I was reading more of the comments on this post and one from Dr. McKnight surprised me. If I understand it correctly, I now know the purpose of this post. He writes, “The point of the essay in the journal is that complementarian exegesis has shifted over time.”
If you’ll note, the essay he refers to in the article concludes:
“One obvious implication is that complementarians should be careful in proclaiming to possess a sure foundation that evidently does not exist. As long as interpretations keep changing in substantial ways, interpreters ought to exercise all the more caution about wielding such interpretations to prohibit women from proclaiming the gospel to men.”
Conclusion: this means radical egalitarians need to be equally careful in proclaiming to possess a sure foundation that evidently does not exist as they too do not always agree on how to exegete the texts either.
But I don’t think that radical egalitarians will be happy with this argument being used back at them much like how they don’t like the slippery slope argument used back at them either even though I’ve had radical egalitarian friends accuse opponents of women’s ordination of racism and slave-owning! So why should radical egalitarians not be allowed to be accused of promoting homosexuality or of changing exegesis right back? Probably because there is a double standard they maintain?
Another commenter, qwerty, states “I’ve often observed that there is no consensus amongst complementarians as to what exactly the Bible allows and prohibits for women.” Actually, in more traditionally High Church settings there is a consensus–namely, that women should not be ordained priests. Some of the issues are not adopted doctrine though as they do not directly effect the liturgical rule of lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of worship is the law of belief, a tenet held by all Christians universally).