Fourth in a multipart series….

Should women be elders in a local church? This can be a really explosive question in any evangelical church, that upholds the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. The problem is when it comes to difficult texts, like 1 Timothy 3:1-7, interpreting the specifics of the passage is not always clear cut.

Consider the first couple of verses in this passage:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,… (1 Timothy 3:1-2 ESV)

For the sake of this discussion, let us set aside the debate over what an “overseer” is, and assume that this means “elder,” among other things, and just focus on one particular phrase, that generates so much controversy within the church today.¹ The English Standard Version (ESV) translation of the Bible carries forward the old phrase from the venerable King James Version (KJV), “the husband of one wife.”

For a number of Christians, they may not even know where 1 Timothy is, in their Bibles, so this passage could be very new to them. Yet for many other Christians, the implications of this phrase are obvious. Only men can be elders. Just “read the Bible” and the answer is as plain as day. We should get back to work, and stop reading these silly little Internet blogs.

But what exactly does “the husband of one wife” mean?

As with all matters related to biblical interpretation, context is king. But determining the precise context can be complex at times. Several factors come into play when discerning the context for a particular portion of Scripture:

• How relevant is the available evidence in determining the particular context?
• How important is that evidence? How much weight should it be given?
• How much evidence are we dealing with? Have we considered all of the available evidence?

This one little phrase, “the husband of one wife,” is impacted by all of the above contextual factors.

Any number of possible interpretations of this phrase have been offered, suggesting that (1) unmarried, (2) widowed, (3) polygamist, (4) divorced, and/or (5) remarried men, as well as (6) women in general, are thereby prohibited from the church office of elder. But consider the first disqualification, namely that of being unmarried. Does this even make sense?

The available evidence indicates that neither the Apostle Paul, the traditionally understood author of the letter, nor Timothy, the recipient of this letter, were married. In other words, if “the husband of one wife” requires one to be married, this would exclude both Paul and Timothy from being elders in Timothy’s community.

That is like Paul telling Timothy, “You need elders in your church, that you are leading, Timothy. But all of your elders must be married. So, you need to go and find another job.”

This is absurd. On this basis, and this basis alone, the contextual evidence shows that this purely literalistic reading of “the husband of one wife” is not very convincing.

What then, does “the husband of one wife” really mean? It would appear to reflect more of an idiomatic expression, and indeed, a more strictly literal rendering of the original Greek gives us the word-for-word phrase “one woman man.”

Well, what does being a “one woman man” mean?

Ah, welcome to the interesting world of biblical interpretation!

The problem is that the letter to Timothy does not give us any further specific details into what constitutes a “one woman man.” However, evangelical Bible scholars offer us a range of interpretive solutions. The most common solution suggests that a “one woman man” is more about the character of the person; namely, one who would be faithful to their spouse, whether married or not. At the very least, only those who have a good, reputable character are eligible for the office of elder. Paul is concerned about a person’s character, and not their marital status.

But does a “one woman man” imply more than that? Specifically, does it imply gender; namely, to be male?

The disagreement among evangelical Bible scholars is significant on this point. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are no male-specific pronouns in this passage, that would add clarity. In fact, there are no pronouns at all in the passage, in the original New Testament Greek. Gasp!!!

Many of our most popular English Bible translations do not necessarily help us.

For example, the ESV translation (above) assumes that the one who “desires a noble task” as an “overseer” is a “he.” But no “he” is found in the original Greek. The male pronoun is assumed on the basis that a “one woman man” is, in fact, specifically a male. 

A more ambiguous translation, that reflects a non-gender-specific understanding, is found in the following Contemporary English Version (CEV) translation:

It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile. That’s why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach. (1 Timothy 3:1-2 CEV)

Notice that there is no pronoun here, not even an implied one. A “one woman man” has the genderless meaning of one “faithful in marriage.” For readers of the CEV, both men and women might qualify as “church officials,” which would include “elders.”²

So, considering the contextual issues present in these verses, how relevant is the fact that there is no gender-specific pronoun found in the original Greek text? How significant is this point of evidence? How much more evidence does one need to consider before making a well-informed judgment on the matter of gender here? (HINT: the evidence addressed here merely scratches the surface, and I am trying to keep this blog post short).

