So good. Found your thoughts both wise and sensitive to following the scripture. Great detail in the textual arguments for women deacons. I would say this creates a real structural complimentarianism in practice. The men lead as elders, but as in the home, women have a real office to hold in the church, where their gifts and influence are meaningful and recognized. The man certainly is the head of the home, but he and his wife are co-rulers of creation as image bearers of God. It just makes so much sense for this to be reflected in the offices of the church.
Guys - GREAT episode! I love this kind of specific, infrastructural dialogue. These ‘title-and-role’ discussions are VITAL - not only to avoid error, but more importantly, to properly establish responsibility and reward for each member of the Body 👏🏼
This was a very rich episode with many concepts and bible passages covered. While I cannot remember if I was in agreement with every detail the general thrust of the episode - which was to be earnest in understanding what the bible says on these things - and making sure to live the principles out - so that Christ would be glorified - was very good. I just want to add one thing which is important - we must get rid of any sense that when it comes to appointing elders and deacons in a church that 'you win some and you lose some'. Correct me if I am wrong there is NOWHERE in the New Testament where the people who are being described as teaching falsely - or who have misbehaved - had been appointed by one or more of the apostles. Instead it is people who COME IN from outside. (I checked Acts 20 Josh and it doesn't say that false teachers will arise from among the elders of the church. It says that they will COME IN). If people think that it's inevitable that some elders will fall into sin this will lead to people being appointed elders before we can be SURE that they will be faithful. How can we be SURE that particular men will prove faithful as elders? Don't they have to be appointed as elders to find out if they will prove faithful as elders? No - the EVERYDAY pattern of raising people to leadership involves giving people who have proven absolutely reliable with the tasks assigned to them - the NEXT LEVEL of responsibility - because they were MORE than faithful in their current tasks. When things are being done wrong everyone including the leaders of the church are being 'tried out' - to see if they prove faithful. When things are being done right - no-one - not even the person put on the coffee roster - is being 'tried out'. 'Trying people out' might seem generous spirited - but it's actually governing the church in a way that will result in everyone being let down - and God dishonoured. And therefore I repeat the advice that was given earlier in the episode - that the main focus of ensuring that elders are faithful is on the front end - BEFORE they are appointed. Making sure that they REALLY are ready to be elders BEFORE they are appointed. No-one should be appointed elder who isn't already behaving in every way like an elder - a guardian and grower of the church. It's not uncommon to hear people who are talking about governance in the current climate speak as if sinful leadership is inevitable - and that the reason why there are elders is TO RESTRAIN leaders who would otherwise do wrong. No - that's absolutely wrong! Related to the issue of identifying whether or not people are ready for greater responsibility the only people qualified to make accurate spiritual judgements about people are those who welcome God as both Word and Spirit - people who welcome the Word - not just read the word (John 5:39-40) and who walk by the Spirit (Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:16) instead of simply having the Spirit - people who are therefore not guilty of either 'strategy' (presumption) - or rebellion (these two ways of rebelling against God are listed in 1 Samuel 15:23). This discussion about governance also left me wondering how people who run RUclips channels like this one think of their activities. Are you as presenters accountable to elders in your church? How do you view the web and what you do on it? Do you view believers who operate on the web as members of a virtual church which has no elders? It would be great if you shared how you think about virtual environments when it comes to governance.
Hey Remnant, I know non-denominational churches have somewhat of a mixed or even negative reputation recently for several reasons, but especially for not being rooted in historical Protestantism, seeming to make their own way and not value tradition, and appeal to the culture. Perhaps you could make a video on the defense of non-denominationalism?
We need perfect men to lead our churches, and yet the Christian life is to live in tension between our guaranteed perfection in Christ and our current souls, corrupted by sinful flesh. The bridge between is confession, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Thus, a faithful eldership is one that routinely, aggressively, and openly confess their sins before God and man.
@lkae4 Crying in the pulpit can be a show and has been abused by many. Living a life well practiced with genuine confession is different, and is not superficial.
@@lkae4 i 100% agree! Acts 2:42 gives us the model for church and it can easily be accomplished in our homes with our friends and family by simply holding gatherings.
I don't know if Michael feels comfortable yet talking about Bridgeway Church but I remember he mentioned a difference of opinion about the lead elders role? Also, I think they distinguish Pastors vs. Elders. Where biblically are these 2 separate roles?
