Danvers Statement’s humble headship rhetoric inadvertently grounded later militant masculinity

Evidence

The Danvers Statement was a response both to an alleged “gender confusion” ushered in by the 1960s and to the “evangelical feminism” that had emerged in the 1970s. It was not, however, a call to an aggressive, militant masculinity. It dictated that a husband’s headship be humble and loving rather than domineering, and it stipulated that “husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives.” Yet in asserting female submission as the will of God, it foregrounded a biblical defense of patriarchy and gender difference that would come to serve as the bedrock of a militaristic Christian masculinity. — Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne, 383

Categorization

• QUESTION: The tension between the statement’s stated ‘humble’ headship and its later use for militant masculinity deserves probing — is this drift or latent logic?