Why Preston Sprinkle Changed His Mind On Women Pastors

We talk with Preston Sprinkle about his book From Genesis to Junia and the long road from a John MacArthur shaped complementarian framework to an egalitarian view that affirms women teaching, preaching, and leading in the church.

We dig into the passages that always show up in this debate (especially 1 Timothy 2, along with Paul’s wider world), but we keep pulling the camera back to ask harder questions about biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. Is the Bible a blank slate on gender roles, or does it carry the fingerprints of patriarchal ancient contexts even while pushing against them? What do we do with the fact that sincere Christians read the same Greek and Hebrew texts differently, and that those conclusions affect real people’s lives and callings?

Then we press into methodology and authority. Preston lays out why he treats Scripture as the ultimate authority for Christian theology, and Kyle challenges what that claim means when canon, interpretation, and experience are always in the mix. Randy brings the pastoral angle, asking how we deal with morally troubling texts and why “the Bible says it” is rarely the whole story. We also touch the “slippery slope” fear that egalitarianism automatically leads to affirming views on sexuality and why Preston thinks that framing misses the mark.

If you're just done with engaging with conservative, Bible-based approaches to these kinds of questions, we get it. But if you care how folks with a voice in that world are talking about women pastors, egalitarianism vs complementarianism, biblical authority, deconstruction, or church power, this one will interest you.

=====

Want to support us?

The best way is to subscribe to our Patreon. Annual memberships are available for a 10% discount.

If you'd rather make a one-time donation, you can contribute through our PayPal.

Other important info:

• Rate & review us on Apple & Spotify
• Follow us on social media at @PPWBPodcast
• Watch & comment on YouTube
• Email us at pastorandphilosopher@gmail.com

Cheers!

Transcript

Why Invite A Disagreeable Guest

Randy 0:06

I'm Randy, the pastor half of the podcast, and my friend Kyle's a philosopher. This podcast hosts conversations at the intersection of philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

Kyle 0:15

We also invite experts to join us, making public a space that we've often enjoyed off-air around the proverbial table with a good drink at the back corner of a dark pub.

Randy 0:24

Thanks for joining us, and welcome to A Pastor and a Philosopher Walking to a Bar. So Kyle refers pretty often to this list that we had. And one of those people has been Preston Sprinkle. Now, Kyle would not agree with this, even like doesn't love it. Preston Sprinkle is on that list because he says some things that are very strong that we disagree with and we'd love to have a conversation with him about. But we don't love we don't want to turn this podcast into a debate podcast, and so we haven't pursued Preston. We haven't pursued a conversation with him because it would feel disingenuous to invite him into a conversation and then try to dump all over his his, you know. Or anybody.

Kyle 1:17

You know, there's a lot of folks in the in the evangelical space that we could easily probably have conversations with and we haven't pursued them for a yeah.

Randy 1:24

Yeah. And we've gotten requests from people like, I'd love to hear you talk to a Calvinist, or I'd love to hear you talk to fill in the blank. And the reason that we're reluctant to do it is because we don't want to double team a person who with strong opinions and smash them with a debate and make it really, really rough on them. That doesn't seem like a a kind thing to do. So that's what we stayed away from. But thanks be to God, Preston Sprinkle just wrote a book about women in leadership, and thanks be to God, he changed his mind about women in leadership. Praise the Lord. Well done, Preston. And his publisher reached out to us and asked if we wanted to have him on. And then the heavenly bells went off, and the light beamed around Preston.

Kyle 2:04

Yeah, yeah. And we had a great conversation. Um if you're not familiar with Preston, he uh has written a lot of books. I don't know how many, but more than I can count on one hand for sure. Um and they all tend to do similar things. Let me just read you some of the titles of some of the books that he's written, and you'll probably pick up on the commonalities pretty quickly. So he wrote a book about trans identities, the church, and what the Bible has to say. Uh, another book on why homosexuality is not just an issue. Uh that book was called Loved or To People to Be Loved, I think. Um, A Christian Case for Nonviolence, uh, The Church and the Shadow of Empire, these are mostly subtitles. He wrote a book on hell with Francis Chan, which he has also since changed his mind about. And now this one, uh, it's called From Genesis to Junior and on a search for what the Bible really says about women in leadership, right? So you can you can sense a theme here. He is a New Testament scholar by training, went to Aberdeen in Scotland. Um, but the books that he writes for popular audience tend to target uh whatever some kind of hot button controversy, usually in the sphere of uh Christian ethics, uh or you know, some some kind of socio-ethical stuff, and give his take on that from his study of the Bible. And his conclusion often uh either accords with a sort of traditional evangelical take on things, but is very ironically laid out and um you know carefully presented with the scholarship and the references and everything, uh, or it takes some kind of both sides-y kind of view. Um and so it's it's nice, I guess. You're getting my take on this here, okay. So take take Errol all of it with a grain of salt, go read his books if you want to. Um so it's nice that in this one he comes around to an egalitarian view. So it's an an as Randy said, it's evidence of his him changing his mind about something. Um and he's to his credit very open about that he changed his mind and why. Um and we have, I think, an interesting conversation that maybe goes some places he didn't quite expect in terms of um, you know, he he clearly thinks the biblical case for this is where his attention should be focused. And you and I wanted to push against that in some ways, and uh that made for probably a different kind of conversation than maybe he's used to having. But um, I think it was a cordial and friendly and uh renicked conversation. Yeah.

