CBMW

NEWS
CBMW
NEWS
O
O
KAY, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ONLYMEN
should be pastorsand elders. But what about
other activitiesin the church?What exactly do
you think a woman should and should not do, according
to the Bible?
Thisisprobably the most frequent question I hear
when I speak on manhood and womanhood in the church.
Sometimespeople say, Just where do you draw the line?
Can women teach adult Sunday School classes?What
about serving communion, or chairing a committee?We
want to follow Scripture, but there arent any versesthat
talk about these specic things.
I think in most casesmen and women who ask these
questionsgenuinely want to encourage more opportunities
for women in the overall ministry of the church. They
sense that many evangelical churcheshave been too tradi-
tional and too restrictive on ministriesavailable to
women. These people want to question the way we have
alwaysdone things in the light of Scripture. But they also
do not want to encourage anything that iscontrary to
Scripture.
In thisarticle I will try to answer those questions, partly
in the hope of encouraging churchesto examine their tra-
ditionsto see if there are more areasof ministry which they
could open to women aswell asmen. On the other hand, I
also want to explain why I think that certain kindsof activ-
itiesare restricted to men.
For the purposesof thisarticle, I will assume that my
readersare in agreement that Scripture teachessome
restriction on the roleswomen may ll in the church.
Generally these restrictionsfall in three areas: (1) governing
authority, (2) Bible teaching, and (3) public recognition or
visibility.
In fact, almost all the questionsof application pertain
to at least one of these areas. Thisisbecause Paul says, I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men
(1 Tim. 2:12), and the other passageswhich speak of
restrictionson womensrolesin the church also deal with
questionsof governing and teaching (1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1
Tim. 3:1-7; Titus1:5-9; Matt. 10:2-4; etc.). I have includ-
ed area (3), public recognition or visibility, because some
NOVEMBER, 1995 FROM THE COUNCI L ON BI BLI CAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD VOL. 1 NO. 2
I I nside nsideThis I This I ssue ssue
NEWSBRI EFS
WHAT SHOULD
WOMEN DO?
FOR THOSE WHO
HATE FEMI NI STS
AND THOSE WHO
DONT
BI BLI OGRAPHY
OF I MPORTANT
SCHOLARLY WORKS
QUESTI ON & ANSWER
HOW DOES I T REALLY
WORK I N YOUR
MARRI AGE?
TEAM ADOPTS
COMPLEMENTARI AN
POLI CY
BOOK REVI EWS
AND NOTI CES
DENOMI NATI ONAL
NEWS UPDATES
POPE JOHN PAUL I I
COMPLEMENTARI AN
LETTER TO WOMEN
RESOURCES AVAI LABLE
FROM CBMW
activitiesin the church are very visible but may not include
governing or teaching authority, yet people easily confuse
these issuesin their minds. If we keep thisissue distinct, it
helpsusthink more clearly about specic applications.
What followshere are three listsof activities.
In List 1, I proceed from areasof greater governing
authorityto areasof lesser authority.
In List 2, I proceed from areasof greater teaching
responsibilityand inuenceon the beliefsof the church to
areasof lesser teaching responsibility and lesser inuence
on the beliefsof the church.
In List 3, I proceed from areasof greater publicrecogni-
tion and visibilityto areasof lesser visibility.
Finally, one word of caution isappropriate: These lists
do not rank importance to the church! In fact, Paul tellsus
that all the membersof the body are needed (1 Cor. 12:14-
21). And he tellsusthat the partsof the body which seem
to be weaker are indispensable, and those partsof the body
which we think lesshonorable we invest with the greater
honor. (1 Cor. 12:22-23). Jesussaid, Whoever would be
great among you must be your servant (Mark 10:43).
These statementsremind usthat when we talk about levels
of governing authority, or Bible teaching responsibility, or
public recognition, we are not talking about greatnessor
importance.
Then why talk about such levelsat all?We must do so,
because Scripture tellsusthat there are some kindsof gov-
erning and teaching that are inappropriate for women. In
order to think clearly about what kindsof governing and
teaching rolesthose are, we rst must list the actual kinds
of activitieswe are talking about. Then we can ask, in each
case, if thiswasthe kind of governing or teaching that
Scripture intended usto understand in these passages. In
short, we need to make such a list for purposesof clearer
thinking on thisissue.
Here then, on the following pages, are the three lists.
(The actual order of itemson each list isapproximate, and
churchesmay think that some itemsshould be moved up
or down on the list according to the way they assesstheir
own situations).
CBMW
MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
Council on Biblical
But what should women
do in the church?
seeBut what should women do on p. 3
BY WAYNE GRUDEM

J Episcopal bishops voted to require all dioceses to

ordain qualied women to the priesthood. At their
national conference in Portland in September, the bish-
opsvoted 121-15 to end exemptionsfrom church rules
for bishopswho, in conscience, oppose womensordina-
tion. A group of conscientiously objecting bishopscalled
the vote a denial of the basic Anglican principle that
the church cannot demand that which cannot be proven
from the plain teaching of Scripture. National &
International Religion Report (NIRR),October 16, 1995
J The Japanese government plans to allow married cou-
plesto use different last names(Washington Post,
September 17, 1995). Japanese law now requiresmarried
couplesto take one last name almost alwaysthe hus-
bandsbut that isset to change in 1996 based on new
government recommendations.
In recent years, many Japanese women have been keep-
ing their maiden nameswhile ofcially registering their
marriage under their husbandsname. Meanwhile public
pressure challenged the Japanese government to change the
rules.
Takeshi Usami, who worksin TokyosGinza district,
said, The image and the identity of family issymbolized
by having the same name. A co-worker, Osamu Toyoda,
added In Japan, we have a long tradition of family, and it
isvery unique. Having two namescontradictsthat feeling
of family.
J But continuing a practice based on mere tradition,
symbol or feeling isinadequate. The signicance of the
above newsitem ishighlighted in an insightful article in
the November issue of First Things. Excerptsfollow.
The husband who giveshisname to hisbride in mar-
riage isthusnot just keeping hisown; he isowning up to
what it meansto have been given a family and a family
name by hisown fatherhe isliving out hisdestiny to be
a father by saying yesto it in advance. And the wife does
not so much surrender her name asshe acceptsthe gift of
his, given and received asa pledge of (among other things)
loyal and responsible fatherhood for her children. A
woman who refusesthisgift is, whether she knowsit or
not, tacitly refusing the promised devotion or, worse,
expressing her suspicionsabout her groomstrustworthiness
asa husband and prospective father.
Fatherswho will not own up to their paternity, who
will not legitimize their offspring, and who will not name
themselvesresponsible for child-rearing by giving their
children their name are, paradoxically, not real fathersat
all, and their wivesand especially their children suffer. The
former stigmatization of bastardy was, in fact, meant to
protect women and children from such irresponsible
behavior of self-indulgent menwho would take their sex-
ual pleasuresanswalk away from their consequences.
2 C CB BM MW WNEWS NEWS
The change of the womansname, from family of ori-
gin to family of perpetuation, isthe perfect emblem for the
desired exogamy of human sexuality and generation. The
woman in marriage not only expressesher humanity in
love (asdoesthe man); she also embracesthe meaning of
marriage by accepting the meaning of her womanly nature
asgenerative. In shedding the name of her family of origin,
she tacitly afrmsthat children of her womb can be ligiti-
mated only exogamously. Her children will not bear the
same name aswill not belong toher father; more-
over, her new name allowsher father to recognize formally
the mature woman hisdaughter hasbecome. For full arti-
cle, see Amy R. Kassand Leon R. Kass, WhatsYour
Name? in First Things, November, 1995,
J Amid the controversies in the Episcopal Church USA,
we note that Bishop Brownings appointee for evangelism
coordinator was the Rev. Linda Strohmier, who says she
isnt sure that the Gospel of JesusChrist isthe only source
of salvation. Perhaps, she adds, a relationship with Christ is
merely optional.and God is someone to whom she
refers as she, the god, or i t on occasi on. World,
September 30, 1995
J The Conservative Mennonite Conference informs us
that they have adopted the DanversStatement astheir of-
cial position paper on the ministry and marriage responsi-
bilitiesof men and women. They overprint a caption indi-
cating thisastheir conference position on copiesof the
DanversStatement which they distribute. Thisisa practice
we heartily endorse. The Conservative Mennonite
Conference, headquartered in Irwin, Ohio, isan auto-
nomousafliation of Mennonite congregationsin North
America, with mission programsin Latin America,
Germany, and Muslim locationsin the near East and Asia.
They are also at work with CBMW on producing a
Spanish language translation of the DanversStatement,
which we hope will be available soon.
JA disturbing sidelight to the Beijing Conference was
the strange silence of the Church. JamesDobson observed,
There on the world stage wasan event [where] Christ-
ianshad every reason to be alarmed. At stake wasthe
future of the family, the safety of every unborn baby, sexual
purity before marriage and the heterosexual basisfor mar-
riage. Also under siege wasthe delicate relationship be-
tween men and women upon which familiesare based.
Scripture wasmocked and the Christian faith wascontra-
dicted.yet the collective voice of the Protestant commu-
nity wasvirtually mute. God forgive us!
CBMW on the Road
February 27-29, 1996: Kent Hughes, Pastor of the College
Church in Wheaton, Illinois, will deliver the William E.
Conger Lectureson Biblical Preaching at Beeson Divinity
School, Birmingham, Alabama.
CBMW CBMWNEWS NEWS
ISA QUARTERLY PUBLICATION
OF THE
EDITOR/DESIGNER
Steve Henderson
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Debbie Rumpel
PRESIDENT
Wayne Grudem
Single issue price $3.95
Subscriptionsavailable at
$10.00 per year.
Ten or more copiesto the
same address, $5.00 per year
Addresscommunication to
W
office@cbmw.org
For book and resource
ordersusing MasterCard
or Visa
Call 1-888-560-8210
(PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF OUR
NEW PHONE NUMBER)
or e-mail at
store@cbmw.org
Thepurposeof theCouncil on
Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood istoset forth the
teachingsof theBibleabout
thecomplementarydifferences
between men and women,
created equal in theimageof
God, becausetheseteachings
areessential for obedienceto
Scriptureand for thehealth of
thefamilyand theChurch.
CBMW isa member of the
Evangelical Council for
Financial Accountability
and the
National Association of
Evangelicals
CBMW
MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
Council on Biblical
Newsbriefs from the world
NOVEMBER 1995 3
List 1: Areas of Governing Authority
Areasof greater governing authority to areasof lesser authority
1. President of adenomination
2. Member of thegoverning board of adenomination
3. Regional governing authority (such asbishop in some
denominations, district superintendent or similar ofcein
others)
4. Member of regional governing board
5 Senior pastor in local church
6. Member of governing board with authority over whole
church (for example, elder in many churches, deacon or
board member or church council member in others)
7. Presiding over abaptism or communion service(but seeList
3 for serving communion or performing abaptism)
8. Giving spoken judgment on aprophecy given to thecongre-
gation (I think thisiswhat Paul forbidsin 1 Cor. 14:33-36)
9. Permanent leader of afellowship group meeting in ahome
(both men and women members)
10. Committeechairman (or chairperson") (explanation: this
item and thefollowing two havesomekind of authority in
thechurch, but it islessthan theauthority over thewhole
congregation which Paul hasin mind in 1 Cor. 14:33-36, 1
Tim. 2:12, 1 Tim. 3, and Titus1)
11. Director of Christian Education
12. Sunday School Superintendent
13. Missionary responsibilities: many administrativeand organi-
zational responsibilitiesin missionary work in other coun-
tries
14. Moderating aBiblediscussion in ahomeBiblestudy group
15. Choir director
16. Leading singing on Sunday morning (note: thiscould belist-
ed between 8 and 9 above, depending on how achurch
understandsthedegreeof authority over theassembled con-
gregation that isinvolved)
17. Deacon (in churcheswherethisdoesnot involvegoverning
authority over theentirecongregation)
18. Administrativeassistant to senior pastor
19. Church treasurer
20. Church secretary
21. Member of advisory council to regional governing authority
22. Meeting periodically with church governing board to give
counsel and advice
23. Regular conversationsbetween eldersand their wivesover
matterscoming beforetheelder board (with understanding
that condentiality ispreserved)
24. *Professional counselor (onewoman counseling oneman)
25. *Professional counselor (onewoman counseling acouple
together)
26. *Professional counselor (onewoman counseling another
woman)
27. Speaking in congregational businessmeetings
28. Voting in congregational businessmeetings(Explanation:
each person voting hassomeinuenceover thewholecon-
gregation, but it issignicantly lessthan thegoverning
authority held personally by eldersor asenior pastor, and
doesnot seem to bewhat Paul hasin view in 1 Tim. 2. By
analogy, an 18-year old American can votefor thePresident
of theUnited States, but cannot bePresident of theUnited
States, and theauthority residing in theofceof President
far exceedstheauthority of any individual voter.)
List 2: Areas of Bible Teaching
Areasof greater teaching responsibility and inuenceon the
beliefsof thechurch to areasof lesser teaching responsibility
and lesser inuenceon thebeliefsof thechurch.
1. Teaching Bibleor theology in atheological seminary
2. Teaching Bibleor theology in aChristian college
3. Preaching (teaching theBible) at anationwidedenomina-
tional meeting
4. Preaching (teaching theBible) at aregional meeting of
churches
5. Preaching (teaching theBible) regularly to thewholechurch
on Sunday mornings
6. Occasional preaching (teaching theBible) to thewhole
church on Sunday mornings
7. Occasional Bibleteaching at lessformal meetingsof the
wholechurch (such asSunday evening or at amid-week ser-
vice)
8. Bibleteaching to an adult Sunday school class(both men
and women members)
9. Bibleteaching at ahomeBiblestudy (both men and women
members)
10. Bibleteaching to acollegeageSunday school class
11. Bibleteaching to ahigh school Sunday school class
12. Writing abook on Bibledoctrines (Explanation: I haveput
four examplesof writing activitieshereon thelist because
theauthor of abook hassomekind of teaching authority,
but it isdifferent from theteaching authority over the
assembled congregation that Paul prohibitsin 1 Tim. 2. The
teaching relationship of an author to areader ismuch more
liketheone-to-onekind of teaching that Priscillaand Aquila
did when they explained theway of God moreaccurately to
Apollosin Acts18:26. In fact, with abook theelement of
direct personal interaction isalmost entirely absent.
Moreover, thebook comesnot only from theauthor but also
with input from theeditorsand publisher.)
13. Writing or editing astudy Bible
14. Writing acommentary on abook of theBible
15. Writing notesin astudy Bible
16. Writing or editing astudy Bibleintended primarily for
women
17. Bibleteaching to awomensSunday school class
18. Bibleteaching to awomensBiblestudy group during the
week
19. Bibleteaching to ajunior high Sunday school class
20. Teaching asaBibleprofessor on asecular university campus.
(Explanation: I haveput thishereon thelist becauseI see
thistask asessentially acombination of evangelism and
teaching about theBibleasliterature, mainly to non-
Christians. Even though theremay beChristiansin some
classes, theprofessor hasno church-authorized authority or
doctrinal endorsement, astherewould bewith aBible
teacher in achurch or aprofessor in aChristian collegeor
seminary.)
21. Evangelistic speaking to largegroupsof non-Christians(for
example, an evangelistic rally on acollegecampus)
22. Working asan evangelistic missionary in other cultures
23. Moderating adiscussion in asmall group Biblestudy (men
and women members)
24. Reading Scripturealoud on Sunday morning
25. Reading Scriptureto other, lessformal meetingsof the
church
26. Giving apersonal testimony beforethecongregation (astory
of how God hasworked in onesown or others lives)
27. Participating in adiscussion in ahomeBiblestudy (men and
women members)
28. *Professional counseling (onewoman counseling oneman)
29. *Professional counseling (onewoman counseling amarried
couple)
30. *Professional counseling (onewoman counseling awoman)
31. Teaching childrensSunday school class
32. Teaching Vacation BibleSchool
33. Singing asolo on Sunday morning (aform of teaching, since
it often hasBiblical content and exhortation)
34. Singing to thecongregation asamember of thechoir
35. Singing hymnswith thecongregation (in thisactivity, some-
timesweteach and exhort oneanother in somesense: Col.
3:16)
List 3:
Areas of Public Visibility or Recognition
Areasof greater public recognition and visibility
to areasof lesser visibility
1. Ordination aspastor (member of theclergy) in adenomi-
nation
2. Being licensed to perform someministerial functionswith-
in adenomination
3. Paid member of pastoral staff (such asyouth worker, music
director, counselor, Christian Education director)
4. Paid member of administrativechurch staff (church secre-
tary or treasurer, for example)
5. Performing abaptism (in churcheswherethisisnot exclu-
sively theroleof clergy or elders)
6. Helping to servetheLordsSupper (in churcheswherethis
isnot exclusively theroleof clergy or elders)
7. Giving announcementsat theSunday morning service
8. Taking theoffering
9. Public reading of Scripture
10. Public prayer
11. Prophesying in public (according to 1 Cor. 11:5 and 14:29,
wherethisisnot understood ashaving authority equal to
Scriptureor Bibleteaching)
12. Singing asolo on Sunday mornings
13. Giving apersonal testimony in church
14. Giving aprayer request in church
15. Being amember of aprayer team that will pray for peo-
pleindividually after theservice.
16. Welcoming peopleat thedoor (agreeter)
17. Editing church newsletter
18. Singing in thechoir
19. Singing of hymnswith congregation on Sunday morning
20. Participating in theresponsivereading of Scriptureon
Sunday morning
*Note: I put thesethreeitemsin both columnsbecausethereissomeamount of authority and someamount of Bibleteaching involved in them. I should also say that I am not herecommenting on
whether it isordinarily wiseor most effectivefor onewoman to counsel oneman; I am just listing theseactivitiesaccording to thedegreeof governing or teaching authority they exhibit over the
congregation of achurch. Moreover, peoplemay put theseactivitiesat different placeson theselists, depending on thestyleof counseling and thedegreeof authority they think attachesto it.
continued next page
But what should women do in the church?
from page 1
4 CBMW CBMWNEWS NEWS
Words Matter
I
T ISHELPFUL in the
discussion of manhood
and womananhood to con-
sider the ne but signicant
distinction between com-
plement and supplement. A
complement issomething
that completes, makesup a
whole, or bringsto perfec-
tion. For example, one
might say, Histie comple-
mentsthe suit heswear-
ing. The suit in itself isa
complete unit, asisthe tie.
On the other hand, a
supplement issomething
added to complete a thing,
to make up for a decien-
cy. Thisusage isreected
in the statement, Bob
worksnightsto supplement
hisincome. Obviously, the
earningsfrom Bobsday job
are inadequate to meet his
nancial needs.
The application of this
distinction in theological
discussion can be seen in
the fact that men and
women asindividualsare
image bearers. A single man
or a single woman fully
bearstheimage of God.
In marriage, then hus-
band and wife asmale and
female complement one
another; they are equal in
termsof their dignity, per-
sonhood and value. One is
not superior to the other,
though they have different
functions. Since they are
individually complete
before God asbearersof
Hisimage, they do not sup-
plement one another in this
way at all.
In CBMW, we have
chosen the term complemen-
tarian to represent our posi-
tion. The careful choice of
wordsmakesa difference in
how we expressand under-
stand Biblical, theological
and practical concepts.
Wordsdo matter.
Even such long listsare of course incomplete. For one
thing, there are specialized ministries(sometimescalled
parachurch organizations) which would have similar charts
but with different titlesin many places. For example, mis-
sion agencies, campusorganizations(CampusCrusade for
Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators) and other specialized min-
istriessuch asFocuson the Family or Prison Fellowship
could all have similar listsof activities, but with slightly
different specic items.
In addition, it isvery important to
recognize that thislist of activitiessimply
cannot include the very important fac-
torsof variation in attitudeswhich can
make a big difference in the actual degree
of governing authority in a specic situa-
tion (doesa particular woman have a
domineering attitude?or a graciousser-
vant heart?).
Thislist also cannot take into
account any variation in goalswhich a
person istrying to attain (isa woman
seeking more and more authority over
men, or genuinely seeking to use giftsfor
the benet of the church?). In situations
which churchessee asborderline situations, it may be
hard to decide in advance, and the difference may well
depend on variationsin attitudesand goalsfound in the
specic people involved. Moreover, thistable cannot take
into account the widely varying situationswhich occur in
different churches. One church may have a college age class
of three students, while another may have a college age
classof 500. Surely what it meansto teach and have
authority over men appliesdifferently in the two situa-
tions. Once again, in such borderline situations, church-
eswill need to use mature wisdom and sound judgement
to make a correct evaluation of what isappropriate in light
of biblical principles. But I think these lists, though not
exhaustive, are helpful asfar asthey go.
What is the Solution?
These listsnow present uswith a dilemma: Everyone who
agreeswith the principlesof the DanversStatement will
agree that some of these usesof authority are appropriate
for women, and some are not. Everyone will also agree that
some of these kindsof Bible teaching are appropriate, and
some are not. And I think that everyone who agreeswith
the DanversStatement will agree at least that ordination as
a pastor in a denomination isinappropriate for women,
while there may be differenceson whether the other areas
of public visibility are appropriate.
At thispoint we must state the obvious: the Bible does
not give usa specic verse on each of these situations! But
it isthat way with the entire Christian life. Each day we
face thousandsof decisions, very few of which are covered
by a specic verse. We agree that it iswrong to steal, but
can we use the ofce phone to call home?Can we take an
unused bar of soap from a hotel room, or a box of tissue?