Traditionally, a “one woman man” has been assumed to be male, having the full weight of nearly 2,000 years of Christian history behind it, but does the contextual evidence cited thus far bear the weight to overthrow the traditional reading? The difficulty in answering these questions reveals just how hard it is to determine context with absolute certainty. In other words, the supposed plain interpretation of Scripture is not completely obvious, based on what I have presented here.

Those who favor a more traditional interpretation of “one woman man,” as being specifically male, are generally understood to be complementarian; that is, those who, in the context of church governance, believe that only males can be elders. In general, those who reject the traditional view, of maleness being implied by a “one woman man,” are understood to be egalitarian. Egalitarians would then believe that the office of elder should be open to both men and women. There are a number of other nuanced variations that could be considered, but this distinction between complementarian and egalitarian readings of 1 Timothy 3:1-2 holds for the most part.

The Tribal Divide in the Evangelical Church

As you should be able to tell so far, this complementarian vs. egalitarian issue is not some question to be discussed only by seminary graduates, far removed from the concerns of your everyday plumbers, carpenters, nurses, elementary school teachers, exhausted mothers of young children with part time or full time jobs, dads unable to figure out how to make enough money, to feed their family, etc.

This impacts anyone who goes out to buy a Bible at your local Barnes and Noble bookstore.

If you pick up a copy of the ESV translation, for your daily Bible reading, you might be more swayed to consider the complementarian view. If you pick up a copy of the CEV translation, you might be more swayed to consider the egalitarian view. In other words, our English Bible translations have become quite tribal in character, and that does not bode well for the health of the church.

Given the complexities of interpretation and Bible translation, how do we as Christians go about adjudicating between these conflicting views? The first step to take is to have a measure of humility, with respect to Scripture, and among those with whom we disagree.

Yet it also bears taking a closer look at why the complementarian vs. egalitarian division exists, even among our leading Bible scholars, in seminaries and leading churches. Stay tuned, and look forward to the next blog post!³

Notes:

^{1. Some traditions treat “overseer” and “elder” differently. In the oldest traditions, an “elder” has been understood to be the priest or pastor in a local church. An “overseer” would be a bishop, someone who looks over the affairs of several churches, led by those local elders. However, most Protestants today tend towards treating “overseer” and “elder” as one in the same. For the sake of the discussion, I will follow this interpretation. ↩}

^{2. Most translations follow the ESV here, but there are other popular translations that differ. The 2011 Common English Bible (CEB) does the same thing as the CEV, in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, rejecting the male personal pronouns found in the ESV and substituting non-gender specific language in their place. When translations like the CEB do this type of thing, I find it useful for doing comparative study, but it is also quite distressing, as it just shows how tribal Bible translation has become. Sad. ↩}

^{3. Note that the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) renders the controversial phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 as “married only once.” That is pretty well out of step with other Bible translations. The issues involved in understanding the meaning of “husband of one wife,” or “one woman man,” are exceedingly complex. For a helpful blog discussion from a complementarian point of view, consider this essay by Randy Alcorn (Alcorn concludes that “husband of one wife” is a man who is not a polygamist). For a helpful blog discussion from an egalitarian point of view, consider the work of Australian Margaret Mowczko. In my reading, by far, the most common understanding of a “one woman man,” as held by egalitarians, is that Paul was mostly concerned about marital infidelity among the men of Ephesus, as opposed to the women of Ephesus, who were generally not prone to polyamorous activity. Decisive in my mind is the comparison with what we read in 1 Timothy 5:9, which describes a “widow,” most definitely a woman, as one who is the “wife of one husband,” or in the more plain sense of being “a one man woman.”  If you compare this with Paul’s reference in 1 Timothy 3:2, a “husband of one wife,” then the weight of the evidence is in favor of the complementarian view, that Paul has a male overseer in view, in 1 Timothy 3 (see comment section below, for references). ↩}

Third in a multipart series.

Should women serve as deacons in a church? I wish this was an easy question to handle, but apparently not.

Let us set aside the question about elders and pastors, in this blog post.

Not all Christians agree about deacons.

The word deacon is a transliteration into English of the Greek word diakonos, which simply means “servant.” In a sense, all Christians are called to be “servants.” But there is also a sense in the New Testament whereby a “servant,” or deacon, constitutes a particular office of the church. And this is where the controversy exists.

Some believe women can be deacons. Many other Christians do not.

I will lay out the case for the former, and try to address the concerns of the latter, as I respectfully disagree with it.

If you look at the ESV translation of 1 Timothy 3:8-12, you get a sense of where the conflicting interpretations are:

(8) Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. (9) They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. (10) And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. (11) Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. (12) Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

This is one of the two passages in the Bible that directly address the issue of deacons. In general, the word “deacons,” in our English translations is assumed to be male. But then we get to verse 11, that speaks of “their wives.”

The ESV translators have inserted the word “their,” which is not in the original Greek text, in order to make the sentence flow better. But if you have an ESV translation with footnotes, you will find an alternative translation of “women.” If this latter translation is correct, then this would indicate that Paul has in mind the idea that deacons can be either male or female.

As evidence for the latter view, the word “likewise,” when followed by the alternative “women,” as in “women likewise must be dignified….”  indicates that Paul is continuing to list the types of people who could serve as deacons, before returning back to the qualifications of male deacons in verse 12. But the choice of “their wives,” in the main body of the ESV translation, is actually a particular interpretation of the data, that is not favored by other translations, like the NIV, which by default, indicates women deacons (wives is in the NIV footnote).

In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything ( 1 Timothy 3:11 NIV).

Elsewhere in 1 Timothy, Paul gives us the qualifications of male elders, but he never addresses the issue of elder’s wives. That being the case, it is unlikely that Paul has deacons’ wives in mind in 1 Timothy 3:11. Rather, this more likely indicates that these were women deacons (some speak of “deaconesses,” but that is just a made-up English word referring to women deacons. “Deacon” in English is actually gender neutral).

Those two pieces of evidence alone are not necessarily sufficient to convince everyone. But there is more.

The other passage that directly addresses the issue is Romans 16:1-2:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (ESV).

Here is where we get the English direct translation of the Greek word diakonos, which would be “servant.” Contrast this with the NIV, that has deacon, instead. Both “servant” and “deacon” mean the same thing. The question here is, what kind of deacon or servant are we talking about?

We get our clue with the word “commend” that Paul uses to address Phoebe, who is a woman. For Paul to “commend” is simply more than just, “Hey, Phoebe is a swell gal.”  As the context of the passage indicates, Paul is urging the church in Rome to give Phoebe a place of honor, singling her out for special treatment. This would suggest that Phoebe occupies some official position, with respect to Paul, which is consistent with the office of “deacon.”

Perhaps that still does not persuade the student of Scripture. Some believe that Phoebe still was not a deacon in any “official” sense. In other words, Paul is indeed commending Phoebe to the Romans, but doing so in a non-commendable manner? I suppose?

However, we also have evidence from church history to consider. Near the end of the first century or early second century, we have a letter in Latin addressed to the emperor in Rome, describing Christian women who were “ministers” in Bithynia, which is a good Latin, plural equivalent of the Greek word “diakonos.” This would indicate that the early church, within about 50-70 years after these New Testament letters were written, had women serving as deacons in the churches.

Imagine that.

This would mean that the early church considered having women as deacons, as consistent with the teaching of the New Testament.

Now, critics of this view would suggest that only men can serve as deacons, because they carry the same type of spiritual authority as elders, or overseers, do. While this is hypothetically possible, you have to come up with a lot of explaining to do, in order for this particular interpretation to work.

Consider the heavy lifting involved:

First, it assumes that deacons do carry an elder-like type of spiritual authority. But this would suggest that deacons are kind of like “junior-elders,” or something like that, for which we have no substantial evidence for support. This effectively renders the distinction between elder and deacon as fairly meaningless.

You would also have to explain why Paul mentions the qualifications of deacons’ wives, and then totally neglect the description of elders’ wives (see 1 Timothy 3:1-12). Did Paul just forget? Or run out of papyrus? Probably not, but let us keep going with that.

Then you would have to suppose that Paul was somehow not being clear when he describes Phoebe as being a deacon. On top that, you would have to suggest that 50-70 years after these New Testament documents were written, the early church had by then completely misunderstood what Paul was talking about, when it came to the office of deacon.