Out of all the churches, the church at Phillipi in Macedonia was the one planted in a region where women had the greatest exercise of leadership and authority culturally in the Roman Empire, and we see that Lydia and other women were the foundation of this particular church. Of all his letters, the letter to the Phillipians is where we should see Paul instructing women to step back if this was proper and necessary, but instead it was the church Paul was the happiest with.
Yes, well said. Maybe some letters were not "straight from the horses mouth". If you believe how he lived rather than what is believed he said, Paul was 100% egalitarian. Keener has all of the deets as usual.
I’m the “senior pastor” at my church. We have 7 deacons. This message could be super long but let me try to keep it short. Philippi, Ephesus, etc.. had many churches in them. Not just one church. That being said, when Paul speaks on “elders” it does not have to mean multiple elders in one congregation. It’s more possible that Paul meant the “elders” in all these different churches in mentioned location. If Paul commanded multiple leaders in each individual church, it would have been close to impossible. Paul would teach elders but that doesn’t mean that all those students would actually become elders. Also, these elders were constantly being persecuted and killed. It’s much more possible that there was one head elder with sure other elders or more likely more deacons. As soon as an elder was biblically sound and ready he would be sent to oversee another church. These were house churches not 2,000 foot buildings. If a house church had 3,4,5 elders they would basically be half the congregation.
I was not "qualified" to be an elder in my younger days - before I got married - because I was not married. At the time I thought it was ridiculous and still do. (I was 32 years old then and was a missionary involved in Bible translation).
This was addressed during the show that being married is not a qualification to be an elder, but rather if you are married to only be married to one wife.
Can you show the scripture and church history references that show female elders are allowed. Would like to reference during conversation on this topic
How do I make a shift to believing in continuationism if the men that I believe to trust in my walk lift up these men who are totally disqualifying themselves! How do you not see the truth in all these false teachings?? I need help!
The way I see it is that if Egalitarianism is wrong, then there is an issue of church governance that is in err or even sinful, but if Complimentarianism is wrong then what Christ accomplished on the cross is partially denied. So if the first position is wrong, there is disorder. If the second is wrong, the Gospel itself is misrepresented. Thus best to err on the side of the first.
This is a very interesting way to approach this question actually, I’m going to ad this to my argumentation moving forward, thanks! I would also ad that none of the scriptures referenced by Complementarians are exclusionary in nature. (Nothing excludes women from eldership) If we are going to conclude that Paul including “an elder must be the husband of one wife” that this means a woman can’t be an elder because she’s not “included in the text” then neither can Jesus or Paul because they weren’t married and thus not “included” in the text.
@TaylorBibleGuy I have been mulling this either/or consideration for awhile since it occurred to me maybe a year ago, and considering there are well meaning believers on both sides. A bit like Pascal's wager.
@@Keto-m6p and it’s the perfect either or argument to make to a Christian because many use it all the time in evangelism/apologetics discussion with unbelievers: “if I am wrong about Jesus I live a good life, if you are wrong you will spend eternity in hell”
Saying that Women can’t be elders is Unbiblical. If you can quote me one verse that explicitly Excludes women from being an elder I’ll change my mind. The burden of proof is on you to prove the Bible excludes women from eldership. Without this specific exclusion we must conclude that God intended for them to be included.
There is only one verse where Paul writes that an elder is to be a man with one wife who is someone of good character etc. Because it's a leadership position and there is precedence for male headship. The rest is drawn from inferences throughout scripture. (both Old & New Testament) That being said, I'm siding with you about women serving in all the other positions within the church with their God-given spiritual giftings. For example; women can be prophets, pastors, preachers and teachers. (non headship roles). They can have gifts of prophecy, tongues, gifts of healing, discernment, gifts of serving etc. Women with such gifts and in such positions are found throughout scripture. Biblically, elders are leaders, NOT pastors. The reason why women have largely been banned from using their pastoral gift is because in western/American churches, pastors are typically leaders. So they equate pastor with leader/headship. But when elders become leaders, a woman can use her pastoral gift b/c it's not in a leadership position. That's the way I understand it, anyway.
