“True Woman Manifesto:” A Response (Part 1 of 3)

The True Woman Movement is a multi-faceted package.  If you haven’t yet seen, heard, or read about it, chances are you will.  Soon.

Self-described as a movement “calling women back to biblical standards of womanhood,” TW includes a conference, books, co-sponsors, numerous articles and other resource material, a 30-day True Woman Make-Over “to discover and experience God’s design for your life!” as well as a manifesto.  Joining the movement is a “sign, start, and share” process: 1) Sign the True Woman Manifesto (TWM); 2) Start the 30-Day TW Make-over, and 3) Share the message.  Unveiled at the first “True Woman” conference in Chicago in October 2008, the TW Manifesto is the primary focus of this three-part mini-series.

“I believe the time is ripe for a new movement – a seismic holy quake of counter cultural men and women who dare to take God at His Word and who have the courage to believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female.”

- Mary Kassian

Directed at Christian women and reportedly written by Nancy Leigh DeMoss, the True Woman Manifesto (TWM) was drafted to help women “discover and embrace God’s design for your life.” The TWM has been called everything from “magnificent” and “faithful, clear, true and wise” to “a male supremacy-endorsing document” that’s “rash, hastily put together” and “poorly written.”

In our opinion the TWM is a sincere, well-intentioned but ultimately disappointing, imprecise document based on a pseudo-biblical paradigm. Its tri-part structure opens with a Preamble of five statements prefaced with the words “We Believe” or “We Realize.” This is followed by thirteen Affirmations. The TWM concludes with fifteen Declarations based on these affirmations. Some observations in each section include (not exhaustive):

IN THE PREAMBLE:

Paragraph two states that “… men and women were designed to reflect the image of God in complementary and distinct ways.” The “supporting Scripture” referenced in the footnotes includes Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18, and I Corinthians 11:8.  Curious “support” here, to cite just one example.  Consider:

- Read Genesis 1:26-27. Are “complementary” and “distinct” or similar concepts in the text, or something else?  Good arguments can be made for the latter.

- Astonishingly, this “plan and design” paragraph omits Genesis 1:28, in which man and woman are both given the responsibility and authority to be fruitful, fill the earth, and to have dominion, or rule. (Note the word “them” rather than “he” or “him.”) Together, male and female can reflect the Imago Dei more fully and completely than either of them does separately.

- If TWM writers can read Genesis 1 as far as verse 27, we assume they can also find verse 28. Its omission here, in the second paragraph of the preamble, cannot be unintentional or an oversight. This should tell us something.

- Note that Genesis 1:28 doesn’t debut until Affirmation 4, some seven paragraphs later, referencing the creation of men and women who “… are equal in value and dignity, but… have distinct roles and functions in the home and in the church.” Hmmmm….

- The TWM perpetuates the anemic rendering of Genesis 2:18. The Hebrew word ezer in Genesis 2 is usually translated “helper,” sometimes “companion” or “partner,” which comes a little closer to the full meaning of the word.  But it means so much more.

- I Corinthians 11 doesn’t begin or end at verse 8. The capstone of this oft-debated passage is found in verses 11 and 12. Here Paul indicates that the man and the woman are necessary for each other in the Lord (vs. 11). In fact, the man must always remember that he exists by the woman (vs. 12). And both are of God (vs. 12). This isn’t an either/or gender proposition. It’s a “both.”

Again, we assume that if the drafter(s) of the TWM can read I Corinthians to verse eight, they can also find verses 11 and 12. The fact that these verses aren’t mentioned in this affirmation leads us to again ask, Why?

I regard the True Woman Manifesto as a faithful, clear, true, wise—indeed—magnificent document. What an amazing thing it would be if hundreds of thousands of women signed on with their heart to the True Woman Manifesto.

—Pastor John Piper

IN THE AFFIRMATIONS:

Affirmation two says that we (‘true women”) “glorify God and experience his blessing when we accept and joyfully embrace His created design, function, and order in our lives.” The “supporting Scriptures” cited are I Timothy 2:9, Titus 2:3-5, I Peter 3:3-6. Alright, but consider that:

- I Timothy 2:9 is a fragment within a passage on instruction in worship.

- Titus 2:3-5: Be careful with this one.  As is always the case in interpreting Scripture, it behooves us to look not only at the commands but at the reason(s) behind the commands.  Here women are to be “busy at home” (NIV) “so that no  one will malign the word of God.”  Some have argued that this passage isn’t essentially focused on a woman’s design or function, claiming that Paul’s chief concern is for the reputation of the Christian community in first century Crete.  (In Paul’s time it was considered immoral and wicked for a married woman to take on any other role within the community other than being busy at home.)