Randy 4:08

It could have been way more debate-y, but uh yeah. Uh backed we backed up.

Kyle 4:13

He didn't he didn't know he didn't know what he was getting with us.

Randy 4:17

And truth be told, he I mean, it was a lovely conversation. Um I'm grateful that he carved out time to be with us. Uh everyone who knows Preston Sprinkle knows that we disagree with him profoundly about humosexuality and where he lands about quote unquote traditional marriage. But he wrote this book about women and leadership, and that's kind of in our lane. We've we've had conversations about that. So I'm just I'm excited that people on Preston Sprinkle's level, and by that I mean people who are regarded highly by many, many, many Christians in America are willing to change their mind about something. And it gives me hope, can I just say? It gives me hope that perhaps he might change his mind about humosexuality as well.

Kyle 4:59

Yeah, maybe. And, you know, if he does, great. It's not gonna change anybody else's life, but for him, I hope so. But to your point, you know, this comes out towards the end of the interview.

Randy 5:07

But it could change people's lives, though, Kyle. You know that.

Kyle 5:10

Right. That's what I'm yeah, this comes out towards the end of the interview. Like, um, it it matters what he thinks because of people who would listen to him and and and not other people, as you point out. And we've this is a a thing we've wrestled with on this podcast is um when we talk about that issue in particular, LGBTQ-related, you know, ethical stuff, biblical stuff, whatever. How you know, how do we present it? Do we present it in a way that says everything we actually think, uh as baldly as we might like to say it or as we would say it if we were not in front of a microphone? Or do we present it in a way that maybe someone who is an evangelical pastor who is struggling with what to do about this might listen to it and might be able to hear it, right? We talked about this explicitly in our last interview with uh Teresa Tobin and Don Moon. Um and there's no correct answer to that, right? And we've done it differently in different conversations, and so uh I can respect uh you know, someone who is working through this honestly, and I can see the value in it because people will listen to them, that it ain't gonna listen to the scholarship that's already been done about this. And we've talked to those scholars too. And if if you're one of those people who thinks, you know what, like hundreds of female scholars have written convincingly and authoritatively and exhaustively on this, go read them instead, then right there with you, go read them instead. In fact, go listen to our interviews with some of them. Uh do that. You can do both things, and so um, I guess that's just a kind of an apology for uh there's a there's a place for for for this kind of conversation, even if you and I might be the kind of people who would we're not necessarily the target audience, but there that audience is out there and it's important.

Meeting Preston And The New Book

Randy 6:49

Absolutely. Thanks for saying that. And let me also say if you can't listen to this, if you can't listen to this because it's Preston Sprinkle and you have no interest in it, or he's done some harm to you, or his viewpoints on sexuality or on whatever it might be, um have been so problematic for you that it's just you have really rough associations, just move on to the next episode. We totally get it, totally understand. Um, we had a great conversation with Preston, but not everybody can go there. Totally get it. But for those of you who can, enjoy this conversation with Preston Sprinkle. Well, Preston Sprinkle, welcome to a pastor and a philosopher walking to a bar.

SPEAKER_01 7:42

Yeah, thanks for having me in. I'm I'm I'm interested to see what this is gonna be all about. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Randy 7:47

So are we. So are we, exactly. So, Preston, we're talking about your your latest book that isn't is it released yet? It just came out a couple days ago, Mark Sorry. Well, there we go. It's called From Genesis to Junior: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Woman in Leadership. Which is a huge topic. We've talked about it with a number of people a while ago. It feels like for some people, it feels like this really new, kind of urgent thing. For others, it's kind of like old, settled, whatever. Right. You have a high profile when it comes to to your thoughts and positions on human sexuality. Why and how did you feel like you wanted to delve into this conversation about gender roles and the Bible?

SPEAKER_01 8:29

That's a good question. I mean, maybe it's because I was trying to get myself canceled.

Kyle 8:34

I tried really hard and just couldn't do it with the sexuality, so I decided to or did you if if if you're hearing silence, maybe it could mean different things.

Leaving Complementarian Certainty Behind

SPEAKER_01 8:46

It's funny. Like we, I mean, yeah, that's a whole nother conversation. But when when people try to get canceled, usually they get more more of a voice, so it doesn't really work. Yeah, true. Um, no, I I you know I was raised in a really strong complementary background, went to John MacArthur's college and seminary and read the Bible through that lens, and it made perfect sense to me. You know, you read First Timothy 2 and it says what it says, and um read other passages, and all my mentors at that time were all male leaders, and so I just didn't even think about it. It was like, no, this is the biblical position. If you don't believe this, you don't believe the Bible and might not even love Jesus. But over the years, after after my sort of early upbringing, I just I kept coming across scholars and pastors that I really deeply respected who love the Bible and were, you know, believed in its authority, who held to a different view. And so I kind of said to myself, like, well, maybe maybe there's more to this than than than I know. Um, but until I studied out for myself, I'm just gonna say I don't I don't really know what I believe, honestly. Like, I haven't studied it. And I'm a big fan of letting the strength of your passion match the depth of your study. And since I hadn't done the depth of any study on the topic for myself, I just said, you know what, I'm gonna hold off having an opinion on it. But I it always interested me, and people, you know, like like anybody, you know, they people keep asking me, What do you think about women in leadership? And I was just like, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, you know. Um, but finally a few years ago, I I got some time in my schedule to dig dig into it. And uh what if I'm gonna try to form an opinion about a topic, especially one as in important and controversial as this one, I'm gonna read everything. Like I just want to read everything, exhaust all the arguments until I can really land on a position. So uh that's what I did a few years ago. I started researching it, and uh as if you've read the book, you know. I mean, I I I the book kind of traces my exegetical journey through the text, not with a predetermined conclusion in mind, but with a genuine desire to want to know what what does the Bible say about this topic? So yeah, that's the that's the background.

