It's really not a unique achievement to have a system that says, "Don't hurt other people." As a complementarian myself, I think it's absurd to say egalitarians have meager grounds to oppose abuse. [Thread] https://twitter.com/T4Gorg/status/1250580133506940929

Almost any belief system can have adequate grounds for opposing abuse. That's not why we have this issue. Complementarians' unique struggle seems to be identifying and responding adequately to abuse, *especially* when there are authority issues at stake-which there usually are.

It's not hard to come up with reasons why abuse is bad. That's why there is support across the ideological board for the "No abuse" position and none for the "Abuse" position. Yet every community struggles in their own way, and they should be aware of their vulnerabilities.

I think it is incorrect to single out comp'ism exclusively. On the other hand, if what Piper says is true, comp'ism should have a great track record. Many painful experiences show it doesn't. In fact, abusers can hide because people think, "can't happen here" or "not my place."

I *would* be very pleased to see men like Piper who think complementarianism is a unique antidote to abuse take up the mantle against actual instances of abuse and coverup and concretely speak out on issues. Like... the whole Sovereign Grace mess that only Mohler has addressed?

Complementarianism and its most vocal advocates have done an absolutely terrible job positively addressing abuse. They have long viewed it as a feminist "wedge" issue and their response has basically been, "Abuse won't happen if we'd all be complementarian." That's tragic.

I'm a complementarian* in a complementarian church. But "complementarianism" is in itself not a response or strategy when it comes to addressing abuse. What is needed is moral courage, the determination to do what is right no matter what, and not ignoring the pleas of victims.

So my charge is, Don't trot out the theory of complementarianism to defend complementarianism against this percieved "attack". Instead, defend it by the way you advocate for victims, expose abuse, and have no respect for a person's position and influence when pursuing justice.

*Not my favourite title because of some of the cultural assumptions associated with the the term, but for the sake of this discussion, it's adequate enough.

Also we *need* another term because 'complementarianism' is just way too long.