Tiffany’s thoughtful, well-written article published in the “Biblically Resilient” website on Nov 4, 2025, takes on such an important topic. It takes courage to address these scriptures. Her article contains many strengths, including her love for Scripture, for God, and for the church. I also appreciate her willingness to say that she wrestled with these passages herself. Many of us have.

My hope in this response is not to persuade by force or to undermine the beauty of differences between women and men. Those differences are real and good, and I affirm them. My goal is simply to hold open space for brothers and sisters in Christ who faithfully read the same Scriptures and come to different conclusions about what God intends for men and women in the home and the church. A decade ago, before I spent years researching this topic, I would have taught the same thing as Tiffany, and could have written much of the same, albeit I have no equestrian talent.

One of the gifts of the body of Christ is unity in diversity, a shared devotion to Christ that does not require sameness of interpretation in every area. I share the author’s deep commitment to Scripture, reverence for God’s design, and desire for faithful discipleship. We stand together in affirming the authority of the biblical text, the equal dignity of men and women as image-bearers, and the importance of healthy, Christlike leadership in the church. Our common ground is substantial, and I am grateful for it.

Historically and globally, sincere and faithful Christians have differed on how to interpret texts involving women’s roles (including scholars within the Restoration Movement I reference in my books). This does not mean Scripture is unclear; it means we must approach these passages with humility, context, and careful hermeneutics.

 I write not as someone attempting to flatten gender differences, but as someone longing for all of God’s daughters and sons to be free to serve in the ways the Spirit gifts them.

Where I diverge from Tiffany is not in affirming difference, complementing each other, or mutual love; it is in the move from difference to hierarchy, and especially in rooting that hierarchy in creation rather than in the fall.

The foundations of my concern are simple:

• Genesis 1 gives shared dominion and image-bearing, not hierarchy.
• Genesis 3 describes relational distortion, not divine design.
• The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes mutuality, interdependence, and gifting by the Spirit without gender qualification.

There are textual moves in the article that I believe to be interpretive leaps, biological generalizations, or common-but-contested readings of key passage, while realizing others may view otherwise. I’ve included a concise, point-by-point appendix responding to the major scriptural arguments she offers. A much more detailed look at Scripture, the ancient middle east context of the Bible, and Paul’s teachings can be found in my book, The View from Paul’s Window: Paul’s Teachings on Women. The topic, along with a study on hermeneutics, can also be found in my book Re-Examining Our Lenses: The Relationship Between Restoration Movement History and Spiritual Formation. I would also recommend two books by authors within the RM, John Mark Hicks’ book, Women Serving God: My Journey in Understanding Their Story in the Bible and Gordon Ferguson’s, The Bible and Women: How Did I Miss So Much?

What follows is offered in love, with respect, and with a deep desire for the whole body of Christ to flourish.

APPENDIX: SCRIPTURE-BY-SCRIPTURE RESPONSES

1. Creation Order (Genesis 1–2)

Claim: Adam being created first implies authority.
Response:

The internal inconsistency itself in Gen 1 and 2 should caution anyone from pressing “order” into a rigid chronology or hierarchy.                                                                                                                          The text never states that order entails hierarchy. Genesis 1 explicitly grants joint dominion (Gen 1:26–28). In Genesis 2, the woman is described as ezer kenegdo—a corresponding strength. Rightly, the article notes ’ezer is used of God. The text shows shared vocation and unity, not rank, but the conclusion “to protect them as they lead us” is an import, not in the text. The conclusion “to protect them as they lead us” does not coincide with “to stand alongside as a corresponding strength.”

Any reading of Gen 2 that yields unilateral male rule must be reconciled with Gen 1’s shared vocation. Gen 1:26–28 uses plural pronouns consistently; both receive dominion and blessing.

Creation order is narrated, but the text does not state that order entails hierarchy.  I believe we should avoid importing later social custom into a pre‑fall passage.

Genisis 1, considered a priestly account where God’s name is used as Eloim, gives the order of creation as plants, animals, humankind (male and female). The structure is highly stylized and poetic, a seven day framework (likely not a literal seven days) where creation moves from formless, to formed, to filled. Humans are created together as the culmination of creation, and there is no sequence within humankind. Both are created in God’s image and both are given the same vocation “let them have dominion.”