Randy 10:55

Do you mind me asking who were those scholars that you were intrigued by, you enjoyed, trusted, but who were of an egalitarian persuasion?

SPEAKER_01 11:05

Yeah, good question. Um, I would say at the very beginning, it wasn't scholars, it was uh other people in my PhD program that I was in at Aberdeen University. You know, they were all very committed evangelical uh believers. They were doing a PhD in the Bible because they believed in its authority. And I would say the majority were probably egalitarian. They came from evangelical seminaries, and you know, coming through the MacArthur environment, you know, it's it's kind of like there's us and then there's everybody else out there who's probably got it wrong on some level, you know. And so that was really disruptive for me to keep encountering believers. And I was told that they're, you know, probably don't believe the Bible, and they're probably really bad people, and they were just kind and humble and love the Bible, and you know, so that that kind of caused me to, you know, just kind of step back a little bit. And then in terms of scholars, I mean, of course, people like you know, N. T. Wright and Craig Keener and Michael Bird, you know, he's been a friend for many years, and um, you know, seeing him kind of shift his view and and yeah, several others, Lynn Kohick, Sandy Richter, and and others that have gotten to know and and they're just really passionate about the Bible and uh really thoughtful, you know. And uh yeah, there I'm sure there's other names I'm I'm blanking on, but those are some that come to mind.

A Theological Mutt Explains Himself

Randy 12:24

Perfect. Thank you.

Kyle 12:25

We've had one of them on the podcast. We did talk to Craig. We've tried to get uh NT right a few times and hasn't happened yet. So if you have any connections, he's in high demand. Yeah. Uh a couple uh quick follow-ups. One, just for listeners who don't know who you are and haven't read any of your work, um, and maybe I should say most of our listeners are would probably describe themselves as deconstructing in some form. Okay. Maybe maybe ex-evangelical, post-evangelical, maybe ex-Christian. A lot of progressive Christians among them, probably a few atheists. And a few, we hope, evangelicals hanging on. So, like if you can locate yourself where you are currently on that sort of theological spectrum so people kind of have a sense for where you're coming from compared to other guests we might normally have.

SPEAKER_01 13:08

I, you know, that's an interesting question. I it'd be interesting to hear what other people who have followed my work would say about me, because I I get I get tagged as being liberal, heretical, uh, I get tagged as being conservative and all the things. So um it kind of depends on who you ask. I I really am a theological mutt. Um again, raised in you know, conservative, non-denominational, conservative, evangelical, kind of more reform traditions. Um, and I resonate with a lot of you know their passions, the the the supremacy of God, the authority of scripture, taking the Bible seriously, picking up your cross, and you know, God's God, he can do what he wants, like all those Christian themes I very much resonate with. Um but when I've studied the Bible for myself on various topics, like on some things I've landed on what people might can consider more standard conservative viewpoints, and other things not so much, you know. Like for for instance, you know, what one of the early topics I studied was the the doctrine of hell. And while I early on, I I I landed on a traditional view of hell. Uh upon further study, I would hold to now what people would call like an annihilation view of hell. Um I studied the topic of violence in in the Bible and landed on a what I would call a uh well, the nerdy term is crystal centric nonviolence. Other people might call it pacifism, which was the view of the early Christians. So to me, that's kind of the conservative view. But I found out after writing my book on nonviolence that um made you evangelicals aren't really liberal. Yeah, yeah, they're not really down with you know actually loving your enemies. So um, you know, politically, I'm I'm I don't resonate with where most American evangelicals are at at all. In fact, I would consider yeah, I mean, I would consider the the the the general political viewpoints of many evangelicals in America to be political idolatry and and contrary to scripture and contrary to the way the early church viewed their relationship to the empire. So yeah, I you know, I I can go down the list if you want if there's individual areas you want me to speak to. So it's oh a sexuality, yeah. Yeah, I I think the Bible teaches a traditional view of marriage. So maybe for you know some of you viewers or listeners might not resonate with that. So it really uh that I don't belong in any single camp, I don't think. So it's it's a bit it's a bit lonely out here, I'll tell you. Yeah.

Kyle 15:44

Thank you. No, I appreciate that. Just because you brought up the hell thing, I was gonna ask about this later, Randy. Is it okay if I ask it now? Then we don't have to like change the subject later. Do it. Um just quickly, you said you changed your mind. Are you referring to the book that you wrote with Francis Chan, where you guys defended a kind of a more traditional take?

