Which way should I go? Here are my brief reflections, which I posted on my Facebook page.
I edited and expanded the original posts.
Let’s begin.
AUGUST 29, 2026
In this short video, Andrew Bartlett takes down Mike Winger’s interpretation of an extremely rare verb in 1 Timothy 2:12:
Andrew Bartlett (King’s Counsel, who knows Greek) is in the process of taking down Mike Winger who restricts women from eldership and (probably teaching too in a mixed audience). In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul uses an extremely rare verb (authentein). Teachers, like Winger, who want to restrict women, say that it just means “exercise authority” or “have authority.” Wrong. It means to “dominate” or “overpower,” as Bartlett explains.
So women cannot teach in a domineering manner (and neither should men, BTW). This implies that if they drop their domineering manner, then women can teach and lead.
Why choose a rare and extra-strong verb, when Paul had other choices, like “have authority” or “exercise authority”? It’s an Ephesus thing, where the temple of Diana (Artemis) was led, in part, by rich priestesses, who dominated society.
It’s exegesis like this and studying the cultural context–both exegesis of Greek terms and the cultural context–that made me change my mind about women in leadership, like pastoring and teaching the entire church of both men and women. I’ve seen women do this, and it’s wonderful and orderly and fitting.
It’s a real disappointment and concern that Winger’s influence on this topic of women in ministry is much, much greater than the influence of real scholars, like Andrew Bartlett, Terran Williams and many others. But Winger dismisses them too easily, Bartlett and Williams conclude.
And it’s a real disappointment that Andrew Bartlett and Terran Williams also say that Winger does not reply to their requests (or he did reply and told them no, in effect) to discuss his views, even though he said he would welcome any discussion from qualified individuals.
Here is Bartlett’s long and detailed takedown of Winger’s restrictive belief about women, at Terran Williams’s website:
Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women
In addition to the (convincing) refutations, that link also includes other links challenging Winger’s interpretations.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
I’m responding to this meme:
Scriptures depict women as leaders from the beginning of creation to their partnership with Paul, but churches ignore this evidence and focus on “a few contested verses” used only to support male authority instead. Many leaders, churches, and seminaries leverage mistranslations of Scriptures to oppose women’s equality and leadership in the church. These influential gatekeepers rely on flawed Bible translations to uphold male-female power imbalances in their families, churches and communities, subverting God’s original plan for mutuality between men and women.
Here is my response:
I agree with the idea that translations are flawed, notably of Romans 16:7. You can check out 50+ translations at bible gateway. Any translation that says Andronicus and Junia were prominent to the apostles, as if the couple stood outside the apostolic circle, is wrong.
The Greek is clear (en + dative plural) and is easily translated as “among the apostles”; that is, they stand “in the realm of” the apostolic circle. They were apostles, in other words, because Paul has a broader definition of apostles than himself and the Twelve.
“In the realm of” is the basic meaning of en (related to our word “in”). Go to any grammar book of ancient Greek, and in its chapter on prepositions they will have a circle with Greek prepositions near, above, upon, inside, or towards (etc.) the circle. Guess which preposition appears inside the circle. En. It is difficult to break this fundamental meaning. Even when it is used as an instrument “by” or “through” something, it is difficult to stray too far from the meaning “in the circle of” or “in the realm of.” For example, 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 (NIV) reads:
To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, (1 Cor. 12:8-9)
Each one of those English prepositions in bold font translate the one Greek preposition en. Now just imagine translating them as “in,” and you get the idea how this preposition works: the gifts are given and used “in the realm of the Spirit.” It is hard to escape this fundamental meaning, though the NIV and most other translations go with the instrumental “by” or “through.” This is right because it’s easier to understand in English.
I’ve written a long, long post on the preposition en + dative plural in Romans 16:7 at my old fashioned website, and I’m re-reading through the rest of Romans in Greek (though I’ve had a delay recently). There’s no question that 16:7 should be “among the apostles.” Who mistranslates the phrase with “to”? (They are well known “to the apostles.”) Translations like the ESV, which is exclusively filled with Complementarians (Restrictionists), notably James Packer, the managing editor, or the LSB, published by John MacArthur’s group, or the NET, done by Dallas Theological Seminary. I could go on.
