Since my post three weeks ago
on New Wave Complementarianism, there has been a, well, wave of
responses, rejoinders, and surrejoinders. I won’t take time to link to
them all; they are easy enough to find. I am grateful for the thoughtful
reflections from my brothers and sisters.
I don’t have a lot to add, except to offer a few suggestions that perhaps may help the continuing discussion be a fruitful one.
One, let’s make sure we are all talking about the same thing.
No one has trademarked the term “complementarian,” and I understand
these labels can be quite fluid. But the best place to start by way of
definition is the Danvers Statement.
If we are all complementarians having this discussion, we should have
some semblance of a definition of complementarianism. Historically (and I
realize it’s not a long history), Danvers has provided a useful
starting point. Complementarianism, as a definable “ism,” arose in
response to a set of concerns (e.g., gender confusion, ambivalence about
motherhood, physical abuse, women in unbiblical leadership roles,
hermeneutical oddities) and a laid down a set of biblical affirmations
(e.g., men and women are equal as divine image bearers, they have
distinct roles, redemption reverses the curse of male and female sin,
certain ministry roles are reserved for men, there are countless
ministry opportunities in the world for both men and women). These
concerns and affirmations are not the last word on complementarianism.
But if we want to be sure we are talking about the same thing, they
should be among the first words. Continue at Kevin DeYoung
No comments:
Post a Comment