One answer is that egalitarianism as a position is usually accompanied by lower views of scripture and the presence of other, more serious errors and heterodoxies. That might well be true in some, perhaps even many, cases but it is not necessarily so, any more than it is true that all complementarians are thoroughly orthodox on all other issues or hold the position for biblical reasons. I have known quite a few complementarians who seem to be such less because of the Bible and more because they apparently watched Conan the Barbarian a few too many times in their early teenage years.
I respectfully suggest to Rev. Trueman that the movie in question is Braveheart. Trueman's point, however, is amusing regardless which movie some complementarian absorbed in his impressionable teens.
Then we get to:
Indeed, I see no reason why one could not be an egalitarian and an inerrantist. And if it is a hermeneutical difference, how does one decide that this particular difference among inerrantists is more egregious than, say, those between Baptists and Paedobaptists or Dispensationalists and Amillennialists?Let that one simmer in your head for a while. Trueman ends with a fantastic point, a point that I doubt anybody at The Complementarian Calvinist Coalition can responsibly answer at this point, let alone certain former constituents who this year extricated themselves from formal participation.
If you want simply to unite around the gospel, then why not simply unite around the gospel? [emphasis mine] Because as soon as you decide that issues such as baptism are not part of your centre-bounded set but complementarianism is, you will find yourself vulnerable to criticism -- from both right and left -- that you are allowing a little bit of the culture war or your own pet concerns and tastes to intrude into what you deem to be the most basic biblical priorities.