David Gushee tries to undermine Complementarianism by suggesting that Complementarians do not live up to their own principles. He asks four questions that are supposed to reveal flaws in the Complementarian view. He writes: “I believe these types of questions expose weaknesses in complementarianism that cannot be mended from within that paradigm. These weaknesses contribute to my embrace of the egalitarian view.”
I’m not going to rehearse Gushee’s column point by point. I leave it to the reader to read it for himself. I will say, however, that its main flaw is not in the details but in the assumption underlying the whole argument. Gushee assumes that the abuse of one’s principles (in this case Complementarianism) invalidates the principles themselves. But this premise is totally unwarranted and if applied to other principles would lead to totally absurd conclusions. Can you imagine if someone said the following: “Civil laws are constantly broken by those who otherwise say those laws are just. Therefore, the hypocrisy of the lawbreakers invalidates the laws.”
The argument just doesn’t work, and neither does Gushee’s.