In Genisis 2, Yahweh is the term used for God, denoting a focus on relationship. The narrative sequence is different. Man (adam), garden, animals, woman. It’s not a chronological sequel to chapter 1 but a zoomed-in second creation account with different vocabulary, structure, and theological focus.

Here, God forms man from the ground (’adamah), plants the garden, brings animals to the man, and then fashions woman from his side (2:7-22). Many scholars note that the sequence here is literary, not temporal. It’s about relationship and fit, not order and rank.

Naming: Adam names animals (pre-woman) and names Eve after the fall (Gen 3:20). The text never says Adam “named” the woman in ch. 2; he recognizes her as “ishah” (woman) because from “ish” (man). Using naming as a hierarchy signal here is shaky at best.  

Genesis 1 establishes shared image-bearing and joint dominion; any later reading must harmonize with this. Gen 2 ends with the creation of woman as the pinnacle of creation, after which He stated it is “very good.”

The prohibition (2:16–17) precedes the woman’s formation. The narrative later shows both man and woman morally addressed by God (3:9–13). The text does not say Adam alone bore an authority office; it shows shared accountability post‑1:26–28. There are times in the NT where sin comes into the world by man, Adam, and other times by woman, Eve. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” (Romans 5:12, ESV)

Here, Paul assigns the entrance of sin to Adam, not Eve. Adam functions as a representative (federal) head for all humanity. Paul is making a typological contrast between Adam and Christ. The “first Adam” brings death, the “second Adam” (Christ) brings life.
This isn’t about gender hierarchy; it’s about corporate representation. Adam stands for humanity as a whole in its fallen state, and Christ stands for redeemed humanity. Then, in 1 Tim 2:13-14, Eve is charged with bringing sin into the world.   “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV) The author is addressing a specific issue in Ephesus, involving false teaching and the need for women (especially new converts) to learn quietly before teaching others (2:11–12).

His reference to Eve, I believe, serves as an illustrative warning: deception leads to false teaching. I don’t believe it is about cosmic blame, but about a pattern of deception relevant to the Ephesian context.

To assign leadership to Adam from the author’s statement that God approaches Him first would be considered quite a hermeneutical jump.

2. Patriarchy as God’s plan:Chacon states that “Men have essentially been the leaders of every major society and every civilization since the beginning of time” to help make her point that God’s plan is for men to lead.
   History reflects pervasive patriarchy; whether that is design or distortion is precisely what Scripture must adjudicate, not biology or precedent alone. If we used this reasoning elsewhere, we’d justify: Slavery (longstanding in most societies); Polygamy (nearly universal historically); Child marriage (widespread throughout history); Class and caste oppression. All of these were near-universal for millennia. Yet no one argues they reflect God’s creational ideal. Creation tells us we are made for partnership, not hierarchy.

So, I believe the fact that patriarchy has been pervasive tells us something about human cultures, not God’s intention.

3. The Fall (Genesis 3:16)

Claim: “He shall rule over you” affirms creational male authority.
Response: Genesis 3:16 describes distortion, not God’s will. If we treat 3:16 as prescriptive, then we must also treat: Pain in childbirth as God’s will (3:16a); Frustration in labor as God’s will (3:17–19)

But we don’t. We seek healing. We treat Genesis 3 as brokenness God moves to redeem.  The gospel restores relationships to mutuality (Eph 5:21; 1 Cor 11:11–12).

4. Primogeniture Argument

Claim: Adam first mean the male was given authority, supported by primogeniture.
Response: Primogeniture is a post-fall cultural system, not a creation ordinance. And Scripture repeatedly overturns it:

• Isaac and Ishmael
• Jacob and Esau
• Judah/Joseph and Reuben
• David and his brothers

When the “exceptions” are the rule, the rule is not a biblical mandate.

5. Romans 5 / Adam and Christ

Claim: Adam’s representative role proves male authority.
Response:
Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are about sin and salvation, not marriage.
“In Adam” describes human solidarity in sin, not male headship over women.

Paul’s Adam/Christ typology in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 is about federal (representative) headship in sin and redemption, not about marital authority between men and women. “In Adam” refers to humanity’s participation in the fallen condition; “in Christ” refers to our participation in redemption and new creation.

These passages are doing cosmic anthropology and soteriology, not household instruction. Therefore, Paul’s point concerns the human family’s solidarity in sin and salvation, not a creational hierarchy of male rule.

