September 10, 2023 by Jamie Johnson

All right, so I don’t know if I’m doing it all the right way, but you guys, I’m sure, will correct me. I think Kevin usually starts with a Psalm. So, the one that I grabbed that was kind of fitting with what I was researching is Psalm 34 and it goes like this:

1 I will extol the Lord at all times; his praise will always be on my lips. 2 I will glory in the Lord; let the afflicted hear and rejoice. 3 Glorify the Lord with me; let us exalt his name together. 4 I sought the Lord, and he answered me; he delivered me from all my fears. 5 Those who look to him are radiant; their faces are never covered with shame. 6 This poor man called, and the Lord heard him; he saved him out of all his troubles. 7 The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them. 8 Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him. 9 Fear the Lord, you his holy people, for those who fear him lack nothing. 10 The lions may grow weak and hungry, but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing. 11 Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 12 Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, 13 keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. 14 Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. 15 The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are attentive to their cry; 16 but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to blot out their name from the earth. 17 The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. 18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. 19 The righteous person may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all; 20 he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. 21 Evil will slay the wicked; the foes of the righteous will be condemned. 22 The Lord will rescue his servants; no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned. (Psalm 34:1-22, NIV)

Pretty big, bold promises. So, Heavenly Father, thank you for our opportunity to come together and to hear your word and sing songs to you as an act of part of our worship. And then let the message that I have be useful to you and your people, in Jesus’ name. Amen.


All right, my manager said it’s time to get up and do communion. Because he’s done this a few times. It’s hard when you don’t know it, you know, I’ve watched you a thousand times probably and all of a sudden like, wait, what do next? I don’t remember.

Anyway, communion.

Such a beautiful reminder. That’s so profound in God’s promises for us, that what Jesus did with his blood in his forgiveness of our sins so that we can be with him and the Father. And his body which was broken for us for the healing of our bodies so that we could see a glimpse of his perfection even on this earth.

And so, I love the idea of looking at him as the perfect lamb who was sacrificed for us and not so much looking at ourselves but being grateful for what he did. So, come and partake.


Okay. So, Kevin’s been teasing me for a while about preaching.

And I keep thinking, “I’m gonna do that.

I’ll do it.” And so, I finally got up the guts. You know, I have something I want to talk about and this isn’t necessarily… I don’t know, Kevin. You can give me some critique later about whether this is appropriate conversation, but I think it’s something that’s been on my heart for about a year really when it came to my attention about this idea of complementarianism versus egalitarianism. And it so happened that Sean was interested in a girl at college and she asked him, “Are you a complementarian or an egalitarian?” And we never had that discussion in our house.

He’s like, “I don’t know. I guess I better go figure out what I am and come back and tell her I say the right thing.” Well, he didn’t, so she’s like, “Nope. No good. You’re not what I want. You don’t agree with me. So no dating for you.” I have to admire her for that. At least she had set her standard of what was the go-no-go line and he didn’t meet it, much to his dismay probably. But anyway, it did cause me to think, “Well, where do I stand? Am I a complementarian or an egalitarian?” And so, it’s a really great debate.

So, yesterday we went to a wedding and it was fun because we got to sit with Kevin and Jill at the wedding. And also, it was sad because we realized that our children’s friends are getting married. And so that’s where we are. So strange and so surreal. But anyway, the wedding was beautiful. It was a beautiful wedding. It was very sweet.

But the part that was interesting to me, that was a little bit different… I thought maybe I haven’t been to a wedding in a while… is the minister who performed the wedding gave a kind of a sermon before he married the couple. And he talked about this idea of Ephesians 5 and Genesis 2 and I started to take a few notes because it kind of fit in with my question of complementarianism versus egalitarianism.

And he was saying to the bride that…She needed to be submissive to her husband, and it was because of Genesis, the original sin. It was the curse of Eve, and he didn’t – I didn’t think he did much talking about the curse of Adam. But that was maybe – I was a little biased already in what he was saying, but that – yeah, she would have painful childbirth and that she would want to rule her husband, and that Ephesians 2 backed it up with that. It’s kind of God’s mandate that the man should be the head over the woman in the family.

