Complementarianism

You can now challenge every complementarian who utters the view that their argument is the traditional view.

"A female professor of Christian ministry just sent me a survey to fill out. I don’t consider myself an expert in this area, but I certainly have tried to be responsible—this is one of those places where the battle over truth is fiercest in my generation. Here were my answers." - Mark Ward

"I write this short piece on complementarianism with this new generation in mind. It is not my aim to give a comprehensive account of every biblical nook and cranny; you can find that elsewhere. What I want to do here is to give a concise, re-presentation of why I am a complementarian, and why I believe you should be, too." - CBMW

"While CBMW’s Danvers Statement has been and continues to be a touch-point for what defines complementarianism, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are major differences among those who call themselves complementarians on this very question." - CBMW

Denny Burk: Byrd’s will prove over time to be a briefly held way-station on the movement from narrow complementarianism to egalitarianism. Readers who do not wish to take that journey should be cautious about Byrd’s book.

"Perhaps instead of insisting on the use of a particular word [complemenetarian], if we are really interested in knowing what someone believes about the role of husbands, women elders, or plumb colored pants, we should simply ask." - Ref21

"So along the lines of Aimee’s recent blog posts, I have listed some questions and concerns regarding her book. I did not formulate these entirely on my own. Some are from readers who did not feel comfortable raising these concerns publicly." - Ref21

"Here’s my attempt to paraphrase [Byrd's] basic argument: So-called 'biblical manhood and womanhood'—especially as John Piper and Wayne Grudem teach it—uses traditional patriarchal structures to oppress women. Byrd argues that “biblical manhood and womanhood” is not all biblical. A lot of it is unbiblical.