SPEAKER_01 16:04

Now, to be clear, that book was focused on kind of a universalist perspective versus a non-universalist perspective. So we only dealt with like annihilation versus eternal conscious torment in a couple pages. So it's really only a couple pages that I changed my mind, but um, but for some people that's a massive departure to go from eternal conscious to annihilate annihilation. Yeah, what was it that what was the linchpin for you? As always, the Bible, man. I I really am a fundamentalist of heart. I might have lost 98% of your life. No, but I I really I I I wanna I I believe God's word is authoritative, and yeah, it in my experience, that's actually pretty troubling to so-called Bible-believing Christians sometimes. Um, because if you go where the text leads, sometimes it leads you away from the traditions that we grew up with, you know. Yeah, yeah.

Randy 16:58

I mean, I was just preaching out of Acts 3 on Sunday and had to talk through where Peter says that Jesus is gonna restore all things. And what does restore all things mean, right? Yeah. Um that's a problem for people who whatever. We this isn't a conversation about hell and eternal destiny, no matter how much you're gonna be able to do that. Yeah, that's all I wanted to know. You changed your mind. Why? I'm good. Um, just just for the record, Preston, I think changing your mind on theological matters, on biblical matters, on you know, spirituality is a mark of a humble person. And that's as I read your book, um, which I appreciated, I really I could sense and feel that humility coming through your writing. And I appreciate that. Thank you for that.

SPEAKER_01 17:44

Thank you. Yeah, I don't know why changing your mind scares people. It's like we should be changing our mind. If you're a Bible-believing Christian, you should be changing your mind to come closer to the biblical text. And unless you have it all figured out, I don't, maybe you do, then we should be changing our mind of things that we believe that are not in in coherence with scripture. So I I I don't know why that's been a boogeyman idea of changing your mind.

Randy 18:10

Right. Yep. Uh Kyle, do you have any other follow-ups before I keep going?

Kyle 18:14

No, that's fine. Let's let's dive into this one.

Randy 18:18

So you said you said you grew up in a staunchly conservative complementarian context. That was in the book, and then you just said I didn't know this, but that you were schooled and and raised and weaned in the John MacArthur world. That's I I mean, I we could have a whole conversation about the John MacArthur world and uh what you what you've done with that. But you said in the book that there were some along the way in the journey, there were things that there were problems that you saw with complementarianism as you came from the womb of complementarianism. So can you tell us some of the things that were the linchpins that was like, I need to look into this more, or that's a problem?

SPEAKER_01 18:58

I would say the biggest one was the rhetoric surrounding that viewpoint that this is the biblical view, there is no credible other option. This is the biblical view, this is what God says, not like, hey, in our best reading of scripture, here's what we think it teaches. It's this is the biblical view, full stop. And that again, early on, I was like, okay, it's a biblical view, and I'd read the Bible through that lens, and you know, okay. But then when I started meeting so many people that didn't agree with that, that held to the Bible, I was like, Well, so I yeah, there must be something else going on here, and and maybe you're using over-the-top rhetoric to describe your view. That that was honestly the biggest one, specifically with the Bible, you know. I don't know, you know, I'm I I did a PhD in New Testament, so I've read the breadth of the New Testament a couple times. Um, and yeah, you just kind of you see women doing things in the in the early church that seems you know could be interpreted as leadership type stuff, you know? And it's you know, First Timothy 2, which says, you know, I don't permit a man to teach or exercise for authority over man. That's not the only verse that's important. There's many other passages and people and themes that we need to wrestle with. So um yeah, I think it was just all these other examples of women doing things in the early church that caused me to wonder, like how how it is the Bible contradicting itself, or are we not understanding some of these passages differently? So I I think it was just some of the tensions in scripture that um caused me to wonder, like maybe there's something going on, you know, within these passages.

Kyle 20:41

Yeah, we spoke to Beth Barr about that um not that long ago about her her most recent book, giving all these examples from like her, you know, the medieval period of all the stuff that women were doing. And uh it's difficult to square with certain interpretations of women in leadership for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally.

Randy 20:58

You also said, Preston, in particular in, I think it was in the introduction, which was fun, to get kind of a journal entry from you as you're you know stepping out and writing this book, kind of definitely felt like we were on that journey with you, which I I enjoyed. Um, but you you set yourself up as kind of saying that I'm I'm coming at this with without a dog in the without a horse in the race or whatever whatever the saying is. I'm I'm coming at this from kind of an unbiased thing. I don't have a job that depends on my answer. I don't have a church that depends, you know, is expecting me to answer in a certain way. I don't have relationships that are influencing me. I'm gonna come at this as a blank slate. Which I like that idea, but it makes it makes me a little suspect, to be honest with you, Preston, where um I don't know if anyone, any of us can come at this idea with an unbiased, you know, kind of just blank slate approach, um, pers perhaps with scripture. But the reason that I ask of is as far as like what are those things that you bumped into that became a problem. With complementarianism is because do your relationships and not even just relationships that might may or may not exist if you answer this incorrectly, but just relationships, particularly with women, and your existing in the world as a as a person and seeing how women show up in the world and your experience, all all of who you are bringing to this work. Um how much bias or not do you think you brought into it? That's that's the first question. I've got a follow-up as well.