And so, that’s how he kicked it off. I think he might have said some things to the young man, but I kind of lost track at that time. So, I wasn’t sure – you guys can let me know later if it was an equal bearing of a whack over the head for both of them. But anyway, what does it mean?

What are the consequences, and what does God have to say about that idea of complementarianism? So, modern controversy between secular human feminism and what they’re terming toxic masculinity and yeah, the implications are for the family, the church, and really the culture.

And by culture, I mean political, the business side, and social governance. Although you’ll see that the argument has been restricted to family and church in the great debate, but I offer the idea rather than should complementarianism be valued above egalitarianism, I offer the idea that collaboration should be valued above both complementarianism and egalitarianism. And if you really – if I really push myself to follow the idea of egalitarianism, I would say that if I follow one side or the other, I would say collaboration is a form of egalitarianism. So, I do fall on in that camp. But what does it mean? Complementarianism, a wiki, the great source of all general knowledge, I thought they actually did a really good job of summarizing it. They said that it’s a theological view in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, religious leadership.

And Merriam-Webster defines complement as filling up, completing, or making better or perfect, and I don’t think those are bad definitions. And I think there’s a really good idea and a noble thought that we should do that – have that we are different and we do have complementary roles.

What’s interesting to me was that this idea was formally recognized in 1987 in Danvers,  Massachusetts, something called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, also known as the Danvers Statement, and it was in reaction to this idea – not just secular feminism but a response to something that had already been said in 1984 in defense of a more liberal view of women in the church. Basically, complementarianism is saying that men and women are equal but have different jobs in the family and the church that are exclusively mandated – that are mandated by God and make complete in a way that one cannot complete.

That’s my summarization of complementarianism. On the other hand, egalitarianism – this idea was down in that third paragraph. The American Organization of Christians for Biblical Equity was established in 1984, and that was where the Danvers statement came in reaction to, but they weren’t the first. It was an idea in the United Kingdom about men and women and God and a conversation about that.

So, what it means is that Christian egalitarians believe that the Bible actually mandates gender equality and equal rights for the family unit and that the ability for women to exercise spiritual authority as clergy.

And it’s an interesting extension – I’ll talk a little bit more about that idea of how that relates to clergy. They argue that the Bible verses often used to justify the patriarchal domination in gender roles are very misinterpreted and that a mutual submission in which all people submit to each other in relationships and institutions as a code of conduct without a need for hierarchical authority. Alright, so you can see Miriam Webster says egalitarianism is a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs and also as a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

And I think that has really gained ground over the last – you know, with Western civilization and the idea of equality and particularly in America post Civil War, right? That was for like that last seminal statement on equality of humanity and everybody is worth one vote and has free will, so to speak. But the question is, does that come from a biblical worldview? And if it does, why does it not extend into the family or into the church?

Why do we restrict the family and the church from that idea of equality?

So, the people that are egalitarian, in case you don’t know – which I didn’t – are the Quakers, the Methodists, the Presbyterian PC USA, Evangelical Presbyterian, some Baptists, the Nazarenes, the Wesleyan Church, Salvation Army, and some like the Assemblies of God and the Four Square Church, to name most of the major ones. All right, then just for our purposes, my idea of collaboration being a better word for Egalitarianism is this idea of working jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. What I like about this is it removes the gender issue from the idea of labor equality and labor. Complementarianism and egalitarianism seem to me to be more concerned with who is doing the work than whether the work is actually being done.

I feel like we’re missing the point. We’re starting to quibble about the small things rather than what’s really important: the work that needs to be done. I think that collaboration favors the egalitarian viewpoint because it’s merit-based rather than gender-based, which is their point. So, those are our definitions that we’re going to work with.

Now, what do they agree on?

Both sides agree that men and women are equal in personhood, that God treats men and women no different in his worth and within the context of salvation. They both agree that the genders are real, they are different, and it is a natural phenomenon that he created us male and female. On that note, in Galatians 3:28, it says that faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are Jew or Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman.

That’s the contemporary English version. I thought it was interesting the Amplified said, “There is no distinction, no distinction in regard to salvation. Neither Jew nor Greek. There is no neither slave nor free. There’s neither male nor female. You who believe are all one in Christ. No one can claim a spiritual superiority.”

