I’ve
watched with great interest over the past few weeks as a constellation
of blog posts have come out calling for a fresh complementarianism. The
articles seem to be advocating for a third way between
complementarianism and egalitarianism, or at least for an awareness that
traditional complementarians have many weaknesses and egalitarians are
asking a lot of good questions. The message often has an apologetic
edge: we are complementarians, but not the ones you’re used to.
The most explicit post along these lines is Wendy Alsup’s article on new wave complementarianism.
The piece struck a nerve, prompting many women to write comments to the
effect, “I agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve been wanting someone
to say this for years.” Alsup’s article, and others like it, have been
recommended and retweeted by some of my good friends. There is something
about the idea of a “new wave” of complementarianism that some—I’m not
sure if it’s few, several, or many, so I’ll stick with some—find
attractive.
I’ve
been wrestling for a couple weeks now about how to respond to Alsup’s
post (or if I should respond at all). I don’t want to turn something
small into something bigger than it needs to be, and I don’t want to
discourage new complementarian voices (often women) from being heard.
And yet, something about these posts, and Alsup’s in particular, leaves
me unsettled. With that in mind, I’d like to ask one specific question
and raise one general caution.
One Specific Question Continue at Kevin DeYoung
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment