Do Egalitarians Take the Bible Seriously?

Do Egalitarians Take the Bible Seriously? June 19, 2017

J.W. Wartick: he holds an MA in Christian apologetics from Biola University. His interests include philosophy of religion, theology, paleontology, running, and sci-fi and fantasy novels. He writes at He loves walking with God alongside his wife, Beth.

This article appeared in the print version of Mutuality as “Text or Pretext: Loving Scripture, Living Egalitarian”

I was raised complementarian. More importantly, I was raised in something of a theological echo chamber where my complementarian convictions went undisputed. All diligent Bible readers would obviously conclude that men were to lead, and even more obviously, that women were not to be pastors. What could be simpler?

For reading on this topic, I have The Blue Parakeet.

By college, I had only a working understanding of why I was complementarian. Nevertheless, my confidence in that position was quite strong—strong enough that when I met a young woman on campus studying to be a pastor, I concluded she must not take the Bible very seriously. After all, how could she? Complementarianism was the plain and simple teaching of Scripture.

Indeed, the myth that egalitarians do not take Scripture seriously exists both in complementarian circles and outside the church. In a conversation with a friend who is an atheist, I was surprised to hear that, though he respected my commitment to the equality of men and women, he did not believe I could also have a high view of Scripture. I was taken aback, given that my commitment to egalitarian theology stems from deep and intentional exploration of Scripture.

Why do so many people assume that egalitarians dismiss the Bible’s teaching? How do we confront this misconception? Most importantly, do egalitarians take Scripture seriously? Is it possible to hold a high view of Scripture while also advocating for equality of men and women in church and home?

I ran full-on into this theological dilemma as a somewhat naive college student. On the one hand, I had my presuppositions about egalitarians. On the other, I was confronted by a woman studying to be a pastor and capable of engaging with me on biblical topics throughout the whole of Scripture. She did not strike me as someone who would so readily dismiss what the Bible taught on one issue, having clearly done a great deal of thinking on so many others.

I strove to explore the issue more deeply. I realized that when she asked why I opposed women in ministry, my trite—and only—response was: “The Bible says so.” I couldn’t even articulate why I thought as much; it was just an assumed background belief.

Confronted with a challenge to my convictions, I responded like so many do. Instead of examining the arguments of those with opposing views, egalitarians, I explored a great deal of complementarian literature. I began my inquiry with a book questioning the role of women as pastors, produced by my own denomination’s publishing house.

What struck me was not the depth of the complementarian argument, but rather the constant emphasis on a few verses, ripped from their context and narrowly applied to one issue—women’s role. I was even more troubled when the author argued for the eternal subordination of God the Son to the Father as an analogy for male-female relations. It disturbed me that a complementarian theologian would enlist the doctrine of God to make points in biblical anthropology.

Then, on a vacation with my then-girlfriend, I discovered something I didn’t even realize existed: a scholarly egalitarian book. While browsing the shelves of a bookstore, I saw Philip B. Payne’s Man and Woman: One in Christ. The title was intriguing, so I picked it up and started paging through it. My astonishment at his opening sentences was great:

My belief in both inerrancy and the equality of man and woman may seem absurd to many on each side of the egalitarian/complementarian divide. How can a thinking textual critic with an enlightened egalitarian view still cling to the notion of biblical inerrancy? Conversely, how can someone who believes everything taught by God’s inspired Word come to the position that the Bible permits women to teach and exercise authority over men in the church? 1

The rhetorical questions he asked were the same questions I was suddenly asking myself, and they were the same questions others had posed when I began questioning the complementarian position. I walked out of the bookstore with my new purchase in hand and spent much of the rest of the weekend devouring it.

Payne’s book and the many other scholarly egalitarian works I later read revealed that my preconceptions about egalitarians were entirely mistaken. Time and again, I found that my own reading of Scripture was simplistic. By contrast, the egalitarian reading took into account the whole wisdom of God. Complementarian scholars often cited a single verse or two torn from their context to prove their position while egalitarian scholars read and engaged the entire passage in its canonical, historical, and biblical context. The depth of egalitarian scholarship was matchless.