So the argument is that while yes, this means that we have equality, it’s with regard to salvation and not with regard to the family hierarchy, which is one argument against it by the complementarians. But I did think it was interesting that Amplified was also saying no one can claim a spiritual superiority, which I think we’re going to see as my opinion is that’s kind of the natural extension of when we put somebody in a role just by divine inheritance, so to speak. Where they differ is complementarians say that men and women are created for different roles based on gender. That does make sense, right? Men are physically stronger and often have a protector role, definitely when before the invention of the gun, which was the great equalizer. Women were physically weaker and they are the child bearers, therefore are by default given the caregiver role, which also makes sense.

They also claim the primacy that man was created first and given a commission to rule the world, which is true. That authority from God comes because God made man first. So in Genesis 2, which is where God formed man from the dust and breathed life into his nostrils and man became a living being. Not only that, but also God created woman second and therefore secondary. Here we have where God’s calling for a suitable helper to help Adam. He couldn’t find one from all the animals, so he created one out of Adam. And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, for out of man she was taken.”

I think we might read more into it than there might be, but that may be what Adam meant. This commission that man should be above woman in Ephesians 5 comes from this context of Ephesians 5, which says that women should submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. I think it’s a good analogy, the comparison of Christ, man as Christ, and the woman as the church. And yes, the church should be in submission to Christ. I’m not sure if this ends up becoming more of a blanket statement, like, “Okay, I’ve been given this role, so you have to do it,” type of thing rather than a position that was earned by doing the right thing. But it’s there in the Bible, it’s Ephesians 5:20-24.

20 Always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:20-24, NIV)

So, there it is. I think I’m leaning towards complementarianism. It seems like a good idea. This looks like that’s what God said.

But then I looked some more and I saw that God said, “They’ll become one flesh.” And that was back in Genesis 2 as well, along with the idea that she came out of Adam.

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, NIV)

But now, God’s calling them one flesh. “So, what does it mean if you’re one flesh? How do you decide which cells are going to be the head and which cells are not going to be the head? Can it change? What is the vat?

How do you determine that? Also, in Mark 10, He says, “God made them male and female and for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. And the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

6 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. (Mark 10:6-9, NIV)

I think this is a really interesting idea of that unity of one flesh. So now, how do you determine?

It’s not clear. I also thought it was interesting. Why did God say they’ll leave their mother and father and be united when? And He said that back in Genesis as well, before Adam had a mother and a father. Like, what’s that all about, right? That’s another mystery. Okay, and also in Genesis 5, He said He created them male and female but He called them man. So what does that mean?

Are they one thing or separate things? Are we one thing or separate things? Okay, so the egalitarians take their position from this. This isn’t their main one, but this is one that I think works for them as well: ‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands.’

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:21-24, NIV)

Right, we went through that whole thing and then said that she ultimately she’s going to submit in everything, but it starts off with ‘submit to one another.’ And I don’t know all of the context of why. You know, Kevin, you probably could tell us. I’m sure you could tell us better what Ephesians 5 is all about, what the great controversy was at the moment. But it’s interesting that that first sentence in the paragraph is ‘submit to one another.’

Alright. So the egalitarians then thus conclude that the men and the women are created for different roles based on their capabilities and more so the mind or ability rather than by gender is their conclusion. And by the way, there’s no mention in the Bible about either of these fancy words that we’ve made up that are eight syllables long because I counted them. But they do compare it to the idea of the Trinity, which is also not a word that’s in the Bible. And this idea of the submissive role of the Holy Spirit to Jesus, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in submission to God with respect to positional authority, leadership, and followership. And the church is divided, has divided over this idea because two reasons: one, the 1984 council was concerned about not only abuse practices with a patriarchal mindset but also a lack of the workers. If we limit women from positions of authority in the church and they can only teach other women or children, then you’ve really limited your opportunity for a voice in the church that might be useful. That was some of their ideas that they thought should go.