Surely not the table lamp! Between what isclearly right
and clearly wrong we make decisionsevery day, seeking to
be faithful to Scripture aswe apply it to everyday life.
We must simply recognize the fact that God in hiswis-
dom hasgiven usa Bible which speciesmany principles
for conduct, and doesgive some specic examplesof appli-
cation. But by itsvery nature the Bible cannot speak in
specic detail to the thousands, and
even millionsof real life situationsthat
people will encounter throughout the
centuries.
What then do we do?We understand
the principlesthat allow certain activi-
ties. We understand the principlesthat
prohibit other activities. Then between
these parameters, we attempt to make a
mature judgment based on the wisdom
that God givesusand our knowledge of
the situation.
In all such situations, I have found
the following chart useful:
Requires
No mature wisdom Yes
action prohibited action approved
by Scripture by Scripture
Now regarding the question of women in the church,
what actionsshould we put on thisscale?On the left side
of the scale we can put versessuch as1 Timothy 2:12,
where Paul prohibitsa woman from teaching or having
authority over men. Since I think it isvery evident from
the context that Paul istalking about the assembled con-
gregation in thispassage (see 1 Tim. 2:8-10; 3:15), and he
isgiving principlesthat apply to the entire congregation
(see 1 Tim. 3:1-16), I think that theleft end of thescalepro-
hibitswomen fromteachingor havinggoverningauthority
over thewholecongregation.
What shall we put on the right end of the scale?Here
we would put versessuch asActs18:26, where, in a less
formal setting apart from an assembled congregation, we
nd that Priscilla and Aquila were talking to Apollos, and
theytook him and expounded to him the way of God
more accurately. Thissituation issimilar to a small group
Bible study in which both men and women are participat-
ing and in that way teaching one another. Another verse
that we can put on the right end of the scale isTitus2:4
which tellsthe older women to train the younger women
to love their husbandsand children...
Moreover, since Paul specically prohibitswomen from
teaching or having authority over men, we may also put on
the right end of the chart the activity of teaching children,
for surely both mothersand fathersteach their children,
and I think all would agree that it isappropriate that this
from page 3
By its very nature
the Bible cannot
speak in specic
detail to the thou-
sands, and even
millions of real
life situations
NOVEMBER 1995 5
By sayingthat
somegoverning
and teaching
roleswithin the
church are
restricted to men,
theDanvers
Statement draws
a deniteline:
it differs
decisively with
all evangelical
feministswho
simply could not
agreewith this
statement
WAYNE GRUDEM
family teaching activity be extended into the Sunday
School where women function asthe mothers of the
church and teach other children aswell astheir own. So
our scale would look like this:
Requires
No mature wisdom Yes
action prohibited action approved
by Scripture by Scripture
Governing& Other kindsof governing Lessformal
Bibleteaching and teachingactivities Bibleinstruction
authorityover Teachingwomen
theassembled Teachingchildren
congregation
With thisscale in mind, we could place all of the activi-
tiesin the long listsabove at one point or another on the
scale. Some activities, such asserving assenior pastor in the
local church, would clearly fall on the no side of the
scale. Others, such asperforming a baptism or leading a
home fellowship group or chairing a committee, would fall
somewhere in the middle of the scale. And it isat this
point that individualsand churcheswill need to prayerfully
consider just where they will draw the line in saying what
activitiesare encouraged and what activitiesare prohibited
for women in their local churches.
The Decision of the Danvers Statement
When we wrote the DanversStatement in 1987, we realized
that no brief statement could possibly include all the vari-
etiesof activitiesthat are mentioned in a list like the one
above. We wanted a brief statement that would apply
broadly acrossdenominationsand in all kindsof different
churches. I think we came up with an excellent statement.
We said that:
Somegoverningand teachingroleswithin thechurch are
restricted to men.
While we did not wish to exclude applicationsto areas
outside the local church, I believe that our primary focus
here wasto indicate how thiswould work in the local
church. In termsof the local church, thisstatement means
that, on list one, the DanversStatement denitely would
prohibit activities1-6 for women, and probably also items
7 and 8: We afrm that the ofce of senior pastor, the
ofce of elder (or equivalent), together with activities
specically connected to those positions, are not open to
women. But all the other activitieson the list, from item 9
to the end, would be open to women.
In the areasof Bible teaching, in order for some
teaching roleswithin the church to be restricted to men,
the DanversStatement would draw the line between 5 and
6 on list two: regular Bible teaching to the assembled
church on Sunday morning isrestricted to men. But the
rest of the list, from item 6 to the end, would be open to
women aswell asmen.
The DanversStatement did not specically addressareas
of public visibility or recognition (list 3 above), but since
we intended to restrict the ofcesof pastor/elder to men,
then in the third column we would draw the line after
number 1, and say that the ordination to the clergy, which
in most or all denominationsimpliesrecognition of an
ability to serve assenior pastor, would be restricted to men.
But all other items, from item 2 to the end, would be
potentially open to women aswell asmen.
By saying that somegoverning and teaching roleswith-
in the church are restricted to men, the DanversStatement
drawsa denite line: it differsdecisively with all evangelical
feminists(or egalitarians), who simply could not agree with
thisstatement. They would insist that no governing or
teaching roleswithin the church should be restricted to
menthat all should be open to women and men alike.
In thisway the DanversStatement drawsa very broad
circle. It asksonly for what seemsto usand to so many
evangelicalsto be clearly afrmed in Scripture: that when
the church assembles, there isa teaching and governing
authority over the congregation which isreserved for men.
Christianswho agree with thisfoundational principle agree
with usin the Council on Biblical Manhood and Woman-
hood and agree with the DanversStatement. People who
differ with thisput themselvesin the egalitarian camp.
Personally, I believe that thisbrief phrase in the Danvers
Statement isgoing to become very important in the ongo-
ing discussionsbetween complementariansand egalitarians
in the evangelical world. In spite of the many varietiesof
waysin which churcheswill work out thisprinciple in
their own congregationsand denominations, thisphrase
pointsto a decisive difference in understanding Scripture
and in understanding how a church will function. This
brief phrase, then, denesthe foundational difference
between egalitariansand complementariansover the role of
women in the church.
My own personal convictions
When we wrote the DanversStatement in 1987, we drew it
up in such a way that it wasintentionally broader in what
it allowed than the personal convictionsof many of uson
the Council. We did thisbecause we recognize that apply-
ing Scripture to specic situationsnot addressed by Scrip-
ture isan area which requiresmuch wisdom and mature
judgment, and an area in which Christiansmay differ.
Therefore we wanted to specify what we thought the Bible
at the very least would require of us.
In areasof difculty in application, it isright for usto
talk with each other and attempt to persuade one another
of what exactly God would have usdo in our specic situa-
tions. At thispoint I will speak for myself, and probably
for many other membersof the Council on Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood, but I do not here purport to
be speaking for all of the Council or for the Danvers
Statement itself.
My own personal judgment in thismatter isthat in the
area of governing authority I would draw the line between
numbers9 and 10; that is, I would approve of a woman as
Director of Christian Education or Superintendent of the
Sunday School, or asa committee chairman within the
6 CBMW CBMWNEWS NEWS
Applying
Scripture to
specic
situations not
addressed by
Scripture is an
area which
requires
much wisdom
and mature
judgment,
and an area
in which
Christians
may differ
church. These activitiesdo not seem to me to carry the sort
of authority over the whole congregation that Paul hasin
view in 1 Timothy 2, or when he speciesthat elders
should be men (in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus1).
On the other hand, I would not think it appropriate for
a woman to be a permanent leader of a home fellowship
group (item 9), especially if the group regularly carriesout
pastoral care of itsmembersand functionsasa sort of
mini-church within the church. Thisisbecause the leader
of such a group carriesa governing authority that seemsto
me very similar to the authority over the assembled congre-
gation that Paul mentionsin 1 Timothy 2. Given the fre-
quently small nature of churchesmeeting in homesin the
rst century, and given the pastoral nature of the respon-
sibility of leading a home fellowship group, I think Paul
would have thought of thisasincluded in 1 Timothy 2:12,
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over
men.
But I must say at once that that ismy personal judge-
ment. And in fact at one time I wasa member of a church
that differed with me at that specic point, and that had
some women leading home fellowship groups. I differed
with that decision, but I found that I could in good con-
science continue asan active and supportive member of the
church. However, I dont think that I personally could have
participated in good conscience in a fellowship group in
which I myself wasa member and there wasa woman who
functioned in that local pastoral role with regard to me
and my wife.
With regard to areasof Bible teaching, I would person-
ally draw the line between points10 and 11. Once again, I
think there isa strong similarity between a home Bible
study which istaught by a woman (item 9) and the local
church meeting in a home in the ancient world. Therefore
I do not think it would be appropriate for a woman to be
the regular instructor in a home Bible study. On the other
hand, my own personal judgment isthat the moderating of
a discussion in a small group Bible study may at timesbe
appropriate for women. The teaching and governing com-
ponent islessthan it would be if she were regularly teach-
ing or had pastoral responsibility over the entire group, and
doesnot clearly resemble the teaching authority over the
assembled congregation that Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy
2.
For similar reasons, I think it would be inappropriate
for a woman to be the Bible teacher in an adult Sunday
School classwhere much instruction iscarried out. This
looksso much like what Paul prohibited in 1 Timothy 2
that I could not personally endorse it. (I have already heard
many storiesof women doing such teaching effectively, but
I don't want to base my decision just on peoplesexperi-
ences: I am trying to say how I think Scripture applies, and
then to let Scripture govern our experiences, and I think
Scripture appliesherethough I admit that God may bless
hisWord with good fruit anyway no matter who teachesit.
The nal question still must be what Scripture tellsusto
do and not to do).
When do children become adults, and when does
teaching boysbecome teaching men?I think we must rec-
ognize that thiswill vary from society to society and from
culture to culture. It may even vary from subculture to
sub-culture within our own country.
In our own culture, if children graduate from high
school, move away from home, and begin to support
themselves, then surely they are no longer under the
instruction of their mothersat home, but are functioning
asadultson their own. A new household hasbeen formed.
In that case, the young men are certainly adult men, and it
would not be appropriate for a woman to teach a classwith
them asmembers.
Many college studentsare already living away from
home, supporting themselvesat least in part, and function-
ing in our society in all other waysasindependent adults.
In fact, most college studentswould be insulted if you
called them children! For these reasons, it seemsto me
that a college age Sunday School class(item 10) should
have a male teacher.
The situation with a high school classisdifferent,
because high school studentsare still at home, and still
under the instruction of their mothers. Sunday School class
might be seen asan extension of thishome instruction,
and therefore I do not think it would be wrong for a
woman to be a Bible teacher in a high school Sunday
School class. However, many churchesmay well think it
preferablefor a man to teach a high school Sunday School
class, because of the modeling of male leadership in the
church that these young adultswill grow to appreciate and
in fact to imitate.
