Well since it’s a hot topic… minus well post about the women in ministry issue.

Weakness of the complementarian view:

Honestly, the biblical exegesis I’ve read that supports the complementarian view is very weak. I mean, you have a guy like John Piper writing that one of the reasons why he stands against women teaching is ,”because the sense seems plain to me and not terribly complicated in 1 Timothy 2:12-13.” I really cannot believe a guy who is supposed to be so respected like John Piper could possibly say that it’s plain to him and not terribly complicated. That is so sad. It seems to me that complementarians like to view the bible at “face value” and even the in depth exegesis is merely attempting to defend reading the passages at face value.

Strength of the complementarian view:

Roles of course. Of course there are roles. Complementarians put this at the crux of the definition of complementarian. I think most people have an aversion to seeing male and female as completely the same. They’re not. Egalitarians say that they don’t deny the differences between men and women, but complementarians highlight and give meaning to the differences while egalitarians fail to give any significant meaning to the differences in sex. If God created sex and sex is such a big part of our lives and culture, surely sex has significant meaning.

Of course, I believe the issue of roles is different from the issue of women in ministry. They are related, but they are still different.