My journey into egalitarian theology is not unique but it helpfully indicates that presuppositions about egalitarians run deep. I was raised in the church, went to private Christian schools, and even attended a conservative Lutheran university. At no point did I seriously interact with egalitarian theology. The notion of women being pastors was dismissed as blatantly contradictory to various proof texts, and no egalitarian theologians were engaged.

This allowed for the idea that egalitarians do not take Scripture seriously to thrive unchallenged in my mind. It also suggests that those who oppose egalitarian theology may do so out of ignorance rather than serious study and rejection of egalitarian thought. A humble approach to those with whom we disagree can open doors to broader study of egalitarian thought. Rather than meeting dismissal with dismissal, we can direct complementarians to thorough, thoughtful studies by egalitarian scholars.

My journey also proves that presuppositions can be challenged and even overcome. As we advocate for the full partnership of men and women in the church and home, we ought to be reaching out to those who disagree with us. It is easy for egalitarians to become frustrated when people make assumptions about our beliefs, especially our respect for Scripture. But we can gracefully engage those false assumptions with further discussion, in the hope that increased dialogue will prompt a theological shift. Moreover, we can simply demonstrate through our actions and writing that Scripture is, in fact, the very reason we are egalitarian to begin with. The simplest way to overcome a presupposition is to demonstrate exceptions to it.

Finally, my experience underscores the immense importance of a support network during this difficult theological shift. When I became an outspoken egalitarian, I was drawn into heated disputes with friends and family who believed I had abandoned my faith, or at the very least, was sliding down a slippery slope. Because they shared my former false presupposition about egalitarians’ disregard for Bible teaching, they assumed that I must necessarily abandon faith in Scripture’s trustworthiness. I did lose friends, and those who stayed with me asked why I had changed so thoroughly. What I needed—and received—was the support of many egalitarian friends who provided a shoulder to cry on and a place to vent, and who guided me in further research as I continued my prayerful journey.


  1. Payne’s own words here show the very kind of misconceptions about egalitarians that often come up, thus pointing to the fact that few acknowledge the true breadth of the egalitarian position.
"We should simply turn back to the Bible and believe in the God that so ..."

Gotta Have Faith, But What is ..."
"Same. Also some glitches in links to FB comments."

Blog Moving to Christianity Today
"The "sign up for updates" feature advertised in this post does not seem to be ..."

Blog Moving to Christianity Today
"Thanks Tim.I was probably searching before it was up."

Blog Moving to Christianity Today

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Patrick

    Personally, I don’t think the questions relating to the trinity are germane when discussing marriage as it is posited by Paul as a metaphor for Christ’s relationship with His church, not with His Father.

    Eternal subordination could be an accurate interpretation and egalitarian views also be accurate.

    Much of the misunderstanding on marriage is due to the lack of scholarship which I imagine could be true of all theological flaws. Plus our egos.

  • DonaldByronJohnson

    My experience was similar to the author’s. All the teachers I knew and respected taught gender hierarchy as if it was obvious from Scripture. When I first heard about the egalitarian position, I was sure it would be easy to dismiss; but (and this is important) I was willing to read a book on it written by an egalitarian scholar in their own words. Reading this book was one of the most bewildering experiences I ever had but I kept at it. Once I finished it, I found I had about a handful of items that I had “put on the shelf” for deeper study. But these “anomalies” proved the undoing of belief in gender hierarchy for me, as I studied more and more.

  • Aaron Lage

    May I ask if your switch from complementarian views to egalitarian views led to an unraveling and/or transition in other areas of your theology? Typically, but not always, complementarian views are pillar stones set within the Calvinist framework. Did you re-examine your views and end up with reinforced vigor for Calvinism as a whole or a more nuanced perspective of other views or another view entirely?