If you can make all of these various assumptions hold together, with super-glue, then sure, you can go ahead and have a male-only deaconship in your church. If that sounds convincing to you, then well…. okay.

But it all seems pretty sketchy to me.

Nevertheless, I know of several churches that believe that only men can be deacons. I surely understand why such churches would go this route, as it can be defended from Scripture, in a sense. OK, I might sound a little snarky, so apologies go out to my “male-only deacon” friends, but this is my point: If you are going to resort to these type of arguments to restrict the office of deacon to men, you probably should not be surprised if egalitarians, who argue FOR women as elders, use the same type of complex, multi-assumption arguments, to make their case.

Such male-only diaconate churches are simply using the title of “deacon,” but in reality, the “deacons” are functioning in the role of “elder.” So, churches that have both “elders” and “deacons” exercising spiritual authority essentially have a two-tiered system of “elders,” the primary elders and the junior-elders, the latter whom are called “deacons.”

Calling someone a deacon does not make that person a deacon (read my post linked here, if something I am saying in the current post is confusing).

Likewise, there are often things that elders do that should properly be in the domain of the deacons. This follows the example set in Acts 6, whereby the apostles sought to delegate certain functions to servants; that is, deacons, that would otherwise distract the elders from their primary task, that of spiritually shepherding the community of faith, through the propagation of sound doctrine and the application of church discipline. The elders need not be micro-managing the details of the welcome team ministry, hovering over the operations of the floral guild, or managing the logistics for the short-term mission trips.

The service ministry performed by deacons is just as important as the functions performed by elders. But we should be careful not to saddle the elders with tasks that can easily be handled by the deacons.

Egalitarians will shrug their shoulders, as to much of what I am saying here, but some complementarians need to think long and hard about how they view deacons.

Some might be drawn to conclude that a firm stance against women as deacons must be held in order to dissuade Christians from accepting women as elders. But the difficulties concerning the teaching about deacons are NOT the same as the teaching about elders.

For example, we have no examples of women serving as elders in the New Testament, unlike Phoebe was for deacon. Furthermore, we have no clear, substantial evidence in the early church, just following the New Testament era, that women served as elders there, unlike the positive evidence we have for women deacons in the early church.

Confusing the office of “elder” and “deacon” does not help in this discussion. Granted, those who believe in a male-only diaconate do not necessarily marginalize women. Women can serve in other ways. There is a consistent, biblical interpretation supporting a male-only diaconate, so I do not intend to be disrespectful at all. But it sure makes the situation more confusing than it really needs to be. At the risk of stepping on someone’s toes, I must state that the male-only view of deacons is simply not convincing.

If a church wants to “hold the line” against encroaching feminism in the church, restricting the office of deacon to men only is an unstable line to hold, and unnecessarily restrictive. It is much better to allow the weight of the biblical and historical evidence to stand, and to encourage both men and women to serve as deacons in a local church.

For a scholarly argument for women as deacons, read Tom Schreiner’s essay. For a scholarly argument against women as deacons, read Guy Waters’ essay.

An introduction to a multi-part series.

Here I go. Stepping into the quagmire.

Perhaps one of the most difficult “agree to disagree” type of issues facing the evangelical church today is that of whether or not women should serve as elders, deacons, and/or pastors. Passions run high as Christians debate how to interpret certain biblical passages.

Nevertheless, there are Christians for whom the whole discussion seems pointless, and already settled. Why is this even an “agree to disagree” issue? After all, the Bible is clear on the matter. Some can cite their prooftext, and simply move on.

The objective of this series is to show that while the Bible is clear on many things, the varieties of Scriptural interpretation among godly, Bible-loving believers on this issue actually runs the gamut. It is a lot more difficult than you think to gain a clear idea as to whether or not women can serve as elders, deacons, and/or pastors.

At the same time, getting this issue right is of utmost importance. The consequences of getting this wrong are arguably highly significant, and for some, downright scary, if handled incorrectly. The question of “women in ministry” requires concentrated effort to read and study the Bible, and be in conversation with one another. Trusting in the work of Holy Spirit is crucial. Prayer is paramount. Avoiding extremes is difficult, but necessary. In the words of Robertson McQuilkin, “It seems easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical tension.”

