Professor Bruce Ware explains why upholding biblical complementarianism matters
Does it matter what position we take on roles of men and women in the church and in the home?
Is anything at stake for the health and well-being of the church, and in our human relations, and for the sake of the gospel? In light of calls from some to consider this a secondary issue that should be set aside for the sake of unity, it is important to see why this issue matters both for human thriving and for ecclesial fidelity. I would like to suggest that the complementarian position on biblical roles of men and women is, in at least two important senses, central and not peripheral, primary and not secondary, and so should not be set aside.
Equal but different
The complementarian position is the view that God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood but different and complementary in function, with male headship in the home and believing community being understood as part of God’s created design.
By claiming that complementarianism is in some senses central and primary, please notice what I am and am not here claiming. I am not saying that Scripture’s teaching on an all-male eldership in the church, or male headship and wifely submission in the home, is central and primary doctrinally. No, I would reserve doctrinal primacy for such cardinal Christian beliefs as … (to read more click here)
This article is an edited extract from Staying Fresh: Serving with Joy by Paul Mallard, recently published by IVP and is used with permission.