  • Graham Irvine

    An area of discussion within churches in Australia is what role the church can play in reducing the seeing ever increasing amount of domestic violence that is occurring. I wonder how culpable churches are because of the continued complementarian position that is often promoted either overtly or covertly through words and actions?

  • AHH

    Your question is a major topic of Ruth Tucker’s 2016 book Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife. I have not read it, but I believe it was noted favorably on this blog (and, as one might expect, unfavorably by some advocates of patriarchy).

  • Patrick

    I don’t advocate patriarchy at all, but, I was a fundy from 14 to about 54 years old and the idea that maybe I should/could beat my wife because of complimentarianism never entered my mind anymore than beating my kids did because I had authority over them.

    That’s a flawed “tool” to try and defeat your theological opponents with.

    What is the most accurate interpretation of the text? That’s all that concerns me.

  • pam

    have you done a comprehensive study of domestic abuse and concomitant complementarianism / patriarchy?

  • pam

    you’re saying there’s something amiss with equal rights?

  • pam

    Scholarship is the key to marriage? i tend to think to think marriage is way over-analyzed in christian world (along with many other topics). People end up more like programmed robots instead of unique human beings.

  • pam

    Thank you, Scot, for publishing things like this. It is very heartening and encouraging.

  • pam

    Not every man is as fair, good, and kind as yourself.

    As far as the most accurate interpretation of the text goes, no one can agree on what that is for just about any text,it seems. But more importantly, the elusive ‘most accurate interpretation of the text’ will not address the complexities of living life. At least, not beyond loving your neighbor as yourself.

  • Elca

    The Bible warned us to be aware of false teachers and doctrine that would come in the last days, for some will indeed fall away following after diverse doctrine, doctrine of demons and doctrine that tickles the ear.
    The way of truth is never easy, the Christian walk is not easy. It calls for self denial, and to strive for a greater goal than self — other.

    Egalitarianism is base on a false premise that we are NOT equal if males and females aren’t doing the same and being the same.
    It rejects gender roles ( that God has divinely established) and have often twist the plain teachings of scripture to justify their ideology.
    What most will never say, is they are conforming to cultural and social changes and will force the Bible to justify their social activism.

    But in the final analysis, if the female desires what she is NOT to be as per the scriptures ( regardless of what the social activist say) she and they have denied the faith and has gone after teachings that appeals to the flesh. That is the beginning of the “slipper Slope”…

    Therefore to answer the question,” Do Egalitarians Take the Bible Seriously?” In my opinion they do not. Cultural conformity is more important than contending for a Faith that does not change.

  • Elca

    Patriarchy means the ” rule of the Father” . This is designed by God the Father to be patterned after Him and His Love for His Children.
    It is prescriptive, since it is His idea institutionalized by Him.
    Through out the Bible, we see a patriarchal frame work operating with God’s Blessings.
    What we also see, were women being contented in their roles. We do not see a pattern of feminist minded women, demonstrated against men and their Headship over her. For the most part we see the Women of Old trusting in God and He Blessing them even when the men won’t acting right. This fight against Patriarchy is a new idea and is NOT biblical.

  • Elca

    Patriarchy was designed by God to be patterned after Him. But Sin distorts…., it does not mean the system is wrong.
    There’re also abuse by women and men under democracy.
    Do we done away with democracy as well?

  • KonCern

    “Therefore to answer the question,” Do Egalitarians Take the Bible Seriously?” In my opinion they do not. Cultural conformity is more important than contending for a Faith that does not change.” I agree, well said.

  • Elca

    Thanks good to know

  • Elca

    “Or, as NT Wright stated, Egalitarianism is based on what Scripture says::” You do realized he is giving an opinion- right. ? So do you think complementarian would say their ideology isn’t base on what the scriptures says?

    “I believe we have seriously misread the relevant passages in the New Testament, ….” Well it’s funny you’re attributing this to complementarians , for they say the same of egals. They are notorious for twisting and cherry picking the scriptures to justify their point of view.

    “…we need radically to change our traditional pictures both of what men and women are and how they relate to one another within the church and indeed of what the Bible says on this subject.” You have just prove my point. “Changing roles ” cannot be base on the Scriptures, since the God of the Bible does not change. What he said to one he said to all, for all times.
    When scripture is placed in it’s proper context, we will find consistency and a doctrine that withstands cultural changes and time. Because, God transcend them all.

    The problem with egalitarianism, is that it is looking to change traditions, handed down as part of the Apostles Creed and the divine design by God, using man made ideologies and philosophies.

    ” if we claim to hold to a high view of Scripture.” You have just proved that you have no intentions of holding to a high standard of the scriptures. God is NO respecter of persons. Modern day women aren’t better than or more educated than, women of old.

    Jude 3 said, “…but earnestly contend for the Faith that was ONCE given to the saints…” You are seeking to present a changing faith and twisting the scriptures to conform to your views. That is an Impossible task, for the Same Word has NOT change. Egalitarianism has.

  • Elca

    “As I have argued at length, the patriarchal family was the existing reality in the NT…” Sorry, I am not familiar with your arguments. But I want you to consider, the reason Patriarchy existed in the NT, because it existed in the OT, from creation , starting when God chose to make Male Man first and gave Adam the authority to exercise dominion over the animals and the Woman by naming…

    From that point on wards we have a consistent theme of male headship ( as husband and Father) in the Church and Family. The good thing about this design, the women were well taken care of and were Blessed. The Holy Women of old weren’t mad at God and His plan for gender roles, but were seen functioning in their God given roles. And today we can speak of their contributions to the Faith.
    But NONE were in Headship Positions in the Church or the Family.
    It takes a great deal of twisting ,cherry picking to justify egalitarianism.

    “…. though the language of headship and submission is certainly used in these texts the trajectory of the argument is intended…” The trajectory argument is subjective and uses conjecture to say what God would have done; “if this and if that”….it is the same flawed logic used by the LGBT agenda to justify their sin and rebellion. You do not know , for the same trajectory argument can go either way.
    It is a false idea used to justify your world view. But since we are told NOT to add or take away from the written word, I am afraid , all we have is what is written. Not trajections..

    Once again, you have demonstrated that you have NO intention of holding to a high standard of the Scriptures.
    Whenever our interpretation conflicts with what the Word say, our interpretation is false and flawed and skewed towards justifying your views.

    I would much rather let God be true and consistent, and man and his interpretation be false.

  • Elca

    Sorry Rick, but both can’t be right while looking at the same Word in a different light.
    There must be consistency and we must conform by the renewing of our mind. We must detoxify our minds to know what is the perfect will of God, that is written for us, one and all.

    We should avoid , cultural conformity, for to be in line with this kosmos means you will be in conflict with the Word, that stood against the culture of the day , and as a result of that stance, the rulers of His time sought to kill him.

    Truth can be found, but we must seek it diligently , with humility of heart and an open mind.
    Or else, we will be cultural conformist, possessing a form of godliness, while rejecting sound doctrine in favor of what ” feels good and tickles the ear”,

  • Elca

    “It was not aware the Apostle’s Creed talked about egalitarianism and the role of women. Where was that part?” No, it did not, for egalitarianism is a new ideology. But it did speak of [ fables and Schism] as what we are to avoid.

    It is the doctrine in practice. Recall after Act 2 the day of Pentecost, the brethren established traditions one of which, was having all in common.
    “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Acts 2:42.

    Act 5.was an economic lesson and practice consistent with Jesus’s teaching and the year of jubilee. [ this is contrary to conservatism]
    Then by practice, the Apostles appointed men to be apostles , Pastor / Elders for the Church. Men to take care of the family and women , as was consistent with Jesus teachings and His action of Love, by placing His mother in the care of John a man; consistent with OT Patriarchy. ( but conflicts with egalitarianism).