But what about activity number 6, occasional preaching
to the whole church on Sunday morning?It isfair to say at
thispoint that a number of evangelical scholarswho pub-
licly identify themselvesascomplementarianshave decided
that Scripture allowsthisactivity. Evangelical leaderssuch
asJ.I. Packer, JamesMontgomery Boice, JamesHurley, and
John Wimber, have all publicly written or stated that this
kind of activity seemsto them to be allowed from time to
time. Their argument isthat 1 Timothy 2:12, which focus-
eson governing authority and teaching in the church,
thereby indicatesto usthat what Paul really hasin mind is
the ofce of elder. And aslong asa woman doesnot hold
the ofce of elder or regularly perform the functionsthat
an elder performs, then 1 Timothy 2 would not prohibit
her from occasional preaching.
Personally I differ with thisbecause Paul isspeaking of
activitiesand not the ofce of elder in 1 Timothy 2:12. He
doesnot say, I permit no woman to have the teaching or
governing authority over men that belongsto elders, but
rather he mentionscertain activitiesin the assembled con-
gregation which are prohibited to women: He says, I per-
mit no woman to teach or to haveauthorityover men; she
isto keep silent (1 Tim. 2:12). For thisreason, though I
have pondered thismatter, I simply cannot bring myself to
think that Paul meant that women could teach and have
authority over the congregation occasionally, but that
NOVEMBER 1995 7
From our
mailbag
Dear CBMW:
A coworker loaned
mehiscopyof your
newsletter. Asa former
member of theCRC
and recent convert to a
moreconservative
position on women in
church ofce, hegured
Id appreciateRobert
Godfreysarticle.
I havent even madeit
that far and Im
impressed.
Expect a check fromme
soon for a subscription!
DanKnight@aol.com
they could not teach and have authority on a regular or
permanent basis. Moreover, 1 Corinthians14:33-36 pro-
hibitsan activity (judging prophecies), not an ofce.
I mention thisdifference among people who agreewith
the DanversStatement simply to point out that there is
room for legitimate difference of understanding of how
these biblical teachingsapply to specic situations. We
agree in principle, and we differ slightly in one specic
application. I hope that aswe talk and pray and search
Scripture more, we may come to agreement. But thiskind
of difference in specic application should not bother us
too much, because such differencesare inevitable in a
world in which churchesvary so widely in the nature of
service, the kind of governing structuresthat they have,
and in their understanding of specic situations. In all
areasof church life, differenceson specic applicationscan
occur within broader guidelineson which all are agreed.
Finally, in the areasof public visibility and recognition,
I personally would also draw the line between items1 and
2. I do not think that women should be ordained aspas-
tors, but I think it isentirely appropriate for them to have
other full-time positionson the pastoral staff of the
church (such asyouth worker, music director).
Conclusions
I hope that these guidelineswill be helpful for many
churchesin coming to their own understanding of where
to draw the line on what they think appropriate for
women and what they think to be inappropriate. I fully
realize that many churcheswill draw such a line in a way
that ismore restrictive than what I have mentioned here. I
would simply encourage churchesin all of thisto be careful
not to prohibit what the Bible doesnt prohibit, while they
are also attempting to preserve male leadership in a way
Scripture directs.
What isleft below the line?Many activitiesthat have
not traditionally been open to women. And I have not
even mentioned hundredsof other kindsof ministriesin a
local church that women and men are already carrying out.
Therefore I suspect that almost every person reading this
article will realize that there are some areasof ministry that
are not currently open to women in hisor her church,
areasto which the church should give careful and prayerful
consideration.
In fact, I hope that thisentire controversy in the evan-
gelical world will prompt churchesto give earnest consider-
ation to the possibilitiesof many more kindsof ministries
for women than have traditionally been open to them in
the past. I know I speak for the entire membership of the
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood when I
say that it isour sincere desire to open the doorswide to
all the areasof ministry in the church that God intendsfor
women to have.
And I think we are all consciousof the fact that these
areasof ministry may indeed be more numerous, more
publicly visible, and more prominent in the life of the
church than we had previously thought. If that happens,
thisentire controversy will have served a wonderful pur-
pose and the church will be far stronger, and far more
pleasing to God, asit entersthe twenty-rst century.
O
O
FTEN, THE RELATIONAL TENSIONSBETWEEN MEN
and women are described in termsof power or control. This
semantic slant on the discussion often wrongly leadsegalitariansto
the conclusion that headship includesthe forceful use of power by a man,
resulting in domination if not outright abuse of hiswife. Because of this,
egalitarian effortsto level the distinctionsbetween men and women in the
home and the church are easily focused on the womansreclamation or asser-
tion of power or control in the relationship.
A glimpse at some Biblical injunctionsshould correct thisfalse assump-
tion and itsconclusion. Jesus reminded the disciplesin Luke 22:25-26. The
kingsof the Gentileslord it overthem; and those who exercise authority over
them call themselvesBenefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the
greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who ruleslike
the one who serves. Likewise, Peter describesleadership and authority as
gentle service, serving asoverseerseager to serve; not lording it over those
entrusted to you (1 Pet. 5:2-3). In the home, Paul doesnot command hus-
bandsto dominate, rather he instructsthem to lovingly and sacricially serve
their wivesasChrist doesHischurch (Eph. 5:25-33).
Along these lines, Diane Knippersof the Institute on Religion and Demo-
cracy declared in Beijing, I am likewise skeptical of the use of the concept of
power in the family. What a sterile and bankrupt view of the most private
and intimate human relationship!The root problem ishusbandswho do
not love their wives. Our goal should be to change their mindsand
hearts, not merely to restrict their behavior.
In a letter to First Things(Jan., 1995) a woman reader underscored
these issuesasshe wrote, I know a woman whose husband hasAlz-
heimersdisease. She caresfor him with loving patience and constancy
such asshe used with their small children many yearsago. I know a
man whose wife hasan incurable debilitating disease. He bathesher,
dressesher, and feedsher. He lovingly triesto understand her sadly gar-
bled attemptsto speak. Where doesthe concept of power come into
these marriages?The healthy spousesare obviously making all the deci-
sions. Are they therefore powerful?Or might we consider that the help-
lessspousesare exercising power because they are commanding con-
stant service?
Feministsin academe, feminist syndicated columnists, and talk
show hostson TV have been highly effective in promoting the practice
of analyzing all human relationshipsin termsof power, obliviousto the
distortionsthat ensue. Concomitant with thisisthe unexamined
assumption that power per seisdesirable. The tragedy isthat so many
Christiansare docilely accepting this.
Clearly, sacricial service, not power iswhat isdesired and required
in Jesus pattern of leadership.
Should headship be a power play?
8 C CB BM MW WNEWS NEWS
Gary Almy
Hudson T. Armerding
Harold O.J. Brown
D.A. Carson
Edmund Clowney
Waldemar Degner
ThomasR. Edgar
Jerry Falwell
John M. Frame
Carl F.H. Henry
JamesB. Hurley
Paul Karleen
D. JamesKennedy
Betty Jo Lewis
Gordon R. Lewis
Robert and Sherard Lewis
Erwin Lutzer
John F. MacArthur, Jr.
Richard L. Mayhue
Marty Minton
DouglasJ. Moo
Stephen F. Olford
J.I. Packer
Paigeand Dorothy Patterson
Dennisand Barbara Rainey
Pat Robertson
Adrian and JoyceRogers
Siegfried Schatzmann
Bob Slosser
F. LaGard Smith
R.C. Sproul
Joseph M. Stowell, III
John F. Walvoord
Luder Whitlock
Peter Williamson
CBMW
CBMW
BOARD OF REFERENCE
For those who hate feministsand t
O
O
N DECEMBER 8, 1989 A CLEAN-SHAVEN
man in hisearly 20swalked into the faculty of
engineering at the University of Montreal,
Canada. He wandered about the hallwaysof the structure
for quite some timedark eyessearching, analyzing, scru-
tinizingand nally chose a crowded classroom on the
second oor. Calmly, and with resolve he
entered and commanded the male stu-
dentsto move away from the females.
When they hesitated, he methodically
separated them with the nub of hissemi-
automatic rie and ordered the men out
of the room. Confusion exploded into
terror asthe execution began. You are all
feminists! the young man screamed.
Those were the last wordsthose female
engineering studentsever heard. In the
wake of one mansfury against feminism,
fourteen women were killed and numer-
ousotherscritically injured.
Marc Lepine hated feminists. But the
media informed citizensthat hisactionsgave credence to
the very system of ideology which he had so brutally
attacked. The slaughter wassimply an extremist enactment
of societysattitude towardswomen. Asone journalist
argued, A madman took to demented extremesa battle
against the more vulnerable sex which isenacted daily
without gunre on so many eldsacrossthiscountry.
The journalist wasright. A battle israging acrossthe
nations. It isa spiritual battle. And although the battle is
not isolated to role relationshipsbetween men and women,
much of it doestake place on that front. Those of uswho
have experienced the goodnessof Godsplan for male-
female relationshipsmust be careful not minimize or trivi-
alize itsseverity. Countlesswomen experience extreme pain
and suffering from the handsof the very men who ought
to guard and protect them. It isreal. It isdamaging. And
from my perspective, it isincreasing in violence and inten-
sity.
My personal experience
I have been extremely fortunate to have had good men in
my life. My grandfather, father, brothers, husband, and
male friendshave all blessed me in both action and word.
But consider the woman who hasbeen molested by her
grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her
brother, slapped by her husband and ridiculed by her male
friends. She reactsto the wounding by adopting a feminist
and/or egalitarian philosophy which assuresher of her
worth and value asa woman. And no wonder!
To be sure, such a woman needstruth. But most often,
she needshealing of her pain before she isable to respond
to truth.
A story of a changed life
I am reminded of Sandraa friend I met in University.
Sandra wasstudying to be a medical doctor. When I met
her, she wascontemplating becoming a Christian, but was
struggling with how to reconcile Christianity with her fem-
inist world-view. Sandra did give her life to Christ, but
continued to hold on to feminist beliefs.
She even forced her future husband to
sign a contract agreeing to stay home
half-time should they have children.
That wasalmost fteen yearsago.
Today Sandra isa different woman. She
isat home with her three children and is
delighting in being a wife and a mother.
She isincreasingly joyful and at peace
with submitting to her husband and sup-
porting and encouraging him in leader-
ship in their home and in the church.
Why the change?Two reasons. First,
Sandrashusband isa godly man who
lovesand blessesher asa woman. Over
the yearsasshe experienced hisloveshe began to
believe in the goodnessof Godspattern. Second, Sandra
waswilling to face her woundedness, repent of bitterness
and unforgiveness, and release her pain to Jesus. She has
received signicant healing from the assault on her person-
hood asa woman. And asshe hasbeen healed, her heart
hasgrown softer and more eager to obey GodsWord.