@@kristenspencer9751 the verses you are referring to don’t exclude women anymore than they would exclude Jesus himself from being an elder. If we are to conclude that anything included excludes anyone not included then to be consistent in your eisegesis then you must exclude Paul and Jesus from being elders as well.
@@kristenspencer9751 Well put. I do believe that a woman can be an elder, however, I very much agree with you that preaching and teaching etc. are not headship roles, and what you present about our confusion about the pastoral role is accurate. Also that teaching is not mentoring. A woman not being the teacher of a man is better understood that a woman should not mentor a man one on one. This is not about teaching in the form of a lecture etc. in a group setting.
@@Keto-m6p Can I make a suggestion? Before you look at any bible passage that relates to eldership - and eldership teaching responsibility - FIRST identify if the bible presents any THEOLOGICAL difference between men and women - and if so determine what the difference or differences is/are. If you don't do that you will be left with asking questions like (this question prompted by 1 Timothy 2:11-14): Why does 1 Timothy say that people with penises must teach people with vaginas and not the other way around? That's pretty ridiculous, yes? But that is what is generally being asked in current theological debates about men and woman and their differences/roles. People are seeking to determine the letter of the law without also seeking to understand the heart of God behind it. We must seek to understand the HEART behind passages that relate to men and women and their roles - not just the letter. I came to the conclusion that there is only one THEOLOGICAL difference between men and women - namely that while men and women are each able and required to uphold principle and fight for the welfare of people - when men do so they do BOTH of the two things I just mentioned ORIENTED towards principle (so for a man seeking the welfare of people is ALSO a matter of principle). And when women do these two things they do BOTH of the two things ORIENTED towards the welfare of people (so a woman also upholds justice as something relevant to the welfare of people). Said in simple words - with that background hopefully leading to clear understanding - men are justice - and women are mercy. Note that this does not mean that men are not merciful - or that women are not just. Justice includes mercy (see Isaiah 30:18) and mercy includes justice (God's justice is always outworked with the aim of opening the door to mercy - see Ezekiel 33:11). Justice and mercy only differ in their orientation. The reason that God has appointed men to leadership in the home and in the eldership of the church is because men are oriented in a way that ensures that they do not allow matters that relate to the welfare of people to submerge principle. They are wired to preserve doctrine. This by the way is all that preaching is. It is reversing worldly culture at every opportunity. Worldly culture seeks to erase justice - so that mercy will instead be tolerance towards wrongdoing. Preaching - contrary to popular misunderstanding - is not stating self-evident truths! And this by the way is why preaching is described as heralding the truth - even when spoken to believers - because there is a sense in which it must continue to be a constantly unfolding revelation. This is why the bible says that women should NEVER teach men instead of sometimes teach men - because there is always a reason when it comes to governance teaching for men to teach instead of women. (But again we must make sure we understand the HEART of this directive. I have concluded that that heart of this directive is NOT being outworked when an ungodly man teaches a godly woman the bible! In such a situation the woman should teach). The passages of scripture which led to my coming to this conclusion about men and women were Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 3. Genesis 2 reveals that men and women must be different if woman is appointed to be helper to man (instead of men being helped by another man), 1 Corinthians 11 reveals that the difference is a difference of both role and orientation, 1 Timothy 2 says that the difference of orientation relates to who should guard the truth, and Ephesians 5 says that the difference is that men are justice and women are mercy (remember that this does NOT mean that men are without mercy - or that women are not just - see above).
the remnant boys are spot on regarding elders and church leadership. great job
Great job,Guys. Spontaneity is fun. Lot of deeply sincere thoughts. YOU HIT THE GROUND RUNNIN'. One of your best. Thank y'all.
So good! We left our prior church because of so many-too many- things you both taught on! Preach it Michael!!! Yes and Amen!!
So good. Found your thoughts both wise and sensitive to following the scripture.
Great detail in the textual arguments for women deacons. I would say this creates a real structural complimentarianism in practice.
The men lead as elders, but as in the home, women have a real office to hold in the church, where their gifts and influence are meaningful and recognized.
The man certainly is the head of the home, but he and his wife are co-rulers of creation as image bearers of God.
It just makes so much sense for this to be reflected in the offices of the church.
Guys - GREAT episode! I love this kind of specific, infrastructural dialogue. These ‘title-and-role’ discussions are VITAL - not only to avoid error, but more importantly, to properly establish responsibility and reward for each member of the Body 👏🏼
I'm using Logos right now as I watch the ad for Logos. Good stuff boys.