SPEAKER_01 22:32

Yeah, and to be clear, I hope I made this clear in the intro. I am not saying that I have I don't have biases, baggage, context. I mean, you can't, I mean, that's like, you know, you it's that's the first day of your PhD program in the New Testament is don't ever say the word unbiased. Like you can't do that. So I hope I made that clear that that's not what I was saying, that I'm coming at unbiased. What I was saying that if you just identify objective factors in my socio, uh, social, ecclesial, economic life, there's no objectively identifiable factors pushing me towards one view or another. Um, I run a ministry that re that that that um speaks into both egalitarian and complementarian churches. I'm not part of a complementarian or egalitarian denomination. I'm not, I don't have anything, I don't have anything financially writing on it. So compared to somebody that was teaching at, like I say in the book, you know, the Southern Baptist Seminary, yep. It got a lot riding on the line or Fuller Seminary for the for the other side that's egalitarian. So that that's all I was trying to point out because if your paycheck depends on you holding to a certain view, that that's a big objectively identifiable factor going into the view you're gonna land on. I just object I factually I don't have any of those.

Is The Bible Patriarchal

Randy 23:50

So that that's all I was trying to point out, you know. So here's here's a kind of a Bible geeky question. Let's let's just dive into the to the deep end here. Would you say that the Bible is unbiased when it comes to gender roles?

SPEAKER_01 24:06

I don't even know if I can answer that question.

Randy 24:08

If the bi is the Bible Or taken the other way, does the Bible is the Bible biased one way or the other? Is the does the Bible have an opinion when it comes to gender roles?

SPEAKER_01 24:19

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I from my best understanding of the Bible, I think the Bible says that men and women alike, gifted men and women alike, are should serve in all areas of leadership of the church.

Kyle 24:31

Um so yeah, I guess taking the classical definition of bias, though, right? As um we can think of it in terms of implicit bias, maybe like there's a thing that is let's say subconscious or pre-conscious, or there's something going on in the context that would push you, push one towards one kind of view over another.

SPEAKER_01 24:53

Maybe I'm stuck in the word bias to apply it to the Bible.

Randy 24:56

Um Do you feel what I'm asking though? Like, do you do is is the Bible a blank slate, you know, when it when it comes to where is kind of the way you set up the book is like, hey, this is just gonna be me in the Bible. This is gonna be us in the Bible, come with me on this journey. I appreciate that. And that but my question that as soon as you said that, what what flared in my mind was, but is the Bible an uh like is it a blank slate, or is there an inherent direction in the Bible that we're gonna be pushing against or with? Or you know what I mean?

SPEAKER_01 25:32

Yeah, kind of. I I'm still I I guess I would point out, you know, I mean, the the Bible, as far as we can tell, was every single biblical author, there's at least 40. We're all men. Um the writing in a social context that is very male-dominated. One might say patriarchal. I think that term is more complex than modern people uh make it out to be. So it's writing in a very male-dominated social context written by men, and yet it still elevates the agency and dignity and value of women in ways that are pretty astounding. I mean, remarkable, right? I mean, the resurrection, I mean the fact that it's all women that are the ones who give testimony to the resurrection, like that's that's that's fascinating. It's well one of the main reasons for the credibility of the resurrection. That if this was just fabricated, what first century writer would have all women giving witness to it? So I I don't yeah, I don't know how to answer your question directly, but I I um yeah, maybe maybe that is kind of my roundabout answer.

Randy 26:42

No, that is a good answer, Preston. And here's here's my take. See if you agree, disagree, because I'm sure it's gonna be both. But I do think the Bible is biased, because I think, like you said, it was written by real people, and I believe the by in the inspiration of the scriptures. Um, but I think that's a mysterious thing that many of us think is more knowable or concrete than than really is is true. But um I do think the Bible is biased, and I do think the Bible leads us in more of what it we would call a complementarian direction, or even to be honest with you, I'm not as I'm not as hesitant to use the word patriarchal, and I do think the Bible is patriarchal, and I love the Bible. I mean, I've love the Bible, want give my life to the scriptures, and yet I do see what you're talking about. Like I'm I mean I'm fully egalitarian, and so I love the scriptures where Mary is the apostle to the apostles. I love all of your study that you did with Priscilla and Junia and Phoebe and so many of the the remarkable women in the New Testament and the Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures, to be honest with you. But I do think that there's a clear trajectory of patriarchy in the Bible that is impossible to ignore. And I think it's actually helpful to name that and to say the Bible is not neutral on this. Um, our job is to interpret it. That's what we're all doing, and our job is to do that in the context that we live in, um, in the in the world in what we know and where the spirit's leading. Kyle, you got any thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 28:08

Uh real quick, when you say when you say the Bible's patriarchal, are you saying it was written in a patriarchal context? Or is it um is the Bible itself reinf well certainly it was. Um, is it re is a is a biblical message reinforcing that cultural context, or is it uh critiquing it, or is it somewhere in between?

Randy 28:31

I mean, I would if I was just gonna give like a really fast answer, really honest, I would say yes and yes. I would say the Bible was written in a patriarchal context context that's not debatable. Um, I don't think at least.