Sandra and I have often talked about the theological
rationale and Scriptural directivesregarding biblical man-
hood and womanhood. But aspersuasive asI would like to
think my argumentswere, I doubt whether they played
much of a role in changing her heart. No. It wasthe Spirit
of God, the faithful love of a good man, and her willing-
nessto forgive those who had wounded her that made the
difference.
I loved Sandra when she wasa feminist just asI love her
now. I wasgrieved by the wounding of her spirit and by
the cordsof anger, bitternessand self-sufciency she had
wrapped herself in. So understand this: It wasthe desire for
freedom and wholenessfor Sandra and not the desire for
theological perfection that motivated my desire to see
Sandra turn to truth. For truth isnot an end in and of
itself, but rather the meansto see and know Jesusfully
and in knowing Him fully to be set fully free.
So let me relate my experience with Sandra to the
University of Montreal tragedy.
If the truth be told, there are complementarianswho
hate feminists. And just like Mark Lepine, they would
injure, wound, and kill the spiritsif not the bodiesof
those women who adhere to feminist philosophy. Marc
Lepinescalculated and brutal attack did nothing to con-
vince hisaudience of the evilsof feminism. On the con-
BY MARY KASSIAN
I would humbly ask
that God provideyou
with a heart of
compassion and grace
towards thosewho
havebeen deceived by
feminist philosophy
P
P
OPE JOHN PAUL II, IN RECENT LETTERS
to the church concerning women, hasmade several
clearly complementarian statements. While there
are signicant theological differencesbetween evangelicals
and Roman Catholics, we rejoice in and afrm much of
the stance that the pontiff hastaken in these documents.
In January, 1995, in a papal letter entitled Women as
Teachersof Peace, the pope reafrmed the creation order
and differencesbetween men and women.
Indeed, from the very rst pagesof the Bible Gods
plan ismarvelously expressed: He willed that there should
be a relationship of profound communion between man
and woman, in a perfect reciprocity of knowledge and of
the giving of self. In woman, man ndsa partner with
whom he can dialogue in complete equality. Thisdesire for
dialogue which wasnot satised by any other living crea-
ture, explainsthe mansspontaneouscry of wonder when
the woman, according to the evocative symbolism of the
Bible, wascreated form one of hisribs: Thisat last isbone
of my bonesand esh of my esh (Gn. 2:23). Thiswas
the rst cry of love to resound on the earth!
Even though man and woman are made for each other,
thisdoesnot mean that God created them incomplete.
God created them to be a communion of persons, in
which each can be a helpmate to the other, for they are
equal aspersons(bone of my bones) and complementary
asmasculine and feminine. Reciprocity and complemen-
tarity are the two fundamental characteristicsof the human
couple.
Sadly, a long history of sin hasdisturbed and continues
to disturb Godsoriginal plan for the couple, for the male
and the female, thusstanding in the way of itscomplete
fulllment. We need to return to thisplan, to proclaim it
forcefully, so that women in particularwho have suffered
more from itsfailure to be fullledcan nally give full
expression to their womanhood and their dignity.
Again, thispast summer, in anticipation of the Beijing
World Conference on Women, the Vatican distributed a
papal letter to the women of the world in which the pope
reafrmed hisopposition to the ordination of women, reaf-
rmed the complementarity of the sexesasmale and
female, and expressed sorrow over the way in which
women have been regarded through the years.
He wrote that:
From the very beginning, man hasbeen created male
and female (Gn 1:27). Men and women are comple-
mentary. Womanhood expressesthe human asmuch as
manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.
In their fruitful relationship ashusband and wife, in
their common task of exercising dominion over the earth,
woman and man are marked neither by a static and undif-
ferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably
conictual difference.
The presence of a certain diversity of rolesisin no
way prejudicial to women, provided that thisdiversity is
not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but israther an
expression of what isspecic to being male and female.
Thisissue also hasa particular application within the
church. If Christentrusted only to men the task of being
an icon of hiscountenance asshepherd and bridegroom
of the church through the exercise of the ministerial priest-
hood, thisin no way detractsfrom the role of women or
for that matter, from the role of the other membersof the
church who are not ordained to the sacred ministry, since
all share equally in the common priesthood.
NOVEMBER 1995 9
Gleason Archer, Ph.D.
Professor of Old Testament,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
Deereld, IL
Donald Balasa, J.D.
Attorney, Wildwood, IL.
JamesBorland, Th.D.
Professor of New Testament and Theol-
ogy, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
LaneT. Dennis, Ph.D.
President, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL
W. Robert Godfrey, Ph.D.
President, Westminster Theological
Seminary, Escondido, CA
WayneA. Grudem, Ph.D.
Professor of Systematic and Biblical
Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, Deereld, IL
H. WayneHouse, Th.D., J.D.
Author and Lecturer, Salem, Oregon
R. Kent Hughes, D.Min.
Senior Pastor, CollegeChurch,
Wheaton, IL
Elliott Johnson, Th.D.
Professor of BibleExposition,
DallasTheological Seminary
S. LewisJohnson, Jr., Th.D.
Minister, BelieversChapel,
Dallas, TX
Mary Kassian, M.C.A.O.T.
Author and WomensMinistry
Consultant, Edmonton, Alberta
RhondaH. Kelley, Ph.D.
AssociateDirector, Innovative
Evangelism, New Orleans, LA
GeorgeW. Knight, III, Th.D.
Adjunct Professor, Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary,
CharlotteExtension
Beverly LaHaye
President, Concerned Women for
America, Washington, D.C.
ConnieMarshner
Editor, Child & Family Protection
Institute, Gaithersburg, MD
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Old Testament,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deereld, IL
Dorothy Patterson, D.Min.
Homemaker, Adjunct Faculty,
Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, WakeForest, NC
John Piper, Dr.Theol.
Senior Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist
Church, Minneapolis, MN
JamesStahr, Th.M.
BibleTeacher, Former editor, Interest
magazine, Wheaton, IL
ThomasR. Schreiner, Ph.D.
AssociateProfessor of New Testament,
Bethel Theological Seminary,
Minneapolis, MN
Larry Walker, Dr. Theol.
Professor of Old Testament, Mid-
AmericaSeminary, Memphis, TN
BruceA. Ware, Ph.D.
AssociateProfessor of Biblical and
Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, Deereld, IL
William Weinrich, Ph.D
Professor of Church History,
ConcordiaSeminary, Ft. Wayne, IN
CBMW
CBMW
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Papal letters are complementarian
trary, many turned to feminism to understand and come to
termswith hissenselessviolence.
The call for compassion
In the same way, I believe that some Christiansturn to
egalitarianism because of complimentarianswho bombard
them with intellectual argumentswhilst being lled with
hatred or simply lacking in compassion toward women. Of
this, we must repent.
Asan executive member of the Council on Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood I believe that theological
integrity and careful reasoning are important in setting for
the biblical model for the rolesof men and women. But
just asimportant isour compassion for the wounded and
our desire to see them walk in wholenessand freedom.
Therefore, while we provide you with materialsthat
carefully and logically explain the biblical position, I would
humbly ask that God provide you with a heart of compas-
sion and grace towardsthose who have been deceived by
feminist philosophy. Most feministswill not be persuaded
by theological nesse or expertise. Theirsisa wounding of
the heart and their mindswill only be set aright astheir
heartsare healed.
So asthe sixth anniversary of the Montreal slaying
approaches, let usremember all the women who were
senselessly murdered and wounded because of Marc
Lepineshatred. Let usremember that it isGodskindness
that leadsusto repentance. And above all, let usremember
to love and pray for all the Sandras.
those who dont
But how does it work in marriage?
10 C CB BM MW WNEWS NEWS
himself with me and to provide me with hiswisdom,
insight and leadership.
On a very practical basis, we seek to set aside some time
each day for thisto happen. Couch Time isa time when
the children, the computer, the paperwork, the housework,
the phone and all the other demandsof life are set aside in
order to concentrate on each other.
Thissimple exercise doesa number of things: First, it
reinforcesthe equality part of our relationship. My views,
perceptionsand opinionsare voiced equally alongside his.
Second it providesBrent with the information necessary to
establish Godsvision and direction for our family. If he
doesnot know what I am thinking and feeling, he cannot
lead wisely.
Couch Time also providesme with a glimpse of his
heart. I delight in responding to hisleadership because I
know that he haslistened to me, heard me, and that he
considersmy viewsvery, very seriously. I have seen how his
heart ismotivated, not for pleasing himself, but for doing
what isright.
Couch Time buildstrust. I trust Brentsleadership,
and he trustsme that I will be honest with him, support
him and never ridicule or mock hiseffortsto lead. Finally,
Couch Time isjust a lot of fun! We have a lot of laughs
and enjoy the beauty and goodnessof all God intended
marriage to be.
Mary Kassian
MY WIFE JANI AND I are joint heirstogether of the
grace of life. I also have the privilege of serving her asthe
head of the home. So how do I
know when my service ashead is
on target?It seemsto me that I
have not properly listened to my
wife until she feelslistened to. I
have not properly understood my
wife until she feelsunderstood. I
have not properly cared for my
wife until she feelscared for, and
so on. So, aswe negotiate the
challengesof everyday life, alert
attention to my wifesfeelingsteachesme how to conduct
myself toward her so that my headship truly translatesinto
blessing for my wife. She deservesit.
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
PAIGE AND I ARE BOTH COMMITTED to the vows
we made at the time of our marriage: he promised to cher-
ish me, and I promised to obey him. Godsplan isbased
on a beautiful tensionasPaige offersto me provision,
protection and leadership (Gen. 2:15-17), I respond with
submission to accept hisprovision, protection and leader-
ship.
I trust Brents
leadership,
and he trusts
me that I
will be honest
with him,
support him
and never
ridicule or
mock his
efforts
to lead.
MARY KASSIAN
In future issues, additional
readersquestionswill be
answered.

In a practical way, in your marriage
relationship, how do you balancemale-
femaleequality with maleheadship?
Thisquestion will be answered by six of
our Council members: Bruce Ware, Mary
Kassian, Ray Ortlund, Dorothy Patter-
son, George Knight and Rhonda Kelley.
MY WIFE, JODI, AND I enjoy a deep,
growing and genuine love and respect for
each other. I admire her giftsand abili-
ties, and I offer my help to her in waysI can. She, likewise,
seeksto assist me in all the ways
she isable, and I am so apprecia-
tive of her support, encourage-
ment, advice and contribution.
While we enjoy, then, a relation-
ship of mutual service to one
another, it isclear to both of us
that I am Godsdesignated leader
in our home. She recognizesher
calling to assist me in my calling
in a way that extendsbeyond our
normal help to one another. In
short, we serve each other, but together, she worksparticu-
larly to assist me to accomplish my own calling before the
Lord.
Bruce Ware
BRENT AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED for almost thir-
teen years. In that time, he hasalwayshonored, blessed and
encouraged me. He hasnever, ever said or done anything
that would give me the impression that I am lesser than he.
He trustsme completely, and
givesup much on my account.
