in the pulpit, and even more recently, the role of winsomeness, the Commission for Theological Integrity decided to address a topic that would not evoke a strong reaction – the roles of men and women in ministry and the home.

The United States Senate, not wanting for those of us in Birmingham to have all the fun, sought to help this discussion come to the forefront in the now infamous back and forth between Senator Blackburn (TN) and Justice Jackson as to what constitutes a woman.

As the confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson went into hour 13, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday to define the word “woman.”

“I can’t —” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn said.

“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked. [1]

As the cable news outlets argued if the future (now current) Supreme Court Justice was clever or cagey, those watching the cultural tidal wave enveloping the modern world and church could only shudder at another attempt by the new “normality” to eviscerate the Genesis record and the Judeo-Christian worldview. [2]

These stakes are so high that is prompted Dr. Joe Rigney, the new president of Bethel College and Seminary, to declare that “Anthropology is the defining issue of the 21st century.”[3]   

Speaking of social media and Twitter specifically, evangelicals, et al. are awash with examples, defenses, and criticisms concerning the Biblical views of men and women and their respective roles in the church. Caricatures and cruelty seem omnipresent, so obviously contemporary culture cannot be our starting point.[4] Instead, we must seek solid, Biblical substance to start our explorations or perhaps re-explorations of the roles of men and women particularly in the church.

This discussion gained national attention in May 2021 when Saddleback church announced that they had ordained three women as pastors, seemingly in defiance of the Southern Baptist confessional document entitled the Baptist Faith and Message. Dr. Albert Mohler wrote an essay exhorting the conservative church that the test over the authority and inspiration of the Bible was looming.[5] Fascinatingly in 2022, the SBC seemed poised to censure the Saddleback church and then tabled the motion at the last moment.[6]

Presciently, Dr. Wayne Grudem wrote the following warning in 2004:

As I have spent more and more time analyzing egalitarian arguments, I have become more firmly convinced that egalitarianism is becoming the new path to liberalism for evangelicals in our generation.

The pioneers of evangelical feminism are liberal denominations. The arguments now being used by egalitarians were used by these liberal denominations when they were approving the ordination of women. Many of the current leaders of the egalitarian movement either advocate positions that undermine the authority of Scripture or at least advertise and promote books that undermine the authority of Scripture and lead believers toward liberalism. The hints we now have of the doctrinal direction in which evangelical feminism is moving predict an increasing emphasis on an abolition of anything that is distinctly masculine. Egalitarianism is heading toward an androgynous Adam who is neither male nor female, and a Jesus whose manhood is not important. It is heading toward a God who is both Father and Mother, and then only Mother. And soon the methods of evading the teachings of Scripture on manhood and womanhood will be used again and again by those who advocate the moral legitimacy of homosexuality.

The common denominator in all of this is a persistent undermining of the authority of Scripture in our lives. My conclusion at the end of this study is that we must choose either evangelical feminism or biblical truth. We cannot have both.^[7]

With that warning in mind, the Commission hopes to address this issue from the following perspectives: What is Biblical Complementarianism? (Exegetical), What Does the Christian Tradition Say? (Historical), Can Women be Pastors? (Pt. 1, Ecclesiological), Can Women be Pastors? (Pt. 2, Ecclesiological), and Why is this Issue so Crucial? (Cultural).

Before we can focus on the question of women being ordained to pastor, a review of what is meant by Biblical Complementarianism should be helpful. Thankfully, the Danvers’s Statement provides a very workable framework for this subject. Finalized in 1988 by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, this has become the de facto summary of Biblical Complementarianism. Included in total as an addendum, the following ten affirmations are from the larger document and are as follows:

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

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).
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).
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).
4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
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).
6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
   1. 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).
   2. 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).
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).
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.
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).
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.[8]

The Danvers Statement summarizes the need for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and serves as an overview of our core beliefs. This statement was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a CBMW meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December of 1987. It was first published in final form by the CBMW in Wheaton, Illinois in November of 1988.

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;
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;
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;
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.

 Purposes

Recognizing our own abiding sinfulness and fallibility, and acknowledging the genuine evangelical standing of many who do not agree with all of our convictions, nevertheless, moved by the preceding observations and by the hope that the noble Biblical vision of sexual complementarity may yet win the mind and heart of Christ’s church, we engage to pursue the following purposes:

1. To study and set forth the Biblical view of the relationship between men and women, especially in the home and in the church.
2. To promote the publication of scholarly and popular materials representing this view.
3. To encourage the confidence of lay people to study and understand for themselves the teaching of Scripture, especially on the issue of relationships between men and women.
4. To encourage the considered and sensitive application of this Biblical view in the appropriate spheres of life.
5. And thereby

—to bring healing to persons and relationships injured by an inadequate grasp of God’s will concerning manhood and womanhood,

—to help both men and women realize their full ministry potential through a true understanding and practice of their God-given roles,

—and to promote the spread of the gospel among all peoples by fostering a Biblical wholeness in relationships that will attract a fractured world.

Affirmations [Editor’s Note: The numbering of these would not import properly. See statement here] 

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

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).
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).
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).
4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
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).
6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
7. 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).

1. 1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.

______________

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543

[2] While researching this topic, I came across this post by Colin Smothers where we shared similar ideas. https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2022/04/anthropology-is-the-defining-issue-of-the-21st-century/

[3] https://twitter.com/joe_rigney/status/1506621172913516548

[4] Kevin DeYoung has an excellent summary of these contrasting views. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/death-to-the-patriarchy

[5] https://albertmohler.com/2021/05/10/women-pastors-women-preachers-and-the-looming-test-of-the-southern-baptist-convention

[6] From the news I can gather, this is the sequence of events.

^[7] Wayne Grudem, “Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism? Some Disturbing Warning Signs,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 9, no. 1 (2004): 76.

[8] https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/