SPEAKER_01 28:45

Um it it is debatable. Um but yeah, go go ahead. How is it on I mean there there's there's been a growing number of very secular Old Testament scholars, um Carol Myers being one who's a feminist non-religious scholar who says patriarchy is just an inaccurate description of women in ancient Israel. Um women had socially speaking just a lot more agency and power that just doesn't fit kind of other ancient Neries contexts. Um and I don't get too lost in the weeds, and I'm not if she's she's you know a brilliant scholar, and I'm just kind of reading her work, but uh her and others have kind of have been kind of pushing back against that kind of monolithic view of patriarchy. Again, it all comes down to how you define patriarchy. If you define it as men can are kind of ruling everything, can kind of do what they want, and the agency of women are is pretty much non-existent or does not affect the the agency of men, then I would say, yeah, I don't think that kind of patriarchy accurately represents ancient Israel from from the best that I can understand. If you mean like the the father who had the legal um rights to the household or whatever, sure, there's there's some of that there, but even there, there's some challenges to that within the biblical text itself. Um, so I just I I I think it's complicated. I thought I think there's we need to really define our terms, look at what we mean by it, and and put the Bible in conversation with other cultures that it's interacting with. Um and even like the New Testament, you have like Paul giving his household code, and on the one hand, it looks like very patriarchal household codes from Aristotle and Didymus and others in the first century. But then on the other hand, Paul says some things that are radically uh disruptive to ancient household codes that are deeply patriarchal. So it'd be hard for me to say that both are patriarchal because Aristotle would have blown a circuit if he read Paul's household code, you know. So I don't know. I yeah, anyway, it it's the there's there's there's many layers and many facets to, you know, I think the question.

Should Scripture Settle Leadership

Randy 31:01

Okay. Um so we're we're we're asking, do women have a place in leadership in the church, or what's the role of women in the church? As we look at the scriptural narrative, is that because because your book is loaded with biblical scholarship, I really appreciated it. I really appreciate the way you, especially with the New Testament texts, the way you dive in deep. I've got questions though about um only using the Bible for an answer to the question of should woman lead in the church, or even what is woman's role in the world? Because that's what really I think what we're what what we're also talking about is do women do women have the the right to do to exist in all the spaces that men do or not? Um is it an appropriate methodology to just use the Bible to answer that question, do you think?

SPEAKER_01 31:54

Yeah, I um I guess my I did have a narrow methodology setting out. Um I you know, I'm a biblical scholar, that's my area, and I did have a narrow question. I wanted to know what does the text of this ancient religious document, the Hebrew and Greek, you know, scriptures, what the what does this ancient religious document say about women in church leadership? Um, I could do something, you know, something similar with like the Quran, you know, does what does the Quran say? You know, not what is the received tradition of the Quran or what is modern, what does this mean for modern-day Islam, women in leadership, you know, but what just what does this ancient document say? So I think my book is is narrow and limited in in that scope, but that is uh intentionally, I wanted to kind of limit limit that. Partly it's because I wanted to stay in my lane, partly it's word count, already went 20,000 words over my allotted work count. Uh partly I wanted to be really thorough with the things I was talking about and not, you know, um be thin or more thin on the Bible so that I can make room for other things. But yeah, those are all really important uh questions. I think the received tradition is an important one. I think what it means for people today. We, you know, we could I could have spent a whole book digging into even um, and maybe Kyle will appreciate this, you know, even the philosophy of um uh of male-female relationships, and and there's been really important works done on that. So yeah, I would say I just kind of set my parameter parameters pretty specific because of those reasons, you know. This is my lane, this is my areas of expertise, and this is not the end-all uh contribution to the topic of women in the Big C church, but hopefully it's it's a sliver of a you know contribution to that conversation.

Why Treat The Bible As Ultimate

Randy 33:36

I've got another question in regard to this, but Kyle, do you have another any follow-ups here?

Kyle 33:40

Sure, yeah, if you let me interject. Do you yourself, Preston, think that the Bible is the most important, um, how would we say it, or maybe the primary line of evidence or because you you mentioned you know, you you accept biblical authority a little bit earlier. So how far do you take that, right? Like on a question like this, um, we could put it counterfactually. If it turned out that you did all this study and you came to the conclusion that the Bible does support um a kind of patriarchal view, define patriarchy however you want to. Yeah, I do. Yeah, I do. Yeah, so like would you then accept would that become your conclusion because of the authority thing? Or like another way to ask it is obviously there are other strands of relevant evidence to a question like this. So how do you weigh one against the other? If we're gonna take the old like Wesleyan quadrilateral thing, right? How do you pick which one of those four do you think is the most important or whatever?

SPEAKER_01 34:34

Yeah, I I do think the Bible is the most important. So that that yeah, that would be a very conservative I guess it wouldn't be conservative, it's just kind of historically Christian. I mean, church tradition through and through, as far as I can tell, um, always held the Bible as not the only authority, but the ultimate authority. Um I can't speak for my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, but uh certainly in my reading of the early church fathers and everything, like they were forming their views based on they they would at least be going to the text to support their their views on on things.

Randy 35:06

Um that doesn't mean there's not many other factors that go into that, but in terms of our And you know they could because you said it in the book, you know that those church fathers didn't have the New Testament to lean back on when we talked about them mining the scriptures. That's the Hebrew scriptures, right?

SPEAKER_01 35:20

Well, the so the so first century Christians, yeah, they didn't have the New Testament, yeah. Yeah. They were yeah, they were writing, obviously, the New Testament at that time. Um, in terms of early church fathers, I mean, by by the early second century, you know, 21, 20 to 21 of the 27 books were pr pretty established as canonical. There was a remaining six or seven that were debated for the next couple hundred years, but um yeah, all of Paul's letters were were accepted and the gospels and acts.