When he fails, he isquick to seek
forgiveness. I am left with the
impression that he regardsmy
desiresand interestsasmore
important than hisown, and I
feel cherished.
Therefore, the question of
male-female equality hasnot been
an issue in my mind. I am secure
and condent in who God has
made me asa woman. Brent upholdsand guardsmy
equality so I do not feel the need to do so. And because
of Brentsgreat love, I am delightedindeed overjoyedto
have the opportunity to respond to hisleadership and
encourage him in it. I try to do so on a daily basisby com-
municating to him all that hashappened during my day,
including what hashappened in the livesof our children. I
open my heart to him, pour out all my daily disappoint-
ments, victories, joysand struggles. I invite him to share
A
Q
BRUCE WARE
MARY KASSIAN
RAY ORTLUND
NOVEMBER 1995 11
healthy and positive way. We have found distinctive roles
helpful especially when we are making signicant life-
changing decisions.
Two yearsago asI faced the challengesof a full-time
career, a growing ministry, and a family commitment, and
Chuck faced increasing demandsin hiswork, we prayed
together about Godsleadership in our lives. Chuck pro-
vided invaluable feedback and ongoing support.
Ultimately, I made the decision to retire from my pro-
fessional work in order to pursue full-time ministry and
time with my family.
At thistime in our lives, we face another time of deci-
sion. We are praying together about Godsleadership in
our lives. Asit isChuckswork that may change, I offer
personal advice and provide encouragement. I have true
condence in him to make the right choice for usat this
time. I am at peace knowing that God can use me wherev-
er He might lead us.
GodsBiblical teaching about men and women in mar-
Biblical
teaching
about
men and
women in
marriage has
enriched our
relationship
with each
other and has
strengthened
our love for
Him
RHONDA KELLEY
Because God gave me to Paige to be hishelper, Paige
takesadvantage of the help God hasgiven to him. He
asksfor my input and listens
respectfully to the insightsI have
to share. I feel loved and useful,
even when Paige doesnot accept
my counsel; Paige acceptsthe
challenging responsibilitiesGod
hasgiven him to love me, even if
sometimesI am unlovable, and to
lead me, even though I have a
sometimesindependent and stub-
born spirit. There isa beautiful
reciprocity in the equality of our standing before God and
the diversity in our responsibility to the Father.
Dorothy Patterson
OUR EQUALITY ASIMAGE BEARERSOF GOD and
asjoint-heirsof the grace of Christ isthe most basic factor
that governsthe relationship that Virginia and I have as
husband and wife. Biblical principlesare the driving force
in our marriage. Constantly we
work on the way in which we lov-
ingly expressand carry out the
rolesGod hasgiven to each one in
accordance with those Biblical
principles.
In applying those principleson
a day-to-day basis, there are many
decisionswhich are a question of
application, wisdom and judg-
ment. In these situationswhere
we are seeking wisdom and Gods
guidance, there may be several
optionsthat appear open to us.
In the decision making process, I must take into con-
sideration the needs, thoughtsand feelingsof my wife, as
the Apostle Peter tellsme to do (1
Pet. 3:7), so I might exercise a
godly and loving leadership for
the two of uswho are one by mar-
riage.
George W. Knight, III
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
Biblical teachingsabout the hus-
band-wife relationship impacts
our marriage daily. For the past
twenty-one years, Chuck and I
have respected each others
unique personalitiesand gifts. We have acknowledged that
we are both created in the image of God, equal in worth
and value, but different in role and function. Our marriage
hasgrown aswe have each fullled a role and together
have become a stronger unit.
On a daily basis, with the help of the Lord, we are able
to combine male headship with male-female equality in a
DOROTHY PATTERSON
GEORGE AND
VIRGINIA KNIGHT
CHUCK AND
RHONDA KELLEY
TEAM adopts
complementarian missions policy
W
E ARE PLEASED TO LEARN THAT THE
widely-respected evangelical mission agency
TEAM, headquartered in Wheaton, Illinois, adopted
in 1992 a balanced and clear policy statement regard-
ing the rolesof men and women in mission work.
CBMW ishappy to commend thispolicy statement
to other organizationsfor their consideration. The
statement isconsistent with the DanversStatement and
clearly complementarian in itsafrmations.
Clarication of TEAMs Practice
Concerning Womens Role in Ministry
(adopted at June 1992 Board meeting)
Women are equally responsible with men to evange-
lize the lost and to teach. Missionaries are encour-
aged to use their gifts in ministry as authorized by
t he el ders of t he nat i onal church or t he Fi el d
Council where no church isestablished.
TEAM makes ministry assignments of the basis of
itsunderstanding of Godsorder regarding authority
and accountability. While we recognize the equality
of men and women, rolesin ministry are not always
interchangeable. It is TEAMs practice to assign
responsibility for leadership of the church to spiritu-
al men.
Gifted women are frequently involved in evangelism
and church planting and sometimesare required to
assume roles of leadership in the work. However,
when the church establishes its constitution, the
leadership is given to capable, biblically qualified
men who would direct the ministry including the
positionsof elder or pastor in a local church.
12 C CB BM MW WNEWS NEWS
Egalitarian/complementarian bibliography
From an evangelical feminist
(egalitarian) position
1974 Letha Scanzoni & Nancy Hardesty, All
WereMeant to Be(Word)
1975 Paul Jewett, Man asMaleand Female
(Eerdmans)
1976 Richard & Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or
Feminist?Paul'sView of Women(Baker)
1977 Patricia Gundry, Woman, BeFree!
(Zondervan)
1977 Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men, and
theBible(Abingdon)
1979 Berkeley & Alvera Mickelsen, DoesMale
Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?,
ChristianityToday, Oct. 5, 1979, pp. 23-
29. Also: The Head of the Epistles, CT,
Feb. 20, 1981, 20-23. [widely inuential
articles]
1982 E. Margaret Howe, Women and Church
Leadership (Zondervan)
1983 Mary J. Evans, Woman in theBible(IVP)
1984 Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, GNC
(Harper)
1985 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles
(Baker)
1985 Aida Spencer, Beyond theCurse(Thomas
Nelson)
1986 Janette Hassey, No Timefor Silence
(Zondervan)
1986 Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority
and theBible(IVP)
1987 Ruth Tucker & Walter Liefeld, Daughters
of theChurch(Zondervan)
1987 Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Equal to Serve
(Revell)
1987 Gordon Fee, TheFirst Epistleto the
Corinthians, NIC (Eerdmans)
1988 Faith Martin, Call MeBlessed(Eerdmans)
1989 Bonnidell & Robert Clouse, eds., Women
in Ministry: Four Views(IVP) [listed in
thiscategory because of the clear editorial
sympathiesof the editors]
1990 Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender and
Grace(IVP)
1992 Richard & Catherine Kroeger, I Suffer Not
a Woman (Baker)
1992 Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, & Wives
(Hendrickson)
1992 Ruth Tucker, Women in theMaze(IVP)
1994 Rebecca Groothuis, Women Caught in the
Conict (Baker)
1996 (forthcoming) Stanley Grenz, Women in
theChurch (IVP)
From a complementarian position
1977 George W. Knight III, TheNT Teaching
on theRoleRelationship of Men and Women
(Baker)
1980 Susan Foh, Women and theWord of God
(Presbyterian & Reformed)
1980 Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in
Christ (Servant)
1981 JamesHurley, Man and Woman in Biblical
Perspective(Zondervan)
1981 DouglasJ. Moo & Philip Payne, inter-
change in TrinityJournal, 1981 (reprinted,
with additional material, by the
Evangelical Free Church: Moo iscomple-
mentarian, while Payne isegalitarian).
1984 Dee Jepsen, Women: Beyond Equal Rights
(Word)
1985 George W. Knight III, TheRoleRelation of
Men and Women(Moody). Thisisa revi-
sion of the authors1977 book; it also
includesa new appendix by W. Grudem,
Doeskephale(head) Mean Source or
Authority Over in Greek Literature?A
Survey of 2,336 Examples. [also in
TrinityJournal 6 NS(1985), 38-59].
1987 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Women in the
Church(Biblical Perspectives)
1987 Weldon Hardenbrook, Missingfrom
Action: VanishingManhood in America
(ThomasNelson)
1989 F. LaGard Smith, Men of Strength for
Women of God (Harvest House)
1990 Wayne House, TheRoleof Women in
MinistryToday(ThomasNelson) [see also
1995]
1990 Mary Kassian, Women, Creation, and the
Fall (Crossway)
1991 Larry Crabb, Men and Women: Enjoying
theDifference(Zondervan)
1991 R. Kent Hughes, Disciplinesof a Godly
Man (Crossway)
1991 Robert Lewis& William Hendricks,
RockingtheRoles(Navpress)
1991 Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in
Christian Perspective, trans. by Gordon
Wenham (Crossway)
1991 John Piper & Wayne Grudem, eds.,
RecoveringBiblical Manhood and
Womanhood(Crossway)
1992 Jack Cottrell, Feminismand theBible
(College Press, Joplin, Mo.)
1992 Mary Kassian, TheFeminist Gospel
(Crossway)
1992 George W. Knight, III, ThePastoral
Epistles, NIGTC (Eerdmans)
1993 Stu Weber, Tender Warrior, (Multnomah)
1994 Michael Harper, Equal and Different
(London: Hodder & Stoughton)
1995 TheWomansStudyBible, edited by
Dorothy Patterson and Rhonda Kelley
(ThomasNelson)
1995 Wayne House, TheRoleof Women in
MinistryToday(Baker) Revised and updat-
ed edition
1995 (forthcoming) ThomasSchreiner, H.
Scott Baldwin, and AndreasKstenberger,
Women and theChurch: A Fresh Look at 1
Timothy2[tentative title] (Baker)
W
W
E THOUGHT OUR READERSMIGHT FIND IT HELPFUL TO HAVE A BIBLIOGRAPHY LISTING MOST OR ALL OF THE
inuential bookson thissubject from both the egalitarian side and the complementarian side. Note: unlessthese booksare listed in our
order form on page 15, we do not stock or distribute these books. You will have to obtain them from your own library or book dealer. [If we
have omitted important bookswritten by evangelicalson thisissue, please let usknow! The worksby non-evangelicalsnumber several hundreds, and are
surveyed in the 1992 booksby Cottrell and Kassian below.]
From the President of CBMW
NOVEMBER 1995 13
DENOMINATIONAL
&
ORGANIZATIONAL
UPDATE
The following groupshave
rmly committed
themselvesto the
egalitarian
(evangelical feminist)
or
complementarian
(CBMW) position.