Michael, I would love to hear more about your church of house churches!!
This was a very rich episode with many concepts and bible passages covered. While I cannot remember if I was in agreement with every detail the general thrust of the episode - which was to be earnest in understanding what the bible says on these things - and making sure to live the principles out - so that Christ would be glorified - was very good.
I just want to add one thing which is important - we must get rid of any sense that when it comes to appointing elders and deacons in a church that 'you win some and you lose some'. Correct me if I am wrong there is NOWHERE in the New Testament where the people who are being described as teaching falsely - or who have misbehaved - had been appointed by one or more of the apostles. Instead it is people who COME IN from outside. (I checked Acts 20 Josh and it doesn't say that false teachers will arise from among the elders of the church. It says that they will COME IN).
If people think that it's inevitable that some elders will fall into sin this will lead to people being appointed elders before we can be SURE that they will be faithful.
How can we be SURE that particular men will prove faithful as elders? Don't they have to be appointed as elders to find out if they will prove faithful as elders? No - the EVERYDAY pattern of raising people to leadership involves giving people who have proven absolutely reliable with the tasks assigned to them - the NEXT LEVEL of responsibility - because they were MORE than faithful in their current tasks. When things are being done wrong everyone including the leaders of the church are being 'tried out' - to see if they prove faithful. When things are being done right - no-one - not even the person put on the coffee roster - is being 'tried out'. 'Trying people out' might seem generous spirited - but it's actually governing the church in a way that will result in everyone being let down - and God dishonoured.
And therefore I repeat the advice that was given earlier in the episode - that the main focus of ensuring that elders are faithful is on the front end - BEFORE they are appointed. Making sure that they REALLY are ready to be elders BEFORE they are appointed. No-one should be appointed elder who isn't already behaving in every way like an elder - a guardian and grower of the church.
It's not uncommon to hear people who are talking about governance in the current climate speak as if sinful leadership is inevitable - and that the reason why there are elders is TO RESTRAIN leaders who would otherwise do wrong. No - that's absolutely wrong!
Related to the issue of identifying whether or not people are ready for greater responsibility the only people qualified to make accurate spiritual judgements about people are those who welcome God as both Word and Spirit - people who welcome the Word - not just read the word (John 5:39-40) and who walk by the Spirit (Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:16) instead of simply having the Spirit - people who are therefore not guilty of either 'strategy' (presumption) - or rebellion (these two ways of rebelling against God are listed in 1 Samuel 15:23).
This discussion about governance also left me wondering how people who run RUclips channels like this one think of their activities. Are you as presenters accountable to elders in your church? How do you view the web and what you do on it? Do you view believers who operate on the web as members of a virtual church which has no elders? It would be great if you shared how you think about virtual environments when it comes to governance.
Great discussion.
Hey Remnant, I know non-denominational churches have somewhat of a mixed or even negative reputation recently for several reasons, but especially for not being rooted in historical Protestantism, seeming to make their own way and not value tradition, and appeal to the culture. Perhaps you could make a video on the defense of non-denominationalism?
Evangelical Crisis: A lack of wise, godly ordained elders/presbyters with episcopal bishop oversight.
We need perfect men to lead our churches, and yet the Christian life is to live in tension between our guaranteed perfection in Christ and our current souls, corrupted by sinful flesh. The bridge between is confession, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Thus, a faithful eldership is one that routinely, aggressively, and openly confess their sins before God and man.
I disagree. The crying-in-the-pulpit, servant leader model has failed.
@lkae4 Crying in the pulpit can be a show and has been abused by many. Living a life well practiced with genuine confession is different, and is not superficial.
@@goodtogaz The servant leader model has failed. It by definition is incapable of discipleship. Do you disagree?
And women.
@@lkae4 i 100% agree! Acts 2:42 gives us the model for church and it can easily be accomplished in our homes with our friends and family by simply holding gatherings.
I don't know if Michael feels comfortable yet talking about Bridgeway Church but I remember he mentioned a difference of opinion about the lead elders role? Also, I think they distinguish Pastors vs. Elders. Where biblically are these 2 separate roles?
