There are two thoughts that have come to my mind after I posted my thoughts on complementarianism.

First, the similarity I noted between the egalitarian hermeneutic and the pro-homosexual hermeneutic is not intended to imply that egalitarianism necessarily leads to either pro-homosexuality nor to license in general. I have never been fond of “slippery slope” arguments. What I wanted to show is that it is a faulty hermeneutic. It allows history, or at least a view of history that may in fact be wrong, to modulate the understanding of scripture. That injects a very subjective element into interpretation and that weakens it.

Second, I believe what I have outlined is Biblical and therefore to be believed. But an additional positive aspect to it is that it does not denigrate women. It shows that Holy Spirit does not say that women are gullible and therefore cannot lead or that they are easily mislead and therefore cannot teach. It does not subjugate women because of defect, instead it appeals to an authority structure. Adam was created and given the Law of the garden (Gen 2:15-17) and then Eve was created. Adam was then to teach the Law to his wife.