Reading marital authority into Romans 5 requires importing assumptions that are not present in the text. In short, Adam’s role in Romans 5 establishes Christological and covenantal contrast, not gender hierarchy.

6. 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11

Key Points: 1 Timothy 2 addresses a specific false-teaching crisis in Ephesus, using a present-tense situational verb: “I am not permitting…” The passage ends with women learning, which was itself revolutionary. 1 Corinthians 11 affirms women praying and prophesying publicly (11:5) and then immediately affirms mutuality (11:11–12). “Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman… and all things are from God.”

Many scholars note that kephalē (“head”) in koine Greek can mean source/origin, not command-authority. The passage moves the community toward mutuality, not hierarchy.1 Corinthians 11 must be read not only with vv. 7–9, but also vv. 11–12.

The verb authentein (“to have authority over,” 1 Tim 2:12) occurs only here in the New Testament, and its meaning in the first century is debated. Early Greek sources use related forms to describe self-assertive or even violent acts. Lexicons and studies by Wilshire, Belleville, and Westfall show that the word often carried a negative or coercive nuance, “to domineer” or “to usurp authority.” Though there is scholarly debate on its meaning, the later, neutral sense “to exercise authority” does not appear until centuries after Paul. This suggests that Paul’s concern was not to forbid women from all forms of teaching or leadership, but to address a local problem of domineering or unauthorized instruction in Ephesus.

These NT passages appear to regulate disorder, not establish universal gender hierarchy.

Ephesians 5 – Because Paul anchors his household instructions in the mutual submission of verse 21, the roles he outlines for husbands and wives must be understood within that shared posture of self-giving love.”
I believe this scripture points to the husband’s role not as decision-making power, but as cruciform, self-giving love, patterned on Christ laying down His life. Head is often defined in the passage by loving self-sacrifice, not by unilateral authority. Jesus’ example of submission and laying down his life is described by Paul in Philippians 2, a voluntary self-sacrifice for the sake of another.

Are wives called to submit, respect, love, and lay down their lives for their husbands? And likewise, are husbands called to love, lay down their lives, respect, and submit to their wives. I believe the answer is yes to both, as Paul calls all to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. How can a woman feel loved without respect? And, a woman might submit to her husband, but without love it is a clanging cymbal. I believe that marriages where both partners submit to each other out of reverence to Christ exhibit a beautiful mutuality that bring light to the world and joy to each other.  

7. Gifts, Leadership, and Calling (NT Pattern)

The NT names women as:

• Deacon, deliverer of Paul’s letter, likely reading and explaining it (Phoebe – Rom 16:1)
• Prominent among the Apostles (Junia – Rom 16:7)
• Teacher (Priscilla – Acts 18:26)
• House church Leader/Patron (Lydia – Acts 16:40; Phoebe – Rom 16:2)

These are not anomalies. They are witnesses to the Spirit’s freedom.

8. Biology

The biology section blends description with prescription, which is a category mistake. Noting average hormonal or behavioral differences does not establish leadership norms. To move from “men often have higher testosterone” to “men are therefore designed to lead” is to confuse correlation with divine mandate.

Several of the sources cited (e.g., John Gray) represent popular psychology, not peer-reviewed scientific consensus. If biology is to be included, it should be grounded in systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and accompanied by appropriate caveats. Otherwise, biological observations should be treated as illustrative, not determinative.

Additionally, the reference to trans health and suicide is off-topic to the question of women’s roles. It functions as a rhetorical move that implies a slippery slope between women’s roles and sexual orientation, which are entirely different topics. It also proves hermeneutically unsound. The Bible never roots leadership or teaching restrictions in hormone distribution or physiology. Therefore, biology may illustrate differences, but it cannot establish ecclesial or marital hierarchy.

Average sex differences are real and can be appreciated as part of God’s good design, but Scripture never grounds teaching or leadership restrictions in hormone distribution or brain structure. In the New Testament, the Spirit apportioning gifts “as He wills” (1 Cor 12:11) is the basis for ministry participation.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The question is not whether men and women are different.
We agree. They are, gloriously.

The question is whether difference requires hierarchy.

I believe Scripture calls us not back into the fractures of Genesis 3, but forward into the restored mutuality of the new creation, where the Spirit pours out gifts on sons and daughters alike (Acts 2:17–18).

May we together keep searching the Scriptures, listening with humility, and walking in unity, even where we differ.