EGALITARIAN
Presbyterian Church-USA
United Methodist Church
Fuller Theological
Seminary
InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship
Episcopal Church, USA
COMPLEMENTARIAN
Presbyterian Church in
America
Southern Baptist
Convention
Conservative Mennonite
Conference
Association of Vineyard
Churches
Mid-America Reformed
Seminary
Southern Seminary
Louisville
Southeastern Seminary
Wake Forest
The Evangelical Alliance
MissionTEAM
Westminster Theological
Seminary
C
B
M
W
C
B
M
W
October 30, 1995
Dear friend of CBMW,
Have you ever tried to bake a cake with a key ingredient missing? Have you ever tried to
coach a soccer team with a key player missing? Everything is ready, but something is missing
and things aren't ready to work the way you planned.
This is something of how I feel right now. We had extremely positive responses to issue #1
of CBMWNEWS. We have another exciting issue here as I write. We are already preparing for
issue #3, with news and reviews of new books and new advances in Biblical scholarship. We
are having an inuence in denominational debates on manhood and womanhood.
But there is a key ingredient missing: we dont have enough money to print even issue #2!
In the past, when we sent a letter to our CBMW mailing list, you responded generously
with suppport. But this time we sent you a newsletterCBMWNEWS #1and many of you
responded by sending $10 for a one year subscription. I am thankful for this, and for some
it is all you can do. Yet unless many people are able to give beyond this amount, we will
never expand our inuence.
Let me explain. We have a mailing list of under 4000 names. This is people who have
shown interest in CBMW in the past. We sent CBMWNEWS #1 to all of them. Some have
subscribed to CBMWNEWS. Lets say 1000 subscribe. This is good, but it means that our
inuence has been reduced from 4000 people to 1000, in the key instrument we are using to
spread Biblical teaching on manhood and womanhood.
In order to expand our inuence, we need to send free copies to thousands of other people
especially pastors, seminary students, denominational leaders. Out of those lists, more peo-
ple will subscribe and we will expand our inuence. In fact, we have received permission to
send CBMWNEWS to some pastors in entire denominations. But we cant do it yet, because
we dont have the funds to print and pay for this.
This is why, if we are to expand our inuence even to tens of thousands of Christian deci-
sion-makers, we need many of you to provide generous gifts beyond the $10 per year sub-
scription price.
Can you help? Will you be the missing ingredient, the missing player? I pray that the Lord
will move your heart to do this.
We are trusting God for Philippians 4:19 to be demonstrably true for you and for CBMW:
And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ
Jesus.
Yours in Christ,
Wayne Grudem, Ph.D.
President, CBMW
P.S. All contributions to CBMW are tax deductible to the extent allowed by the IRS. Please
enclose your gift in the envelope supplied.
COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
14 CBMW CBMWNEWS NEWS
A look back to D-Day
T
imeshave changed in
the last fty years. Our
attitudesabout men, mas-
culinity, national loyalty,
war, and legitimate authori-
ty have all changed marked-
ly. Fifty yearsago, men
were lessdoubtful than they
are today about their role in
the culture. They were the
breadwinnersand protec-
torsof women and children
against external threatsand
dangers. Today there are
very strong forcesat work
reshaping mensrole in
their relationship to women
and society.
Beginning in school, and
perhapsearlier, little boys
and young men are nowa-
daystaught that they must
be sensitive, compassionate,
not-too-competitive, not-
too-aggressive, not-too-
ambitiousor lustful for
power, not-too-sexually-
assertive; they are taught
also to disavow their natural
discomfort about homosex-
uality, and to disavow the
importance of the so-called
manly virtues aschildish
or adolescent or declass, or
reactionary, or mindless
notionslike courage, honor,
duty, loyalty, comradeship.
At the next Battle of
Omaha, where will we nd
the Sgt. Streczyksand Lt.
Spauldingsto lead usoff
the beach?
YaleKramer, in agripping
account of theAllied assault on
Normandy, Day at theBeach,
in TheAmerican Spectator,
August, 1994
Reviews and notices
are problematic. For example,
she correctly questionswhy a
hypothetical Christian editor
with an anti-women bias, who
wasseeking to eradicate the
evidence of womensinuence
and leadership with the early
community, would tamper
with the location of 1 Cor.
14.34-35 within the letter but
leave untouched Paulswords
in 1 Cor. 11.2-16? (p. 55).
Indeed, the most satisfactory
conclusion isthat the words
are Pauls.
A second positive feature is
that Jervisconcedesthat Pauls
injunction appliesto all
women in the local church
and not just wives. While she
doesnot pursue the implica-
tionsof thisline of thinking,
thisisalso a major concession
to a complementarian posi-
tion.
A third positive feature is
that she arguesthat the con-
text of the passage revolves
around prophetic utterancesin
the worshipping community.
Finally, she isto be com-
mended for her intellectual
honesty asshe acknowledges
that Paul accepted the patri-
archal ordering of the
Christianshome life [they are
not told to ask their questions
of other women].(p. 69).
Jervis weaknessesare asfol-
lows. First, while she correctly
observesthat the context of
the passage revolvesaround
prophetic utterancesin the
worshipping community, she
doesnot marshall enough sup-
port to supplant the preferred
interpretive position that the
issue isthe public
evaluation/discernment of
prophecy. Her contention that
the Corinthian church en
masse shared the same philo-
sophical mindset with Philo is
speculative and even histori-
cally naive.
Second, while Jervisaccepts
1 Corinthians 14. 34-
35: A Reconsideration
of Pauls Limitation of
the Free Speech of
Some Corinthian
Women,
L. Ann Jervis, Journal for the
Studyof theNew Testament 58
(1995): 51-74
Jervis basic thesisisthat the
interpolation theory for 1 Cor.
14.34-35 should be rejected
and the wordsbe regarded as
authentically Pauls. She pos-
tulatesthat Paul wrote the
passage out of concern that
some womensspeech was
detrimental to the Corinth-
ians exercise of prophecy
because it wasself-focused and
unloving. Paulsprescription
for the problem wasto invoke
the patriarchal moresof his
contemporary society.
The author, who teachesat
Wycliffe College in Toronto,
Canada, demonstratesan
overall interpretive skill and
even-handednessthat istoo
often lacking in more popular
workswhich promote an egal-
itarian viewpoint. And yet, in
the end, she betraysher loyal-
tieswith her summarization,
which in fact impliesthat Paul
cannot be trusted for faithful
teaching on male/female roles
because of hiscultural patriar-
chal bias. Thus, her article has
both positive and negative
aspects.
To begin, she effectively
challengesegalitarian scholars
who propose that the passage
isinauthentic and represents
an editorial insertion to Pauls
letter after hisdeath (cf.
Gordon Fee, TheFirst Epistle
totheCorinthians, Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 699
who commentsthey were not
part of the original text but an
early marginal gloss.). She
demonstratesthat the argu-
mentsused to label thispas-
sage asan editorial insertion
that Paul hasgiven a threefold
injunction to the Corinthian
women: that they be silent,
they ask questionsof their
men at home, and they submit
to their men, she proposes
that hiscommand issimply a
utilitarian utilization of the
patriarchal valuesof hissoci-
ety. According to Jervis, Paul
waswilling to get them (and
the Corinthian community) to
change their behavior by
appealing to a value system in
which women were obliged to
accept the social control of
men. Paul isthusan apostle
who istarnished with chau-
vinism (p. 69) and guilty of
manipulating contemporary
social moresto regulate
Christian behavior in the local
church.
ThisisJervis major down-
fall. She refusesto allow or
even acknowledge the possibil-
ity that Paul hasin fact not
parroted the temporal values
of an unjust, unholy, and
patriarchal Hellenistic society,
but that he hasinstead articu-
lated the eternal valuesand
ethicsof a just and holy and
wise God whose perspective
on order in the home and the
assembly sovereignly supersede
the uctuationsof all cultures
of all times. While there isno
denying Jervis observation
that Paul wasconcerned that
the believerssensitivity and
love for each other be the car-
dinal testimony to God, thisis
simply not an adequate reason
to believe that Godsorder
and Godslove are two contra-
dictory ethicswhich cannot
co-exist at the same time and
in the same place.
In conclusion, Jervis, unlike
many egalitarian authors, does
not waste her time trying to
rescue Paul from himself, but
she iscontent to let Paul be
Paul. For thisI am pleasantly
surprised and appreciative.
However, her deconstruc-
tion of Paul into a chauvinist
of convenience, and her reluc-
tance to consider Godsability
to hold together equality of
value and diversity in mascu-
line-feminine roles, leadsme
to believe that she isnot yet
content to let God be God.
-Brent E. Kassian
Womens
Magazines Update
Cal Thomassurveyed
Septembersmagazine rack
and gleaned these teasersfrom
womensmagazines:
Cosmopolitanoffers11
Secretsof World ClassLovers
and Youre Sexier asYou
Grow Older, Can He Keep
Up? Glamour hasHow to
Really Talk to a Man About
Sex: and Smart, Sexy
Clothes. Mademoisellecarries
A Sexy Body, a Great Love
and an article about sexy
hair. New Womanoffers10
Tipson Having an Affair.
Redbook prints7 Secretsof
Great Sex.
The usually identied per-
petratorsof such demeaning
or abusive titlesare the so-
called mens magazines; now
that womensmagazinesare so
urgently pursuing the debase-
ment and devaluing of
women, men, and the sexual
relationship, we see that
pornography, whether visual
or verbal, hasinvaded our lives
in an unprecedented occupa-
tion and assault.
Thomascallsupon parents,
educatorsand community
leadersto pressure entertain-
ment leadersto reduce the
level of poison they are pump-
ing into the livesof morally
defenselesschildren and newly
pubescent teen-agers.
Cal Thomas, syndicated column,
LosAngelesTimesSyndicate,
October 7, 1995
NOVEMBER 1995 15
Booklets$3. 00 each
x
John Piper and WayneGrudem, 50 Crucial Questions about Manhood and
Womanhood Answered by theeditorsof RecoveringBiblical Manhood and
Womanhood. Fifty questionsmost often raised by evangelical feminists, with
answers. Foreword by Larry Crabb.
y
John Piper, Whats The Difference?Manhood and Womanhood Dened
According to theBible. An overview of Biblical teaching related to themajor
principlesof CBMW. Foreword by Elisabeth Elliot.
z
JamesBorland, Women in the Life and Teachings of JesusAfrming Equality
and Dignity in a Context of MaleLeadership. A refreshing examination of the
tremendousafrmation Jesusgaveto women, together with Hisclear establish-
ment of maleleadership in thechurch. Foreword by John F. MacArthur, Jr.
{
Dorothy Patterson, Wheres Mom?TheHigh Calling of Wifeand Mother in
Biblical Perspective. A seminary graduateand gifted Bibleteacher tellswhy she
decided that being a faithful wifeand mother wasof surpassing importance.
Foreword by CharlesStanley.
|
Vern Poythress, The Church as a FamilyWhy MaleLeadership in theFamily
RequiresMaleLeadership in theChurch asWell. An encouraging look at the
NT teaching on thechurch asa family. It will enrich your church life! Foreword
by D. JamesKennedy.