    I hope you can appreciate a consistent theme flowing through the Bible. Male Headship, And is was NEVER abusive.

  • Elca

    Well, Rick, you have just admitted that your world view is wrong.
    I am contending that my view is right and consistent with the scriptures.

    Please note, I do understand that the [ ISM] is subjected to various definition . Hence I do not identify with labels. I try to present truth as I believe the Holy Ghost and the Scriptures reveals to me.
    Shalom !

  • Elca

    Rick it is an ” Idea” subjected to interpretation, base in man made intellect and logic. But how do you get around the Written Word?

    For example, gays and lesbians say that since Jesus did not address the idea of homosexuality as a sin, it was a clue that He was moving away from those actions as sin. They use the same trajectory to justify their worldview. But nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Gregory Peterson

    I would say that you are indeed on a slippery slope…but this slippery slope is like one at a nice ski resort. At the foot of the slope is a lodge where you will find a nice warm fire and good company.

  • Elca

    I believe in the sufficiency of the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.
    I do use extra biblical resources and tools to help in my understanding of the scriptures and try to interpret the text in context with other texts to maintain consistency.
    At no time will I allow man’s knowledge and resources to supersede the Written Word.
    And I will not interpret the text to conform with trends and a changing culture.

    I realized you have referenced many resources, but I hope you can appreciate that there are a plethora of equally qualified scholars of different persuasions.

    I would like to recommend a resource concerning ” Trajectory Arguments / Hermeneutics ” by Dr. Wayne Gurdem.

  • Elca

    As you ponder the idea, keep an open mind, a humble heart and block out the cultural noise.

  • Elca

    Have a Blessed day as well.

  • patriciamc

    Egalitarians are so simply because we do take the Bible seriously. The funny thing is that complementarians say that egalitarians ignore parts of the Bible and follow the sinful world, while we believe the exact same thing about them. While complementarians take certain verses out of context of the chapter and book and ignore the situations Paul was addressing, egalitarians look at those same verses in light of the theme of the chapter and book and look at what Paul was actually addressing. Plus, since we worship Christ and not Paul, we egalitarians relate everything back to the teachings of Christ. That’s how we see that the verses in Ephesians are actually an example of how to love one another and not about authority in marriage. Also, complementarians say that egalitarians follow the world, while they in fact read the Bible through the lenses of the sinful male-entitlement mentality that is deeply engrained in our society (more so than we realize) and has been for thousands of years. We also don’t read things into the Bible that simple aren’t there (gender roles). That’s just too inaccurate for us.

  • KonCern

    Your obvious biased is laughable. And then you proceeded to write in the same manner you have accused others of.
    Example, “We also don’t read things into the Bible that simple aren’t there (gender roles). ” Really?
    So God made them ” male and female”…. see this is the beginning of Gender.
    God made the man to carry the seed and the woman to receive the seed and nurture that seed to life. That is a simple example of gender roles. It is in the Bible.
    Women don’t deposit seeds ( sperms) men do. Men don’t get pregnant, women do.
    You have got to be Blinded by Pride, ignorance or down right defiance to say, gender roles aren’t there. Thou art so wrong…. But then you are indeed an egalitarian.

  • patriciamc

    My goodness. Are you treating others as you would have them treat you? You will convince no one of your position when you call people names and use put-downs.

  • KonCern

    I do treat others as i would like to be treated.
    I am not trying to convince any one , that’s a job for the Holy spirit. And if He can’t convince you, and others I won’t be able too.

  • patriciamc

    I’m sorry, but noting differences in gender is no proof that men are to rule in the home and in church and that women are to follow.