I also think that it’s an idea that causes dichotomy in our society because if we have an egalitarian idea in our culture and then we hold this view that there’s not equality within the family or the church, it puts Christians in a very hard position to justify. I don’t know that that’s really a worthy proof for an argument, but I think it does put us in a bit of a kind of an anachronism. Where we say, ‘Yes, we can have a woman president, we can have a woman CEO, we can even have very powerful women in society but not within the family or the church because that is contrary to what God’s saying.’ And I’m not 100% convinced that either side has really justified their argument convincingly through the scripture. Alright, and then this idea, right, that the focus of the problem is within marriage and ministry. And I believe that the Complementarianist viewpoint is the church by extension from the family with this idea from Ephesians five that comparison of the husband and wife relationship to each other as being like the Christ and the church. But I do agree with him that right there in the third line after the dashes, the dot site, this mystery is profound. And where he, I think it is, I think it is a mystery and I think it is profound.

And I don’t necessarily know that he’s saying that this is a direct correlation that he’s making, but a lot of people do. Okay, so it’s causes some confusion and it’s problematic. I think this one is from Peter. I didn’t write it down, but I wanted to read this one in particular because I think this is more of the problem than whether it’s men and women and who should do what. I think the problem is more, oh, I see, it’s First Corinthians. Sorry, three. It’s up at the top. More of, I don’t have a good word for it except divine a point, right, divine inheritance, so divine rule, but I highlighted or bolded the part that…”I think it’s interesting, at the very beginning of this.

The chapter title is “The Church and Its Leaders,” and it starts off addressing both the brothers and the sisters. He’s saying, “I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly, mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not mere human beings?

What after all is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has made it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service. You are God’s field, God’s building.”

Okay, and then he goes on to talk about laying the foundation with Jesus. And I want to just go on down. I didn’t want to take it out of context so much, but I did want to get down to, “So do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’ So then, no more boasting about human leaders. All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future.

All are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.”

1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it.

But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. 16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. (1 Corinthians 3:1-23, NIV)

So, I almost wonder if this argument of complementarianism and egalitarianism is much more of this idea of a quarrel or of jealousy of who is the head of the body and who isn’t.

And is that really what we need to focus on, or do we need to actually focus on the job that is set before us? And I think that the job that is set before us is a job in leadership and followership. That everybody should be taught leadership. And the steps for leadership are, according to Classical Conversations: responsibility, taking ownership of the work set to you, disciplining yourself, training. And then, now that you have taken responsibility and have been trained to take on that work, you have the freedom to do it.

And with that freedom comes choices. And you have a choice to make noble decisions or choices to make bad decisions. Understanding the consequences of your choices is what makes somebody a good leader, not a divine mandate. I don’t think that. I think we could all agree, we’ve seen good leaders and bad leaders, whether they’re men or women. And it makes me wonder if perhaps it’s not an innate sense to be a leader but something that must be taught and trained. And at a minimum, whether or not we think women should be leaders, wherever they’re going to be leaders, at the minimum, they at least will need to lead their own children or other people’s children if they’re given care of them, and other women within the church.

We also know that leadership can be abused by both men and women, and that power is not discriminatory by gender in its corruption. Everybody is equally fallible to being power lust. And perhaps, included with this idea of leadership and contemplating more so the training in leadership for Christians, is this focus on the virtues instead? Of grace and humility, integrity, and diligence, which leads to excellence? With grace and that idea of love and selflessness, which is where we saw back in Ephesians 2 of this idea of the woman submitting to the husband as the church should submit to Christ. So, I think those are the bigger concerns, and they’ve created somewhat of a false dilemma. And people are worried about what women should do and what women shouldn’t do.

Nobody seems to be worried about what men should do. It seems like a free pass. Maybe I’m jealous. Anyway, and this false dilemma of worrying about what those roles are versus what actually would be required to fulfill those roles. And for me, this is complex. It’s interesting to me because of the role growing up. And I ended up going into the Navy and becoming a fighter pilot in the Navy, which was, at the time that I went into the Navy, not allowed.

While I was in flight training, they opened up the combat roles to women, and so I went into the combat role. And so, you’re right, toying with that idea already of, “Is this an appropriate place for women to be?” In a traditional culture in which it was not an appropriate place to be.And you can really get into that argument, kind of scrap in the ready room over the idea of equality, or you could just put your head down and study. Fly the best you could to do the job that you had, and that’s the route I chose. I chose to fly as well as I could and just be grateful that somebody was paying me to fly an airplane. Day-to-day, it was a pretty good deal. But I didn’t want, I didn’t know if I should be taking on the entire weight of the idea of women in combat.