}
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Gender, Worth, and EqualityManhood and
Womanhood According to Genesis1-3. An exposition of manhood and woman-
hood in Genesis1-3 with a reply to Gilbert Bilezikiansand Aida Spencersinter-
pretationsof thispassage. Foreword by Hudson T. Armerding.
~
Weldon Hardenbrook, Wheres Dad?A Call for Fatherswith theSpirit of
Elijah. A stirring call for fathersto liveout their fatherhood with courageand
wisdom. Foreword by John Piper.

John Piper and WayneGrudem, Can Our Differences Be Settled?A Detailed
Responseto theEvangelical Feminist Position Statement of Christiansfor
Biblical Equality. Foreword by J. I. Packer.

John Piper, For Single Men and WomenA call to singlemen and women
(and therest of us) to recognizethesignicanceof singlemanhood and woman-
hood and theopportunity to serveChrist asmaleand femaleassingles. $3.00
Booklets1-9 areadapted from RecoveringBiblical Manhood and Womanhood
Pre-publication proofs
x
H. Scott Baldwin, A Difcult Word in 1 Timothy 2:12. Thisdenitivepaper is
themost extensivestudy ever doneon authentein, based on an exhaustivecom-
puter search of usagein Greek literature. (12 pages, $2.00).
y
AndreasKstenberger, A Difcult Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12.
Thispaper analyzesthe grammatical structure of the pattern not (verb) nor
(verb) in 1 Timothy 2:12 against other examplesin the New Testament and
extrabiblical literature. (26 pages, $3.00).
These will appear in Women in theChurch: A Fresh Analysisof 1 Timothy2:9-15,
to be published by Baker late in 1995. .
Tapes
x
John Piper, Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. A seriesof sermons, clearly
and courageously expounding thepassagesin theBiblethat teach thetruemean-
ing of manhood and womanhood. Seven sermonson four cassettesin vinyl
album. $17.00
y
WayneGrudem and Mary Kassian with JamesDobson on Focuson the
FamilyA discussion of CBMW and of Mary Kassiansbook, TheFeminist
Gospel. Singlecassette. $5.00
Pamphletssingle copy $1. 00, 100 copies, $15. 00
All pamphletspriced: singlecopy, $1.00, 50 copies, $9.00, 100 copies, $15.00
x
TheDanversStatementA summary of CBMW principlesand goals. 2 page
pamphlet.
y
Stewardsof A Great Mystery by John PiperA brief presentation of CBMW
and our burden to preservetheBiblical standardsof complementarity in the
church and in thehome, reminding usall of what isat stakein thiscurrent
debate. 2 pagepamphlet.
z
Statement on Abuse new from CBMWA clear, forthright statement against
domestic violenceand abusephysical, sexual, verbal and emotional. Helpsput
to rest thecommon egalitarian notion that headship in marriageleadsto abusive
relationships. 2 pagepamphlet.
Reprints of review articles
x
Stephen Baugh, TheApostleAmong theAmazons, a review of Richard and
CatherineKroeger, I Suffer not a Woman(Baker, 1992), reprinted from
Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994):153-171.
y
Albert Wolters, review of I Suffer Not a Womanreprinted from Calvin Theological
Journal 28 (1993): 208-213.
z
Robert W. Yarbrough, I Suffer Not a Woman: A Review Essay, reprinted from
Presbyterion 18/1 (1992): 25-33.
These are available asa packet of three reprints18 pages, $2.00
Other reprints
x
Daniel R. Heimbach, Richard D. Land, and C. Ben Mitchell, Population,
Morality and theIdeology of Control, [seepage2], (5 pages, $1.00).
y
WayneGrudem, Themeaning of kephale, (head): A Responseto Recent
Studies. Appendix 1 in RecoveringBiblical Manhood and Womanhood, (35 pages,
$4.00).
z
Darrel W. Cox, Why Parachurch LeadersMust Meet theSameBiblical
QualicationsasChurch Leaders. 46 pages, $3.00.
{
WayneGrudem, Why Paul AllowsWomen to Prophesy but not Teach in
Church, 13 pages, $2.00. (Reprinted from JETS 30:1 (Mar, 87), 11-23).
|
BruceWaltke, 1 Tim. 2:8-15: Uniqueor Normative?, 6 pages, $1.00.
(Reprinted from Crux 28:1 (Mar 92), 22-27). In thisarticle, Professor Waltkeof
Regent College, Vancouver, answersthecommon objection that 1 Tim. 2:8-15
only appliesto a particular situation at that time, and not to all churchesfor all
time. Herespondsparticularly to Gordon Feesidea that Paul wrotetheseverses
becausesomewomen at Ephesuswerepromoting falsedoctrines.
Books
x
John Piper and WayneGrudem, editors, RecoveringBiblical Manhood and
Womanhood. Twenty-two men and women combinetheir talentsto producethe
most thorough responseyet to evangelical feminism. Includesperspectivesfrom
related disciplinessuch asbiology, law, psychology, sociology, and church histo-
ry. Voted Book of theYear in 1992 by ChristianityToday. Paper, 576 pages.
Retail $19.95, special price$13.00
y
Mary Kassian, TheFeminist Gospel: TheMovement toUniteFeminismWith the
Church. An insightful analysisof 20th Century feminism and itsimpact on the
church. Larry Crabb says, An important book that strikesa much needed
Biblical postureon gender differencesand how theimplicationsof contemporary
thinking on thesubject impact thechurch. $11.95
FOR ORDERING, PLEASE VISIT WWW.CBMW.ORG
FOR PRICESON LARGER QUANTITIES

888-560-8210 PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF OUR NEW PHONE NUMBER

CBMW
CBMW BOOKS AND RESOURCES
Please enclose check in US funds drawn on a US bank
TheDanversStatement
AFFIRMATIONS
Based on our understandingof Biblical teachings, weafrmthefollowing:
1. Both Adam and Evewerecreated in Godsimage, equal before
God aspersonsand distinct in their manhood and womanhood.
2. Distinctionsin masculineand femininerolesareordained by God
aspart of thecreated order, and should nd an echo in every
human heart.
3. Adamsheadship in marriagewasestablished by God beforethe
Fall, and wasnot aresult of sin.
4. TheFall introduced distortionsinto therelationshipsbetween men
and women.
In thehome, thehusbandsloving, humbleheadship tendsto be
replaced by domination or passivity; thewifesintelligent, will-
ing submission tendsto bereplaced by usurpation or servility.
In thechurch, sin inclinesmen toward aworldly loveof power
or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclineswomen
to resist limitationson their rolesor to neglect theuseof their
giftsin appropriateministries.
5. TheOld Testament, aswell astheNew Testament, manifeststhe
equally high valueand dignity which God attached to therolesof
both men and women. Both Old and New Testamentsalso afrm
theprincipleof maleheadship in thefamily and in thecovenant
community.
6. Redemption in Christ aimsat removing thedistortionsintroduced
by thecurse.
In thefamily, husbandsshould forsakeharsh or selsh leader-
ship and grow in loveand carefor their wives; wivesshould for-
sakeresistanceto their husbands authority and grow in willing,
joyful submission to their husbands leadership.
In thechurch, redemption in Christ givesmen and women an
equal sharein theblessingsof salvation; nevertheless, somegov-
erning and teaching roleswithin thechurch arerestricted to
men.
7. In all of lifeChrist isthesupremeauthority and guidefor men and
women, so that no earthly submissiondomestic, religiousor
civilever impliesamandateto follow ahuman authority into
sin.
8. In both men and women aheartfelt senseof call to ministry should
never beused to set asideBiblical criteriafor particular ministries.
Rather, Biblical teaching should remain theauthority for testing
our subjectivediscernment of Godswill.
9. With half theworldspopulation outsidethereach of indigenous
evangelism; with countlessother lost peoplein thosesocietiesthat
haveheard thegospel; with thestressesand miseriesof sickness,
malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction,
crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman
who feelsapassion from God to makeHisgraceknown in word
and deed need ever livewithout afullling ministry for theglory
of Christ and thegood of thisfallen world.
10. Weareconvinced that adenial or neglect of theseprincipleswill
lead to increasingly destructiveconsequencesin our families, our
churches, and thecultureat large.
N o n Pr o f i t
Or gani zat i on
US Post age
PAI D
16 C CB BM MW WNEWS NEWS NOV EM BER 1995
O
f course women want
equal rightsand oppor-
tunity, respect and dignity.
But they do not want a gen-
der-neutral world where
women must despise or deny
their femininity. Gender-fem-
inistsdo not represent most
American women because we
dont see everything in life
through gender-lenses. We are
partnerswithnot adversaries
ofmen. We dont buy the
theory that marriage and fam-
ily are just another part of
social conditioning to keep
usdown.
CaiaMockaitis, public policy infor-
mation manager for Focuson the
Family, in theChicagoTribune,
August 30, 1995
T
he beginning rumblings
of unorthodoxy and its
subsequent heresies[in the
Episcopal church] can be
traced to the ordination of
women to the priesthood in
the mid-1970s. I am a woman
who believesin respect for all
human beingsand in their
inherent dignity, but I do not
condone the manipulation of
canon law in order to justify
the political or sexual desires
of anyone: male or female;
straight or gay.
MarieImpastato, of Houston,
Texas, in aletter to theeditor of
World, October 14, 1995
T
he Bible doesnot teach
that husbandsare to have
power over wives, nor wives
over husbands.The ideal
laid out in Scripture isservant
leadershipthat those who
would lead and so have appar-
ent power should do so
through service. True libera-
tion and equality isnot found
in the pursuit of power. It is
found in submission and ser-
vice. Thisistrue for men and
women. It isnot demeaning;
it isennobling.
DianeL. Knippersof theInstitute
on Religion and Democracy,
addressing theNGO Forum at the
Beijing WomensConference
T
ensof thousandsof
women from around the
world are meeting here in
Beijing, China. The purpose
isto draw attention to the dis-
crimination and oppression of
women. In that purpose I
have no quarrel. But another
agenda loomsover thiswom-
ensconference like a dark
cloud. Many radical feminists
here in Beijing want to con-
trol how women around the
world live and think. They
seek to impose their valuesof
homosexuality, so-called gen-
der equality and anti-family
social experiments. Itsa top-
down agenda of radical
thoughta new oppression
presented in the name of fair-
nessand peace.
CBMW Council Member
Beverly LaHaye, speaking in Beijing
on theagendafor theconference
M
y working assumption
in thiscourse isthat
gender isalready imaginary in
the rst place, meaning that
itsa constructiona ction
that we all live and work with
in our daily lives.I try to
get studentsto see how
absolutely pervasive gender is
and the way itsbeen dened
in termsof heterosexuality
and femininity and masculini-
ty in every aspect of our cul-
ture from religion to politics
to psychology to institutions.
LornaSmedman, teaching acourse
on Reimagining Gender at
Hunter Collegein New York City
Quoted & Quotable
CBMW
Council on Biblical
MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
CBMW
MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD
Council on Biblical