Kyle 35:49

Yeah, so I guess I want to ask or dig maybe slightly deeper on because that's a theological position, right? That's not a that's not a thing that comes from the the biblical text. So your initial answer can't be quite complete, right? It wasn't just I want to stay in my lane, I could have written the same kind of book about the Quran, or maybe somebody else could have. It's that I think this is the most important kind of evidence. And so I need to I need to dive into it.

SPEAKER_01 36:13

I would say the New Testament writers relied on their Bible, the Old Testament, for for their authority. I mean, there's over a thousand what quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. When they wanted to advocate for certain viewpoints, they often went back to uh their their Bible for for uh for their authority, you know, the first council in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, they went back to the Hebrew scriptures to to justify their views. So yeah, I think I think the pattern and spirit of the first Christians in the first century was biblical authority according to the biblical the Bible that they had at that time.

Kyle 36:45

Okay, so you might be anticipating my next question, which is why do you think biblical authority is important? Why, why like why is this the kind of evidence that outweighs all the other kinds? I know that's an enormous question.

SPEAKER_01 36:55

Yeah, I mean, you so of course I'm gonna rely on uh both a theological a theological presupposition and just uh that's kind of what it means to be a Christian. Again, if a Muslim said I rely on the Quran for my authority, it's like, well, that's kind of what it means to be a Muslim. I mean, that's that's what the tradition of Islam. I'm speaking over my ski, I'm getting over my skis here. I don't I I assume Muslims you're also talking to two people who reject biblical authority.

Kyle 37:20

Well, one and a half. I didn't say that about Randy, if any of his congregation is listening.

Randy 37:27

I do not reject biblical authority, but maybe how some people interpret biblical authority.

Kyle 37:33

Yeah, but I was I was just marveling a second ago, Randy, because all of your questions were like coming from the same place my head was going. And I was thinking, like, five years ago, man, you wouldn't have been phrasing that question like that.

Randy 37:43

Don't be condescending now, Kyle. Yeah. Keep going, Preston, sorry.

SPEAKER_01 37:49

I was gonna say Judaism too. I mean, that they would, you know, their ultimate authority over the Hebrew scriptures, obviously, everinic tradition and and and traditional interpretations, but those are traditional interpretations of the text. So they're all gonna, in theory, right, say the text is my ultimate authority, that we're wrestless, we're debating interpretations of it.

Kyle 38:08

Right. But the choice to be in line with that tradition and to weight how much you're in line with that tradition, heavier than other kinds of things that you could consider, that's a theological choice, right? And one that you have to be willing, I think, to grapple with and justify. Um, and it and it's particularly when it's and I think this is what was giving rise to some of Randy's questions earlier, and why I loved it so much, is like this question and lots of other questions that you write about, you have a tendency to write about some controversial, morally weighty stuff. And uh it all has consequences, it has real, sometimes immediate consequences for people's lives, as you know. Um, and so the choice to pick one kind of evidence over other kinds that a lot of people think are really important, a lot of people think are decisive, right? Um, and for well-considered, careful reasons. Um that choice I think comes with some responsibility to think, you know, be able to explain the methodology behind it and to say why I think it is this particular way that it's the best way to think about it. Especially when there are lots of other people who are doing very similar work as this um who are not saying that my methodology here is the the correct one, right? They may even come to the same conclusion as you. Um, but they say, you know, I'm I'm I'm doing the work on this text because I think it's it's uh intrinsically valuable to know what was going on in the context and what it means or whatever, but I'm not saying that the conclusion of that study dictates what everyone in the world should believe about this.

SPEAKER_01 39:36

And if it should, that's you know Yeah, I don't know if I would even say that. I would I I the way I approach the Bible is is similar to it's almost like similar to a historian. Like, I want to know what this ancient, really influential religious document says. What people choose to do with that, it's a free country. People could do what they want, you know. They could say, Yeah, I think it says that, but I don't believe it. I'm like, good for you. Go, you know, you do you. Uh for me, I I'll admit that that I am, you know, uh um historically orthodox Christian. It does have a theological, you could say presupposition that that the Bible is authoritative and inspired. Um, I think there's good evidence for that, but I'm not gonna um if someone says, Yeah, I think you're right, the Bible says this, I don't believe it. Okay. Like I don't, I'm not saying, you know, damn you, you need, you know, like well, you don't believe in that anyway. So again, the same way. Like, I would, I would, you know, uh any Muslim I think would do the same thing. Like they say the Quran says this and they believe it, and I don't, you know, necessarily. And and hopefully a good faith Muslim would say, Well, you're a Christian. Of course, I don't expect you to believe, you know, my religious document, but for me, I I do. And I'm like, okay, great, let's go watch the ball game, baseball game.