Our youth pastor is officially the strongest man in the state… the kids don’t argue with him lol! (Is a great preacher and great with the kids)
Out of all the churches, the church at Phillipi in Macedonia was the one planted in a region where women had the greatest exercise of leadership and authority culturally in the Roman Empire, and we see that Lydia and other women were the foundation of this particular church.
Of all his letters, the letter to the Phillipians is where we should see Paul instructing women to step back if this was proper and necessary, but instead it was the church Paul was the happiest with.
Yes, well said. Maybe some letters were not "straight from the horses mouth". If you believe how he lived rather than what is believed he said, Paul was 100% egalitarian. Keener has all of the deets as usual.
I’m the “senior pastor” at my church. We have 7 deacons.
This message could be super long but let me try to keep it short.
Philippi, Ephesus, etc.. had many churches in them. Not just one church. That being said, when Paul speaks on “elders” it does not have to mean multiple elders in one congregation. It’s more possible that Paul meant the “elders” in all these different churches in mentioned location. If Paul commanded multiple leaders in each individual church, it would have been close to impossible. Paul would teach elders but that doesn’t mean that all those students would actually become elders. Also, these elders were constantly being persecuted and killed.
It’s much more possible that there was one head elder with sure other elders or more likely more deacons. As soon as an elder was biblically sound and ready he would be sent to oversee another church.
These were house churches not 2,000 foot buildings. If a house church had 3,4,5 elders they would basically be half the congregation.
I'm presbyterian, we have the best church polity
Actually, I really like prebysterianism. Josh calls me a closet presby 😂
With a pure plurality of elders, how do you still get things done... ?
Unless i misunderstood, it sounds like you are promoting a servant like elder, not an authoritarian elder. Amen!
Instead of western sheperds, who herd sheep from behind, Jesus spoke of sheperds in his cultural context, who had their sheep follow them.
Spot on. Narrow is the way... I personally don't claim to have what it takes... But once I did... Prayer is the way for me now...
I was not "qualified" to be an elder in my younger days - before I got married - because I was not married. At the time I thought it was ridiculous and still do. (I was 32 years old then and was a missionary involved in Bible translation).
This was addressed during the show that being married is not a qualification to be an elder, but rather if you are married to only be married to one wife.
Can you show the scripture and church history references that show female elders are allowed. Would like to reference during conversation on this topic
They’ve done episodes on this topic with egalitarian scholars.
We believe female deacons are allowed, but not female elders. I might have missspoke.
Is that a dumpster fire on your thumbnail, or an accurate depiction of most churches today? 🤔 it’s impossible to tell them apart
How do I make a shift to believing in continuationism if the men that I believe to trust in my walk lift up these men who are totally disqualifying themselves! How do you not see the truth in all these false teachings?? I need help!
We would always recommend that you go back to the Scriptures. What does the Bible say? More than what do people say…
The way I see it is that if Egalitarianism is wrong, then there is an issue of church governance that is in err or even sinful, but if Complimentarianism is wrong then what Christ accomplished on the cross is partially denied.
So if the first position is wrong, there is disorder. If the second is wrong, the Gospel itself is misrepresented.
Thus best to err on the side of the first.
This is a very interesting way to approach this question actually, I’m going to ad this to my argumentation moving forward, thanks!
I would also ad that none of the scriptures referenced by Complementarians are exclusionary in nature. (Nothing excludes women from eldership)
If we are going to conclude that Paul including “an elder must be the husband of one wife” that this means a woman can’t be an elder because she’s not “included in the text” then neither can Jesus or Paul because they weren’t married and thus not “included” in the text.
@TaylorBibleGuy I have been mulling this either/or consideration for awhile since it occurred to me maybe a year ago, and considering there are well meaning believers on both sides. A bit like Pascal's wager.
@@Keto-m6p and it’s the perfect either or argument to make to a Christian because many use it all the time in evangelism/apologetics discussion with unbelievers: “if I am wrong about Jesus I live a good life, if you are wrong you will spend eternity in hell”
Saying that Women can’t be elders is Unbiblical. If you can quote me one verse that explicitly Excludes women from being an elder I’ll change my mind.
The burden of proof is on you to prove the Bible excludes women from eldership. Without this specific exclusion we must conclude that God intended for them to be included.