  • KonCern

    You are talking from the emotional point of view. Not a Biblical one…
    ” but noting differences in gender is no proof that men are to rule in the home and in church and that women are to follow.” But Paul made a requirement for Pastor / Elder / Bishop as a man who knows how to ” RULE WELL” his own house. [1 Tim:5-17, ch3:4]
    The scriptures have NEVER said the same of a woman; she ruling well her own home would be false statement.
    Question, Did Eve give Adam his name?
    It is hard to fight against the word of God. Why not humble yourself and accept your role for the glory of God? It is NOT about you and how you feel. it’s about God and your obedience to His word.

  • patriciamc

    You’re proof texting, a mistake typical amoug complementarians. Put those verses back into the context of the culture and look at the situation Paul was addressing. Also, we worship Christ, not Paul. Every teaching of Paul has to be seen through the lenses of Chrsit, so that’s where patriarchy falls apart. Read Women in the Church by Stanley Grenz. He can explain all the common complementarian arguments. Also, insults, put-downs, and holier than thou statements weaken your argument and seem desperate.

  • patriciamc

    And when you believe that only men should be in charge, are you really meaning that you should be in charge? I also don’t recall Christ noting anything about the specialness of naming things. It’s no big deal.

  • KonCern

    Sister I have never used ” In charge” you did. That is a feminist way to disparage the words and concept found in the bible.
    I used the term Rule well.because it is biblical..
    So no need to conflate and twist the scriptures OK

  • KonCern

    “You’re proof texting, ….” Wow, it seems you are just throwing out terms and concept in an intellectually dishonest and disingenuous manner, without fore thought of having a honest discussion.
    I have just demonstrated to you the significance of ” naming” and who does naming and why .
    You seek to reject and nullify the practice because it contradicts and conflicts with your worldview. Yet you speak to me about ” proof texting”? Really. The biblical context is consistent with what I am saying.

    “Put those verses back into the context of the culture …” This is classic conjecture and eisegesis at work.
    Jesus , Paul and the other Apostles have NEVER use the culture of the day to justify a doctrine for the Churches.
    When Paul said it is forbidden for women to usurp the Headship of men, he did NOT referenced the culture or traditions of the day, nor the ruling aristocrats, Sadducees and Pharisees. He referenced the creation narrative. Not Culture, Education, giftings or experience, but a divine design perspective, for all times.
    This is a Biblical Fact written in the scriptures.

    You cannot demonstrate where Jesus and or the Apostles use culture as justification to set forth doctrine as a Sure foundation to build the Church. Instead you are engaging in conjecture , cherry picking and twisting the scriptures to say what is NOT written.

    “…so that’s where patriarchy falls apart. “ You are joking. For ” Patriarchy ” to fail, God the Father will have to fail. Your view of Patriarchy is secular , feministic and cultural. These have NOTHING to do with the ” RULE of the FATHER = Patriarchy.
    Patriarchy was institutionalized by God the Father, and was to be modeled after Him. That is what Patriarchy is.

    Sin and sinful men and women distorts God’s ideas, but that does not mean the system is wrong or bad.

    Question, should we abolish democracy? Men and women abuse each other under a Democratic system of Government.

  • Julie Coleman

    When my sister-in-law heard that I am now on the pulpit team at our church, she asked, “So you just ignore those verses in the Bible that prohibit women to teach?” Umm…no. I wouldn’t be much of a Bible teacher if I cherry-picked what I believed to be God’s Word out of the Scriptures. It was only after seminary, where I learned to dig in to find God’s true message from a passage, did I question the status-quo of women in conservative churches. I loved this article. We can make the Bible say anything we want when we pull verses out of context. Only through thorough research and contextual observation can we correctly “divide” the Word of God. Loved this article and have already shared it on FB. Thanks for giving voice to my passion.

  • Kieran Degan

    Thanks. I am on a similar journey. What book would be a good starting place?

  • Jeff

    “Why do so many people assume that egalitarians dismiss the Bible’s teaching?”

    Probably because that’s exactly what so many egalitarians do. Agenda-driven rather than Scripture-driven.