Once again, it’s translation choices like those that led me to change my mind about women in leadership.
Here’s the long post, to which I am adding more data:
Yes, Junia Really Was a Female Apostle: A Close Look at Romans 16:7
Also see:
SEPTEMBER 27, 2026
ANOTHER REASON I SWITCHED FROM COMPLEMENTARIAN (RESTRICTIONIST) TO EGALITARIAN (MUTUALIST).
Ephesians 4:8 says Christ gave gifts to anthrōpois (dative plural). The nominative singular is anthrōpos (yes, we get our word anthropology from it). Should the dative plural be translated as “men” or “people”?
Go to any Greek lexicon, whether classical or New Testament, and anthrōpos means a generic person, both men and women, mankind and womankind–humankind. I just googled “define ancient Greek noun anthrōpos.” Here’s what I got:
The ancient Greek noun anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) means a human being, person, or mankind in a generic sense, encompassing both men and women”
My quibble is really small: “mankind.” I would prefer “humankind,” but “mankind” encompasses both men and women in popular usage. Fair enough. Let me move on.
The source of AI’s definition is old Mr. Strong’s Concordance, published in 1890, including the dictionary. The 100 scholars who worked on the concordance and dictionary for 35 years (since 1855!) understood what it means, even back in the 1800s. (No doubt they had read Liddell and Scott’s lexicon, first published in 1843.) No doubt they read classical Greek too. No doubt they did not promote women in ministry back in their days (though I don’t know for sure what all of them believed about this).
So, then, armed with those data points, how do we translate Christ “gave gifts to _____”? Men or people? Clearly, it should be translated as “people.” I could even get away with “Christ gave gifts to men and women.”
But how do the ESV (James I. Packer as the managing editor), New English Translation (Dallas Theological Seminary), and Legacy Standard Bible (John MacArthur’s outfit) (not to mention the KJV and NKJV) translate the noun? They are all Complementarian / Restrictionist, so you can guess. They go with “men.” Wrong.
No doubt they would say the context warrants “men” because Ephesians 4:11 says Christ gave to the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors (or teacher-pastors). The Restrictionists could not have that. If that’s not their motive for their prejudicial and wrong word choice, then I can’t figure it out. (I don’t wish to entertain the thought that they are just plain prejudiced, unconsciously or unconsciously, against women in pastoral and teaching ministries to a mixed audience.)
In any case, the ESV has a footnote that says anthrōpoi (nominative plural) includes men and women. Correct. Maybe the translators of the ESV had a discussion and decided to compromise with a footnote. They should not have inserted the footnote because they should have translated it as “people.”
One reason the ESV was produced was to counter such gender inclusive language. I’m sad to learn that around 320 million ESVs have been distributed worldwide. Now those people will read “men” (how many read footnotes?). Sorry to say, the ESV and other Complementarian (Restrictionist) translations pull these little stunts in key passages (see above, September 1, 2026 and Romans 16:7).
The NIV and NLT used “people.” EXACTLY. No wonder why the NIV drives certain Restrictionists to distraction. They do not like the gender inclusive language. But in my own translations I have come to admire the NIV. It’s more accurate in many, many small ways, like this one.
Women, Men, and Five Ministry Gifts in Ephesians 4:11
SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
OKAY, ONE MORE REASON WHY I HAD TO SAY NO TO COMPLEMENTARIANISM (Restrictionism). It’s the name itself, chosen by Wayne Grudem (Calvinistic) and John Piper (hyper-Calvinist) in the late 1980s.
About 90 years ago, some philosophers decided that judging a movement today by its origins should be called a “genetic fallacy.” Maybe this is true in some cases, but not in others. One example: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who started Planned Parenthood. She planted her abortion clinics in black neighborhoods. I see little to no change in this eugenics strategy and goal. Digging into the origins of this grim practice is not a fallacy, particularity where there is continuity from the past to the present.
So let’s explore these two men’s beliefs about women in another important area (and no, I’m not about to suggest that these two men = Sanger).
