Those who have affirmed this document affirm the historical and orthodox faith that we have in Christ. We affirm the Lordship of Christ over all things, the fallenness of man, the necessity of Christ’s atonement, the Holy Trinity, and the hope we have in Christ for all things. All who affirm this document affirm the ancient orthodox Christian Creeds, and many affirm one or more of the historical Reformed Confessions. This document does not serve as a thorough and complete confession of all things pertaining to Christianity, or even all the things related to the family, victimhood, objectification, and so on. Furthermore, it should be read in light of the confessed faith of those who have written and affirmed this document. Wherein one may understand an affirmation or denial in an uncharitable light, consider the presupposed Biblical, orthodox, and historic faith of the authors and affirmers.

The purpose of this document is to offer clarity on many potentially divisive and controversial matters. Though clarity is a focus of this document, it is highly probable that the authors and affirmers could and should add further explanation elsewhere. Though we have attempted clarity and simplicity, it is always possible for intentional and unintentional confusion. We have attempted to directly address previously stated mischaracterizations as well as potential misunderstandings. This document does not serve as an argument but rather as a confession. The arguments can be found elsewhere and will continue to be made.

It should be understood that long, convoluted, and extemporaneous social media conversations can be easily misunderstood. Furthermore, it is also confessed that not every word and statement is, or reasonably can be, properly qualified. We confess that it is possible, if not probable, that ideas have not always been articulated as clearly or as accurately as possible. Because of this, we hope that questions can be asked, answered, and addressed.

It should be understood that particular “hot button” words such as “feminism” have not been helpful in common dialog without clearly made definitions. Even a periphery examination of the term will reveal that it has had many highly nuanced meanings throughout even the last several decades. Needless to say, we adamantly deny the highly humanistic “intersectional” feminism of modern leftist society.

We do not choose to be labeled as feminists. It is a term with diverse historical baggage, and it is not a word that we desire to adopt as any sort of label. However, because feminism has such a diverse history, if our ideals roughly match with a particular era or wave of feminism, it is definitionally accurate to accept it as an accurate label only given the historical qualifications. In short, we do not choose to call ourselves “feminist,” but we also deny that the term is historically, Biblically, or etymologically wicked in and of itself. Lastly, we affirm that to focus on terminology as opposed to ideology is often a red herring and not useful for beneficial discussion and mutual edification.

We affirm that both man and woman are equally created in the Image of God.

We deny that woman was created any less in the Image of God.

We affirm that there are God-ordained physiological and spiritual differences between man and woman.

We deny that the distinctions between man and women subordinate all women under all men.

We affirm that women are the weaker vessels.

We deny that this weakness causes women to be more fallen apart from Christ or less redeemed in Christ.

We affirm that the weakness of women denotes a greater physical vulnerability to injustice and harm.

We deny that this greater vulnerability means that women are ethically inferior in any way.

We affirm that the relative strength of man brings about a greater duty to pursue justice and safety on behalf of the weaker vessel.

We deny that the greater duty placed upon men decreases the personal responsibly that all image bearers, women included, have before God to be faithful in all ways.

We affirm that all image bearers are commanded to love one another and help one another be sanctified in the Lord.

We deny that Scriptural modesty is relegated to or primarily concerned with bodily clothing.

We affirm that bodily clothing is one factor of modesty and immodesty and should be considered.

We deny that Scripture’s teachings on modesty focus on anatomical descriptions, specifics of clothing fit, or is generally concerned with specific ratios of skin exposure.

We affirm that Scripture’s teachings on modesty focus on a heart attitude and a representation of Christlike character and behavior; not given to vanity or selfish pride.

We deny that one image bearer can cause another image bearer to sin.

We affirm that one image bearer can tempt another image bearer to sin and that to willfully tempt to sin is itself sin.

We deny that the sin of one individual necessitates the sin of another.

We affirm that both men and women who are in Christ can repent of sin and resist temptation through the power of the Holy Spirit.

We deny that women need any mediator (father, husband, elder, or otherwise) other than Christ.

We affirm the priesthood of all believers. Man and woman alike.

We deny that objectification/dehumanization is the most foundational sin.

We affirm that the most foundational sin is rebellion against God.

We deny that objectification and dehumanization are substantively different in function or essence.

We affirm that the fight against the dehumanization/objectification of Image Bearers is and has been a calling of all Christians including but not limited to historical slavery abolitionists.

We deny that the sin of dehumanization/objectification is relegated to either men or women.

We affirm, more specifically, that the sexual dehumanization/objectification of image bearers is a sin that both men and women are and can be guilty of.

We deny that men and women normatively dehumanize/objectify in the same ways.

We affirm that the sexual dehumanization/objectification of women is normative in our society.

We deny that men solely perpetrate the sexual dehumanization/objectification of women.

We affirm that victims of sin are due restitution based on God’s Law and that the victim has the right to give mercy.

We deny that being a victim of sin is a virtue.

We affirm the duty of Christians, families, the church, and the civil magistrates in protecting alleged victims of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse.

We deny that the above-mentioned protection implies the guilt of the accused party.

We affirm that Biblical justice stresses the rights and the protection of victims.

We deny that all who claim victimhood are true victims.

We affirm that the term “victim” is a judicial/ethical term.

We deny that victimhood grants the victim special rights that run contrary to the Law of God.

We affirm the Biblical ethic that the just punishment for false testimony is the punishment required by the falsely accused sin and/or crime.

We deny that those who are genuine victims are guiltless of all other sins.

We affirm that victims are also sinners.

We deny that all sin is equal, should be viewed equally, or should be punished equally.

We affirm that although all sin is not equal, all sin does bring about iniquity between God and man that must be atoned for by Christ alone.

We deny that women are more fallen or have a greater iniquity between them and God.

We affirm that faithful husbands are the covenantal heads of Christian households.

We deny that covenantal headship implies ontologically assigned authority to men solely by virtue of their biological maleness.

We affirm that covenantal headship implies the responsibility to serve and love wives as Christ loved the church, giving his life for her.

We deny the worldly form of authority that is based solely on societal position or genetics.

We affirm that authority is contingent upon faithful service. If a covenantal head is not serving, there is no authority.

We deny that men can retain their authority while not being generally faithful.

We affirm that God gave the responsibility to lead the family to husbands.

We deny that men always fulfil that responsibility.

We affirm that when men reject their God given role and responsibility, they also reject their authority.


  • The Reconstructionist Radio Board of Directors
  • (Dustin Ranem, Gordan Runyan, Bojidar Marinov, Russell Traweek, Jason Garwood)
  • John Andrew Reasnor
  • Jordan Wilson
  • Toby Harmon
  • Kate Robinson
  • Joe Salant
  • Suzannah Rowntree
  • Rebecca Robinson
  • Elizabeth Sacks
  • Elisabeth Summer