Also notice verses one and two.  In context, the thoughts in the passage continue into verse ten.  Note that the overall emphasis is that sound doctrine demands right conduct of all believers, regardless of age, position, or gender.

- I Peter 3:3-6 concerns instructions to wives. This leads us to ask if “a true woman” or “biblical womanhood” as set forth in the TWM is limited solely to wives? What about single women, divorcees, widows? Are they “Untrue women”?  (This affirmation seems to conflict with Affirmation 11.)

Affirmation five indicates that the “calling” of women is “to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.”

- What exactly constitutes “godly” expression?  Or godliness?  And why not affirm and encourage godliness, period?

- Why isn’t there a corresponding affirmation that women receive honor and support in whatever venue?

- Curious how the writers left Ephesians 5:21 out of the “supporting Scripture” mix, which teaches mutual submission in the husband/wife relationship.  Also see Mystery of Submission, a thoughtful sixteen-part series focusing on Ephesians 5.

Additionally, one could argue that placing one gender over the other in any context places an undue burden on one while diluting or disregarding the other. The church benefits from strong, vibrant, balanced leadership from men and women, working together, in tandem, “to the end that Christ may be exalted and the glory and redeeming love of God may be displayed throughout the whole earth.” (We are NOT – repeat, NOT - arguing against male leadership in the church or anywhere else, nor do we advocate disrespecting, demeaning or disregarding male leadership. We are advocating a more biblically balanced, shoulder-to-shoulder, hand-in-hand, mutual approach rather than a culturally-imposed and/or patriarchal hierarchy.)

- The phrase “God-ordained male leadership” may give some cause for pause, especially in light of Genesis 1 and 2. Also see A Christian Understanding of Submission by Alan Johnson.

There’s also some curious “supporting Scriptures” for this point.

Mark 9:35: Has nothing to do with “God-ordained male leadership.” It’s about the first shall be last, etc. – which rather stands this affirmation on its ear, doesn’t it?

Mark 10:42-45: Huh? Teaching the crowds in Judea and then en route to Jerusalem, Jesus is teaching his disciples about servanthood.

Genesis 2:18 – The famous “suitable helper” passage – which many credible Bible scholars regard as an anemic, incomplete rendering as well as a “translation fossil.”

I Peter 5:1-4: Instructions to elders and young men.

I Corinthians 14:34: is the “… women should remain silent in the churches” passage. Even though this verse may be misapplied in this affirmation, its inclusion here is telling. It shows alert readers exactly what a “true women” is and does according to this document. (As in, “Sit down and shut up”?)

I Timothy 2:12-3:7: Another passage that shows us what a “true woman” is? Note the context.

o During his fourth missionary journey, Paul instructs Timothy to care for the church at Ephesus while he went on to Macedonia. When Paul realized that he might not return to Ephesus soon, he wrote this letter to Timothy to: 1) Develop the charge he had given his young assistant (1:3,18), 2) To refute false teachings (1:3-7, 4:1-8, 6:3-5, 20, 21), and 3) To supervise the affairs of the growing Ephesian church which includes church worship and qualifications for church officers.

o In brief: Some believe that Paul here prohibited teaching only by women not properly instructed – e.g. teaching by untrained and aggressive Ephesian women engaged in false teaching. If so, the prohibition is not universal nor permanent but restricted to the church situation at Ephesus – and much of Affirmation five falls apart.

Affirmation seven: “… respond(ing) humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches” demonstrates “a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God his Father.” Really?

- In tandem with affirmations four and five, this affirmation seems to propagate the teaching that marriage symbolizes/reflects a sort of parent/child or master/servant hierarchical relationship.  Based on Ephesians 5:25, 31 and 32, doesn’t it seem  more likely that marriage symbolizes the relationship between Christ and his Church?  For more, see a masterful post on this by Dale Fincher.

Affirmation eight: Who defines what constitutes “selfish insistence on personal rights”? Which rights? “Insistence” how? When? Where? Does that include masculine “insistence” on the “right” to lead?

Affirmation nine: Human life is precious to God and is to be valued and protected, from the point of conception until rightful death.

A case of imprecise language? What exactly is “rightful death?” Who decides? When?  How?  Based on what? This affirmation carefully avoids the term “natural death,” leaving us to ask, why? (This rhetoric may have been adopted to leave the door open for capital punishment, but since this isn’t spelled out – or even hinted at – this statement leaves readers guessing.) 

- In the footnotes, the “supporting Scripture” for this affirmation is Psalm 139:13-16. A great choice for the first portion of this affirmation, but there’s nothing in this passage related to “rightful death” – whatever that is.

JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR PART 2.

***

NOTE: We aren’t going to reproduce the entire Manifesto in this response.  Please check the links provided to refer to the original document and full text.

All comments welcome – provided they comply with our Comment Policy.  See sidebar.