I didn’t want to be the poster child for that. I’d rather just be the poster child for flying an airplane. So, I struggled with that. And then, when you go in, um, but I will say this: not that many women really want to be fighter pilots. I was shocked. I thought everybody would, you know, they would have women coming through the doors running to jump in those planes, but that’s not true. And when I talked to a few of the women behind me, a few years behind me who weren’t fighter pilots, they flew transport or patrol or helicopters.

They said, “Well, we would rather have time for family and have quality of life.” Which took me back a little bit because that was never in my thought process. So, my immaturity, I think, showed. It was, uh, yeah, I’m like, “Wow. Yeah, that makes sense. That’s a good idea.” And it’s very clear when you’re in a jet that you can’t fly a jet with an ejection seat if you’re pregnant because if you do eject, the likelihood of the baby surviving that is very poor.

So, I thought that made sense, but the other planes you could fly up to six months pregnant. Like that, oh, that also, although I mean if you crashed a helicopter, the chances of anybody surviving aren’t that great anyway. But I could still see the point that was made. So, where was I now? Right, back to the idea of the family. But I would say that in general, there are certain tasks that are more aligned with gender, such as childbearing and breastfeeding, versus the physical strength of men and not having to slow down for a moment. You know, it seems like forever when you’re pregnant, but it’s just a moment to slow down and care for the child.

But in our technological society, how does that relate? How does that change things, or does it not change things? Should it change things? And we’re still left with this idea that not only are there not women rushing in to do all of these traditionally male jobs, I don’t necessarily think that women are rushing in to take over the head of the family. When both sides are mutually submitting to one another in love and caring for one another out of that respect, that higher value of understanding what leadership is and what, by default, all of your followership is, and the virtues. So, we have more of a problem with abuse within governance, politically, financially, socially, and within the family for political, financial, and social reasons, rather than a focus of both parties, both parents, making sure the integrity of the family stays together and that they both require submission. In debate, we often ask this question: “Well, when they are in conflict and someone has to be the leader, who should be the leader?”

And I would say it is the man’s honor and responsibility to be that leader when in conflict of values. That was something that God gave him, and so now I’m back to this complementarian idea. So, I think I can’t tell you for sure which is right, complementarianism or egalitarianism, but I do fall towards egalitarianism in that sense of co-labor. Never, but when it comes to conflict with each other, through experience, which is, I’m laughing because the story behind our experience is funny to me at my own foolishness. And so, I’ll take you down that little rabbit trail. Stemmin is more of a like if you had to choose between rhyme and reason, the poetic and the logical, I would like to think that I am more logical and that he is more poetic. He writes poems, he likes music, he once upon a time wanted to be a guitarist.

I had no such ambitions. I don’t write poetry. But I’ve learned, and I used to give him a hard time and just kind of give him the scoff, the eye roll, the tongue click. He’s doing that intuition thing, right? It’s not logical. And here I go, I’m not because I go on this wandering path and I get to my final logic reason, and there he is. He got there through his intuition and his rhyme.

And it’s so irritating. But I do appreciate that that worked out. So, in the end, I see that marriage is work, that it is collaboration, and that the values of grace, humility, and integrity with diligence is what will get us there more so than giving divine right. I’m not necessarily in agreement with their point though that it extends to the church. Although I do think that in the church, I don’t know, I didn’t look up the statistics of how many women would like to be pastors or leaders of churches. “But, I have a feeling it’s fairly small.

And, I can understand why this argument came about due to the secularization of the church, but within more of it’s less and conservative. And part of it is, many of those women are right. But, are they complementarian out of choice, or are they complementarian out of rule? I don’t know the answer to that. But, I do think that the young people do have a big thing to think about. And what it looks like to be a conservative Christian young person getting married today, and whether you submit by choice or submit because you got whacked over the head and told you had to submit.

So, you guys have to decide, right? The end. Amen.