  • BJ Oropeza

    Maybe you should read Philip B. Payne’s Man and Woman: One in Christ, like the article says.

  • KonCern

    Have you read a critique of his books? You should.

  • NorrinRadd

    Have you interacted at length with many of us?

  • NorrinRadd

    Payne’s book (the one the author mentioned) is excellent for detailed treatment of the Pauline passages. Well-organized, tightly argued, pretty comprehensive. There are some weaknesses: It gives little or no treatment to passages outside Paul; Payne’s approach to 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is definitely a minority view (but that minority does comprise some highly respected scholars); he may lean a bit too heavily on some of his lexical and grammatical arguments.

    I consider “Discovering Biblical Equality” (ca. 2005) to be a “must-have.” It consists of chapters by numerous egalitarian authors, and gives an excellent overview. It addresses all the main Biblical passages and some minor ones, it deals with matters of hermeneutics and modern application, and it shows how interpretations have changed through various periods of history.

    “Two Views on Women in Ministry” is also excellent. All four authors are inerrantists in terms of their view of Scripture. It is quite informative in general, but its main strength IMO is the way it models polite, even amicable debate.

  • Jeff

    Actually yes, and for decades – literally. And I’ve never yet met an egalitarian who did not have an agenda that was his/her primary focus. Do you folks realize that, “Anything you can do I can do better!” is a line from a musical, not a quote from the Bible?

  • NorrinRadd

    Last point first — No, I did not know that was a line from a musical. I always associated it with the old Bobby Riggs / Billie-Jean King tennis farce. But the fact that you even bring it up out of the blue makes me wonder if you are really an honest interlocutor.

    As for your first point — Interesting. In context, I infer that “agenda” in “agenda that was his/her primary focus” means something along the lines of “an agenda to make Scripture fit one’s personal preferences, rather than an agenda to properly understand Scripture and harmonize passages that seem to conflict.” I have also been at this for decades. An unfortunate truth is that “complementarians” and egalitarians seem to be “designed” differently — possibly more differently than males and females. We perceive Scripture differently, and to each of us, it appears the other is mishandling it (i.e. “not taking it seriously”).

  • Jeff

    Eisegesis is not something you should do, simply because it coincides with a cool cultural narrative of the day.

  • NorrinRadd

    Eisegesis should ideally not be done for *any* reason, whether conforming to a “cool cultural narrative of the day,” making oneself “popular,” making oneself “feel good,” or defending traditional beliefs.

  • NorrinRadd

    The only book of his of which I am aware is the one referenced in this blog post and relevant to the topic at hand.

    I have read a couple of critiques, as well as Payne’s lengthy and detailed rejoinders. Have you read those replies of his? You should. You can find some at his Web site.

  • KonCern

    I have read most exchanges on CBMW by other scholars.

    It is a failure in .” rightly dividing the word of truth.”
    But it does supports the social activists call for equal rights for women. That’s it…

  • Jeff

    And so we’ve come full circle, and land back at my original point. Find me an egalitarian female “pastor” that is not an angry feminist first, and pastor second, and we’ll talk. But in 30+ years I’ve not found one such person.

  • NorrinRadd

    I don’t know any female pastors who are “angry” anthing. The female pastors I know are too busy actually BEING pastors to bother to take the time to argue about whether they should be ALLOWED to be pastors.

    And they are certainly not “feminists” in the stereotypical ways — “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” or “Anything you can do, I can do better.” Those ideas have never been mainstream among egalitarians, especially evangelical ones. Scot’s post, “Revisionist History on the Term ‘Complementarian'” might interest you.

    My experience in these debates/discussions is that most of the participants are male, and that, oddly, some of the most forceful (and I dare say, “angry”) advocates for YOUR position are women.

  • Jeff

    You obviously don’t know many (any?) egalitarian women pastors. I do. I’ll go ahead and leave it at that.