There is only one verse where Paul writes that an elder is to be a man with one wife who is someone of good character etc. Because it's a leadership position and there is precedence for male headship. The rest is drawn from inferences throughout scripture. (both Old & New Testament) That being said, I'm siding with you about women serving in all the other positions within the church with their God-given spiritual giftings. For example; women can be prophets, pastors, preachers and teachers. (non headship roles). They can have gifts of prophecy, tongues, gifts of healing, discernment, gifts of serving etc. Women with such gifts and in such positions are found throughout scripture. Biblically, elders are leaders, NOT pastors. The reason why women have largely been banned from using their pastoral gift is because in western/American churches, pastors are typically leaders. So they equate pastor with leader/headship. But when elders become leaders, a woman can use her pastoral gift b/c it's not in a leadership position. That's the way I understand it, anyway.
@@kristenspencer9751 the verses you are referring to don’t exclude women anymore than they would exclude Jesus himself from being an elder. If we are to conclude that anything included excludes anyone not included then to be consistent in your eisegesis then you must exclude Paul and Jesus from being elders as well.
@@kristenspencer9751
Well put.
I do believe that a woman can be an elder, however, I very much agree with you that preaching and teaching etc. are not headship roles, and what you present about our confusion about the pastoral role is accurate.
Also that teaching is not mentoring. A woman not being the teacher of a man is better understood that a woman should not mentor a man one on one. This is
not about teaching in the form of a lecture etc. in a group setting.
@@Keto-m6p Can I make a suggestion? Before you look at any bible passage that relates to eldership - and eldership teaching responsibility - FIRST identify if the bible presents any THEOLOGICAL difference between men and women - and if so determine what the difference or differences is/are. If you don't do that you will be left with asking questions like (this question prompted by 1 Timothy 2:11-14):
Why does 1 Timothy say that people with penises must teach people with vaginas and not the other way around? That's pretty ridiculous, yes? But that is what is generally being asked in current theological debates about men and woman and their differences/roles. People are seeking to determine the letter of the law without also seeking to understand the heart of God behind it. We must seek to understand the HEART behind passages that relate to men and women and their roles - not just the letter.
I came to the conclusion that there is only one THEOLOGICAL difference between men and women - namely that while men and women are each able and required to uphold principle and fight for the welfare of people - when men do so they do BOTH of the two things I just mentioned ORIENTED towards principle (so for a man seeking the welfare of people is ALSO a matter of principle). And when women do these two things they do BOTH of the two things ORIENTED towards the welfare of people (so a woman also upholds justice as something relevant to the welfare of people). Said in simple words - with that background hopefully leading to clear understanding - men are justice - and women are mercy. Note that this does not mean that men are not merciful - or that women are not just. Justice includes mercy (see Isaiah 30:18) and mercy includes justice (God's justice is always outworked with the aim of opening the door to mercy - see Ezekiel 33:11). Justice and mercy only differ in their orientation.
The reason that God has appointed men to leadership in the home and in the eldership of the church is because men are oriented in a way that ensures that they do not allow matters that relate to the welfare of people to submerge principle. They are wired to preserve doctrine. This by the way is all that preaching is. It is reversing worldly culture at every opportunity. Worldly culture seeks to erase justice - so that mercy will instead be tolerance towards wrongdoing. Preaching - contrary to popular misunderstanding - is not stating self-evident truths! And this by the way is why preaching is described as heralding the truth - even when spoken to believers - because there is a sense in which it must continue to be a constantly unfolding revelation. This is why the bible says that women should NEVER teach men instead of sometimes teach men - because there is always a reason when it comes to governance teaching for men to teach instead of women. (But again we must make sure we understand the HEART of this directive. I have concluded that that heart of this directive is NOT being outworked when an ungodly man teaches a godly woman the bible! In such a situation the woman should teach).
The passages of scripture which led to my coming to this conclusion about men and women were Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 3. Genesis 2 reveals that men and women must be different if woman is appointed to be helper to man (instead of men being helped by another man), 1 Corinthians 11 reveals that the difference is a difference of both role and orientation, 1 Timothy 2 says that the difference of orientation relates to who should guard the truth, and Ephesians 5 says that the difference is that men are justice and women are mercy (remember that this does NOT mean that men are without mercy - or that women are not just - see above).
Can yall list some solid female preachers.