I will keep this blog page updated as the series moves along. First, here are the additional blog posts in this series::

• Can Women Serve as Elders, Deacons, or Pastors?
• An Easy Question? Should Women Serve as Deacons?
• What are the Qualifications of an Elder? A “Husband of One Wife?”
• Why the Debate Over “Women in Ministry” is at a Stalemate…. and What to Do About It
• Lame Complementarian and Egalitarian Biblical Arguments
• On the Outsourcing of Women’s Ministry
• #MeToo and the Church: The Abuse of Women, 1 Peter 3:7, Egalitarian vs. Complementarian Solutions?
• Who was Mary Magdalene?
• The 1 Timothy 2:12 Conundrum: I Do Not PERMIT a Woman….
• The 1 Timothy 2:12 Conundrum: I Do Not Permit a Woman to TEACH…..
• The 1 Timothy 2:12 Conundrum: I Do Not Permit a Woman to … (????) AUTHORITY….
• So, What’s the Deal With This Women “Will Be Saved Through Childbearing” Stuff, Anyway?
• Is Evangelicalism On A Slippery Slope Regarding Gender?
• Resolving the Question of Women in Church Leadership: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?
• The Mystery That Church Eldership Reminds Us Of?
• A Modest Proposal to Make Peace Between Complementarians and Egalitarians
• Resources on the Complementarian vs. Egalitarian Discussion
• An Interdenominational Church Asks: What Are the Core Doctrines of the Faith?
• The Church Needs Both Fathers and Mothers: A Plea for Unity and Truth

The above linked blog posts make up the original series that I wrote back in 2019. Also, I will note some previous Veracity blog posts that address particular background issues related to the topic:

• • Deborah’s Dance: Women in Church Leadership? How having men and women in church ministry together is like a dance.
  • Aimee Semple McPherson: Disappearing Woman Evangelist. I served as a worship leader, while in college, alongside the wife of the pastor, in a denomination founded by a woman evangelist.
  • To The Least of These: Phoebe Palmer. The remarkable story of an often neglected woman from church history.
  • Your Desire Shall Be For Your Husband. The story of the 19th century female missionary, Katharine Bushnell, and how Genesis 3:16 has been variously interpreted and reinterpreted in church history. This explains why all complementarians are not all the same.
  • A Year of Biblical Doubting #2. A look at the thought and life of Rachel Held Evans, one of today’s most influential, progressive Christian women bloggers, popular among many young people today. Contrast Rachel’s message with that of Mary Kassian, a woman’s conference speaker, who will “kick your rear end,” in the opposite direction.
  • Statements: Is “Social Justice” a Gospel Issue? A statement signed by some 10,000 conservative pastors and teachers, in 2018, calling upon evangelical Christians to reject the infiltration of ideologies, like feminism, into the church.
  • Jordan Peterson’s Lessons for Christians. Why is it that an atheistic, Canadian clinical psychologist is addressing the crisis of masculinity, while the church remains relatively unheard on the issue?
  • Can “Charismatic” and “Liturgical” Christians Worship Together? How we structure the corporate worship life of the church has a bearing on issues pertaining to women in ministry.
  • What is an “Elder” of the Church? Elusive and often confusing terms, like “elder,” “pastor,” and “deacon” are a major part of why the conversation about “women in ministry” can be so disconcerting to the average church go-er.
  • Augustine on Learning How to “Agree to Disagree” Well. On the posture a believer should have when discussing difficult topics with other believers.

UPDATE 2023: Below is a list of other blog posts published after that initial series came out in the spring of 2019:

• • UPDATE MAY, 2019. Rachel Held Evans Reflections (& Warren Wiersbe, Bonhoeffer, and the Crisis of “Big Tent” Evangelicalism).  Advocate for evangelical egalitarianism, Rachel Held Evans, died within a few weeks of my finishing this blog series, shortly after Warren Wiersbe, an evangelical stalwart, and a very conciliatory complementarian Bible teacher, also died. I thought it to be appropriate to tie up the “women in ministry” blog series, with a few concluding thoughts.
  • UPDATE October, 2019: I read a great book on the topic of “What is a Christian Conscience?,” that gave me some helpful ideas about the issue of women eldership.
  • UPDATE November, 2019: Upon reflecting on a well-publicized incident, whereby Pastor John MacArthur urged popular woman’s Bible study teacher Beth Moore to “go home,” I thought I would look at another way of addressing this issue: Do We Still Have Apostles Today, in the Church?
  • UPDATE April, 2020: Some Christians have a rather cavalier attitude towards the Apostle Paul’s prohibition against extravagant dress, or the wearing of jewelry, in 1 Timothy 2, as though the Apostle’s instructions were merely addressing a particular cultural situation. A look at the broader Scriptural context shows that Paul is instead making a particular cultural application of a timeless principle: Does the Bible Teach Women Should Never Wear Braided Hair of Jewelry?
  • UPDATE March, 2021: Should women keep silent in the churches? I Corinthians 14 says that, but what does it mean? It may not mean what you think.
  • UPDATE July, 2021: A post with a brief argument as to how the question of women eldership relates to church growth. Is the church a business or a family?
  • UPDATE August, 2021: A review of Beth Allison Barr’s provocative The Making of Biblical Womanhood. The evangelical movement needs to move on from the older complementarian/egalitarian debate, and seriously reconsider how, in the practice of Christian worship, to express the truth of being created in the image of God, both male and female, in an age where gender is reduced to being merely a social construct.
  • UPDATE March, 2022: Did Paul Really Write Ephesians and Colossians? … (and Why Women Should Care).  A bit of a rabbit trail, but an important one, as the complementarian/egalitarian debate has raised serious questions about the authorship of some of Paul’s letters.
  • UPDATE June, 2022. A Complementarian Vision? Kevin DeYoung on Men and Women in the Church.  I review Kevin DeYoung’s book, which is representative of why might be called a “hard complementarian” position regarding how women should lead in a local church.
  • UPDATE May, 2022: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Lucy Peppiatt on Men, Women… and Family? I read Kevin DeYoung’s book alongside Lucy Peppiatt’s book, which representative of an “egalitarian” position regarding how women should lead in a local church. I finished reading Peppiatt’s book after reading Kevin DeYoung’s book, but finished writing the Peppiatt review before the DeYoung review.
  • UPDATE March, 2023: Embracing Complementarianism: A Review.  My review of a moderate or somewhat “soft complementarian” perspective regarding how women should lead in a local church, by Graham Beyond and Jane Tooher.
  • UPDATE May, 2023: Men and Women in Christ, by Andrew Bartlett. An Extended Review. This lengthy review encapsulates about four years of research into the complementarian/egalitarian debate, thus reflecting the most up-to-date articulation of how the Bible should be read regarding this controversy.
  • UPDATE June, 2023: What About Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians11? — The New Testament’s Weirdest Passage? This is the lead article for the summer 2023 blog series, all about head coverings!!
  • UPDATE November, 2023: Andrew Bartlett responds to my book review of his book Men and Women in Christ, and I offer a rejoinder to his response.  Then Andrew Bartlett offers a “last word” on our conversation.  This is a very interesting, in-depth, and engaging dialogue!!

By the end of the original blog series in 2019, you will get an idea of where I am coming from. So, if you are going to read any of these blog posts, please READ ALL OF THEM IN THE INTIAL SERIES BEFORE making a final judgment on what I am saying (I do welcome your comments below). The punch line will come in the last one or two posts, but to get the full sense of it, you should read all of the preceding posts in the series…. and, yes, you might want to keep your Bible handy, as I will be going to God’s Word quite often (or you can just follow the hyperlinks in the blog posts, instead).

The blog posts that came out since 2019 (linked above) have helped me to refine my thinking. I stopped blogging in-depth about this topic in 2023.  I might make a few additional blog posts in the future, as there are newer books to come out that address this topic that does not seem to go away, from both the complementarian and egalitarian sides of the discussion. It just seems like this debate will never end, and life is too short to keep focusing on this.

I will say up front, that in giving my view, I could be wrong. Utterly wrong. Or more likely, perhaps a few points wrong, here and there. My perspective has shifted over the years, and it could shift again. But what I do hope is that folks can take this seriously, and treat it is an important perspective in the ongoing discussion. It is a plea for unity, but it is also a plea to pursue truth, and never abandon the pursuit of truth.