Grudem used to tell women to stay in their marriages when domestic violence was committed against them, and Piper says God decrees / ordains / causes (you pick your term) horrendous moral evil (e.g. the holocaust). A simple google search shows that Piper believes, or used to believe, as Grudem does or did, that abuse was not sufficient for divorce. Piper even said a woman may have to put up with a “smack” before she finds safety (but no divorce). If he changed his mind, and he apparently did, then so much the better for him and women he influences.
I don’t know what their belief was about domestic violence not being grounds for divorce in the late 1980s, when they came up with the benign term Complementarianism. But it was long before they softened their positions.
FYI: endangerment is a right reason for divorce, and lesser forms of abuse is also possible.
Back to the name. It is obvious that Complementarianism does not accurately describe / define the results of their interpretation of Scripture, which is to shut the door to women teaching and pastoring in a mixed audience. Why is it inaccurate? (1) It’s too broad and kind because everyone believes in Complementarity. Mankind and womankind and husbands and wives complement each other. It’s obvious. (2) But what choice did they have? “Needlessly Oppressive” (NO)?
So they (cleverly) settled on the anodyne and misdirecting and deflecting term Complementarianism. Great marketing strategy!
Objection: Are you saying they were dishonest? My reply: Maybe I should say they were hiding something behind their marketing term so as to not shine a light on the results, which is, once again, to kick women off the platform in a mixed church audience and not allow them to be pastors or elders and teachers. Instead, they should have been more truthful and called it “Restrictionism” and themselves “Restrictionists.” Much clearer and forthright. Nothing hidden.
OCTOBER 5, 2026
THIS TABLE IS ONE MORE REASON WHY I MOVED FROM RESTRICTIONISM (Complementarianism) to EGALITARIANISM (Mutualism). Albert Mohler (another Calvinist) talked the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) into voting not only against women holding the TITLE of pastor, but also against their FUNCTIONING as pastors.
BTW, why do I keep mentioning that so-and-so was / is Calvinist? Because over the decades I have anecdotally put together fragments of information, little tidbits, that tell me the Reformed churches and other Calvinists are behind the most repressive and restrictive policies imaginable. Remember when they told us we could not claim Jeremiah 29:11, because the historical context proves the verse was (only?) for ancient Judeans going off into exile? Is that so! What about Psalm 23? It is a psalm of David. “The LORD is MY shepherd.” Using the same logic applied to Jeremiah 29:11, the LORD is not my shepherd because David wrote it about himself. It has an historical context. Never mind that all verses in the entire Bible have an historical context. Never mind that 2 Corinthians 1:20 says all the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ, including promises in the Old Testament.
But I digress. Let’s move on.
But here’s a table I put together showing that women in Ephesus and Crete–and probably in all churches, even beyond the ones Paul planted– functioned as pastors or shepherds who cared for the flock. (And BTW, I see pastors as having the same function as elders and overseers.)
You don’t have to read Greek to see that the terms are similar or sometimes identical in each column.
