Editorial

In 1991 a cadre of complementarian scholars published what has become known in popular circles as "the big blue book" or "RBMW." It is in no way an overstatement to say that Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, is one of the most significant evangelical books on gender that has been published in the past two or three decades. Indeed, in 1993 RBMW won Christianity Today's book of the year.

RBMW includes the officially published copy of the widely affirmed Danvers Statement around which complementarians have united since 1987. Though not all complementarians affirm every detail of every chapter of the book, nevertheless, there has been a strong consensus that it represents us well. Still in print today, this text is well received by students whose instructors argue for a traditional view of gender roles—in our estimation, it remains the uncontested, single volume work of its kind. Though its contributors come from a variety of theological backgrounds, RBMW is united in its robust and winsome vision of biblical manhood and womanhood. It is at once clear, charitable, and convincing.

Nearly a decade and a half later, egalitarians have now offered their written response to RBMW. The work is titled Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy (DBE), edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, with contributing editor Gordon D. Fee (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004). It is said to be "the first comprehensive scholarly collection of essays from an egalitarian perspective to have been published in North America in the past thirty years."¹The book is not identified formally as a "rejoinder," and several of the chapters in DBE do not even interact with their counterparts in RBMW. Yet it is clearly a response to RBMW— its title, cover, and the order of the table of contents each mirroring RBMW. As coeditor Ronald Pierce says, "I have dreamed of a volume like DBE for decades.... I wanted a text to set beside John Piper and Wayne Grudem's 1991 comprehensive work ... so that my students could read a strong defense of both views from a wide array of recognized scholars and make up their own minds."²

It is fitting, then, for JBMW to offer a timely response to DBE—a rejoinder to the rejoinder, as it were. There are at least three reasons why this edition of JBMW will be especially useful for years to come. First, its format allows for easy access to complementarian critiques of the most important chapters of DBE. Though we have not covered every chapter, the chapters treated are representative of the entire book. Second, this edition has lasting value because it contains the work of several stalwart complementarians. We take this show of unity by complementarians to be very encouraging and hope that it reflects the strength of the traditional view of gender roles among evangelicals. Third, each contributor represents our view well. These articles are loaded with keen exegetical and theological insights. It has truly been an honor for our editorial staff to work with each and every contributor on this project.

We need to make an important statement about the subtitle of DBE: "Complementarity Without Hierarchy." As complementarians we are not prepared to give the language of "complementarian"—a term intentionally coined by those who framed the Danvers Statement—over to egalitarians. DBE is not the first work in which egalitarians have attempted to broaden the scope of the term "complementarian" in order to include their own view (e.g., see Kevin Giles's attempt to distinguish between "egalitarian-complementarian" and "hierarchical-complementarian" in The Trinity and Subordinationism [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002], 156ff.). Egalitarians, however, have yet to demonstrate why it is that "complementarity without hierarchy" is a legitimate way to describe their view.

In fact, as Bruce Ware points out in his review of the "Introduction," even the editors of DBE agree that there is "no middle ground." In our estimation, what egalitarians are trying to say has very little to do with "complementarity" and everything to do with "gender equality." By "equality" they mean that there is no unique role for male leadership in the home and the church. Male headship, however, is the foundation of the genuinely "complementarian" view. Indeed, there is no middle ground. Once one departs from the beauty of God's good design for role differences between the sexes, egalitarianism makes all the sense in the world.

It is understandable that both "egalitarians" and "complementarians" may want to qualify these labels. After all, who on either side is comfortable with saying that one word perfectly summarizes their view? The solution, however, is not to link both views to the particular term "complementarian" which has been accepted as representing one of the views for some time. This does not bring clarity to the discussion, only more confusion.

Further, in what sense does "egalitarian" retain its distinctive meaning when attached to "complementarian"? Egalitarians are free to use whatever language they wish. In the end, however, they are not "complementarians" since more than a decade of evangelical literature on the subject identifies complementarians as those who affirm role distinctions based on masculinity and femininity according to God's good design in the created order.

A few administrative matters need to be mentioned regarding the format of this issue of the Journal. First, every review article follows the exact title of the chapter in DBE. This is in order to simplify access to a particular article in database searches. Second, all parenthetical page references in this issue, unless otherwise indicated, refer to the page number in DBE, for example, (242). Third, not all of the articles follow the same format. We hope this will be an asset and not a liability, allowing for some variety from the contributors.

On behalf of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, we want to thank Bruce Ware for his commendable and faithful work as editor of JBMW over the last four years. Thankfully, he has agreed to serve as a Senior Consulting Editor writing for the Journal in the future. His expertise, and perhaps more importantly, his gracious and godly example will be missed. In his place, I will serve as editor hoping to represent the Journal and CBMW well.

Finally, on a sobering note, we would like to offer our deepest condolences to two families in their recent losses. First, to the family and friends of the late Stanley J. Grenz at the event of his unexpected, untimely death, our prayer is like that of Justin Taylor who at the beginning of his review article has asked that the God of all comfort would minister to them as they mourn the loss of a son, a brother, a father, a grandfather, and a friend. And second, to the family and friends of the late Edmund P. Clowney, particularly council members Dr. & Mrs. Peter Jones (son-in-law and daughter, Rebecca) at the loss of their father, our prayer is that they will not grieve as those who have no hope, but rather, that they will look forward with certainty to the future resurrection of a glorious body—"[it] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power" (1 Cor 15:42-44). It is well for us to number our days as we remember that our earthly lives are like a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.