And so here’s the table of synonymous terms, answering the question whether men and women did the same things in ministry:
| Male Elder / Overseer Descriptions in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 | Synonymous Female Terms in 1 Timothy and Titus 2 |
| 3:1 Good work (καλοῦ ἔργου) | 5:10 Good works (cf. 2:10) (ἔργοις καλοῖς) |
| 3:2 Above reproach (ἀνεπίλημπτον) | 5:7 Above reproach (ἀνεπίλημπτοι) |
| Husband of one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα); and Titus 1:6, which uses the same phrase) | 5:9 Wife of one husband (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή) |
| Temperate (νηφάλιον) | 3:11 Temperate (νηφαλίους) |
| Self-controlled (σώφρονα) | 2:9, 15 Self-controlled (σωφροσύνης; v. 15 uses the exact same term) |
| Respectable (κόσμιον) | 2:9 Respectable (κοσμεῖν) |
| Hospitable (φιλόξενον); see also Titus 1:8, which uses the same term | 5:10 Hospitable (ἐξενοδόχησεν) |
| Able to teach (διδακτικόν); encourage with sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) | Titus 2:3 Teacher of virtue (my translation of\ (καλοδιδασκάλους) |
| 3:4 Manage his own family well (τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον) | 5:14 Rule over their home (my translation) (οἰκοδεσποτεῖν) |
| Respectable in every way (μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος) | 3:11 Respectable (σεμνάς) |
| 3:7 Good reputation (μαρτυρίαν καλὴν) | 5:10 Well-known for good deeds (ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη) |
| 3:3 Not a drunkard (μὴ πάροινον); see Titus 1:5, which uses the same Greek term | Titus 2:3 Not enslaved to wine (μηδὲ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας) |
| Explanations:
(A) Unless otherwise noted, the references are from 1 Timothy. (B) The translation is from the NIV, except 1 Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2:2. (C) In the second column, about women, nearly every term is found in leadership roles for men. Women functioned as–and were–elders, pastors, and overseers. (D) Philip Payne gave me this idea in his book Man and Woman in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan, 2009), pp. 450-51, though his study narrowed the terms quite a lot and stayed in 1 Timothy only. He calculates the odds (he really does this!) that his two-column list of identical or nearly identical terms are deliberate to be astronomically high. They are not coincidental but planned out. Therefore, Paul saw the women leaders as elders / overseers. I did not get into his math since I am not a math guy. His exegesis in his book is top-level—unbelievably excellent. As a matter of fact. Gordon Fee himself, another high-level exegete, noted Payne’ exegesis and highly recommended his thick book. Every complementarian must work his way through it. |
|
Let me quote 1 Timothy 5:9-10, where some of the terms on the right side of the table were taken:
9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. (1 Tim. 5:9-10, NIV)
Those widows did and were those things all throughout their redeemed lives. If those qualities and functions in those two verses and in the table do not describe what pastors do and who they are, then nothing does.
Those women functioned as pastors because they were pastors. They were pastors because they functioned as pastors. It’s not so easy to distinguish function (what you do) and being (who you are) when God places his gifts and callings in your heart.
I saw Dr. Mohler and Allie Beth Stuckey dialogue about his proposal he set before the SBC. And with a nervous tone in her voice (that’s how I read it), she asked him if women could still do their podcasts. He did a work-around and said they could. He saw no harm in it. Evidently, they are not inside the church building, so they are not pastors (or teachers). But they still teach a mixed audience.
No matter. He has granted his permission. It’s a sure thing that the female podcasters would have revolted and kept going, anyway, if he had told them no, presumably because they would not risk losing a revenue stream or stick only to politics and not Bible interpretation. So he held back his final and extreme and unbiblical and needless restriction.
Speaking of that …. One word of encouragement to Allie Beth and other female podcasters: If he had told them no and to shut down their podcasts, they would have done well and been perfectly biblical to ignore his (repressive) counsel and to keep going with their podcasts.
But then I’m not as influential (yet) as Dr. Mohler (I in no way belong to the SBC), so my opinion has no sway, here at my old fashioned website, where I write to learn before I expand to my own channels. (Would that all podcasters wrote out their ideas before teaching on their video platforms!)
But I’m glad he does not influence me. in any case.
Albert Mohler and those in the SBC who voted for his proposal are extremists. All of them. Is it too much to hope that they will reject his extreme proposal in the final vote?
To conclude, these are just five reasons (among others) why I rejected Restrictionism and accepted Egalitarianism. It’s about the right exegesis, and not going woke.
RELATED
Women, Men, and Five Ministry Gifts in Ephesians 4:11
Are Older Women Restricted to Teaching (‘Only’?) Young Women? A Close Look at Titus 2:3-5
Should Women Not Speak One Word in Church? A Close Look at 1 Cor. 14:34-36
Women Really Did Work as–and Were–Overseers, Elders, Pastors: A Close Look at 1 Timothy 5:9-10
Yes, Junia Really Was a Female Apostle: A Close Look at Roman 16:7
What 1 Corinthians 14 Really Teaches
Are Women Allowed to Teach Men? A Close Look at 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Women Teachers: New Translation and Reinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2
SOURCES