When Text Collides With Ethics

Randy 40:53

There you go. Yes. Well, so Preston, let me here's where this question is coming from for me. As I was reading your book, um, again, like very much appreciate the scholarship um and really enjoyed the the deep dives into the scriptures, but a thought that came into my mind as I was spending time, it feels like you're spending time with the author when you're reading a book, right? So as I is I felt like we were uh in a d dialogue. My question was um if the Bible, if you couldn't explain your way through some of these texts, whether it's 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, first, you know, we know the texts. Um if you couldn't get your way through and say, well, maybe this Greek meaning is different than what we up what we always thought the context is a little bit um, you know, it hasn't been clear, and here's what that looks like, if we couldn't get to that place and we just said, Well, the Bible is clearly patriarch. I I know you don't like that word, the Bible is clearly complementarian. Let's say would it be the best, the best thing to say, well, the Bible's complementary, and so therefore I as a Christian, as a Christ follower, I must be as well? Or can I say to any to this question or to any question, and this is a big question, obviously, can I say if the if there's what I would perceive and what most people would perceive as immoral things in the Bible, whether it's in regard to slavery, whether it's in regard to um polygamy, whether it's in regard to a number of things that violence, whether it's in regard to a number of things that we find in the scripture that are morally problematic, would we say because it's in the scriptures, and because even in particular with this one with women in the church, it's prescriptive, we have to stand by it, or can we say, no, let's be a little bit um, what I would say is a little bit have a little bit more of a mature viewpoint of the Bible, which is to see it as what it is and when it was written and by whom it was written, and the complexity and lack of clarity in a lot of it, and also to say, we don't there are some things that we don't need the Bible to say this is just morally right. And so if we got to that point where we say the Bible is very complementary and there is no place for women in in leadership in the church and in the home and everywhere else, we got to live with that. Is that the best way for us to to kind of live out and embody our lives as Christ followers because the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Or is it or is it just to say there's more at work here in the Bible as a part of that larger conversation of what makes us good human beings, which what what makes the world a better place to live in? And we've got to situate it. I think we already do this, whether it's with regard to slavery or a number of things that we find and that are problematic in the Bible. You hear where I'm coming from, Preston. Can you just tell me your thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 43:44

It's a great question.

SPEAKER_00 43:45

I mean, that this is a whole nother uh I'm gonna have to tell my family to put put my dinner in the cockpot.

SPEAKER_01 43:54

Uh no, in uh it's yeah, I mean you're you're you're raising a a Much deeper, profoundly fundamental question that it that there's no simple answer to. And and um uh you know, not having prepared for the question, I I off the top of my head, I would just want to know like if if we're using another authority to determine whether or not the Bible is true and good or not, then what is that other authority? And if it's more authoritative than the Bible, then I'm then let's just follow that. So I guess my question to you, but is the authority you're using to determine whether or not the Bible is moral and are using like modern Western sensibilities? If so, which one? Are we taking into account the global community? Like, I don't is it like your personal intuition about certain things that you don't really resonate with the Bible, other things you do, then should I follow you? I mean, I you know, like what is the alternative authority that I should be using to measure the Bible up against? That's a genuine question.

Randy 45:00

Great questions, yep. Kyle?

SPEAKER_01 45:02

No, I'm asking you, me. I think you're the one to raise the question.

SPEAKER_00 45:06

I want to know what you think.

Randy 45:07

I mean, I think I think the Bible, I think actually Jesus um gives us a template and a model for how to interact with the scriptures and how to embody what it means to be a faithful person who's following in the way of Yahweh. I think um Jesus consistently got in trouble with the um religious leaders of his day because what I see Jesus doing in the the human hermeneutic I see Jesus using is is more of a, and this is these are imprecise, unscholarly terms, but is more of a big picture approach to the scriptures. You know, I think uh you hear see this when Jesus says things like, you know, what does it mean with that I desire mercy, not sacrifice? You know, like there are there are better things at stake here than or man was created for the Sabbath. Sabbath was created for the man, not man for the Sabbath. There's a number of different areas in the scriptures, and particularly in the gospels, where I think that Jesus actually is willing to get to get some of the minutiae and some of the really like clear, but also the the smaller laws, he's willing to actually break those and to say, I don't care that my disciples are are breaking you know heads of wheat on the Sabbath, and technically that's work to you, because you're missing the whole point, right? And I think Jesus does this all the time, and I think that's the best way to look at the scriptures is to say, what's the whole big picture that God's getting after? And I think when you look at the big picture of the narrative of the scriptures, you have to say that God's God's heart is for women in profoundly radical ways, more than kind of some of the little um some of the patriarchal stuff that we see in the Bible, some of the stuff that's descriptive, and I'm using your kind of language here, descriptive rather than prescriptive, right? I think this is just how we have to approach the Bible, and I think the Holy Spirit needs to be part of this process and is in in an authoritative way to say this is what is good and what's beautiful. We have to approach the scriptures from those from those ways. And I do think that we can say, like, this is what it looks like to be a good moral human being. There are some socially agreed upon things within this social contract that we live in that we can say what just every human being deserves. And I think those things need to be authoritative as well. So by that I'm saying our experience, you know, going back to the Wesleyan quadrilateral, there are things that I think should be authoritative that should color the way we approach and interpret the scriptures, um, rather than just a plain reading of the scriptures and saying the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Um, but I'm I'm not the smartest person on this podcast. And by that I mean me and Kyle. That's why I was looking to Kyle to kind of fill in some of these questions that I was asking.

SPEAKER_01 47:48

I I appreciate a lot a lot of what you're saying. Um yeah, a couple things. I mean, everything you're saying about Jesus, in a sense, you are relying on the Bible's presentation of who Jesus was. So that in a sense intuitively acknowledges some kind of biblical authority because the Bible is the one the Bible's presenting us all the Jesus stuff that you just referred to. It's highly debated. In fact, I would I think most credible scholars would say Jesus was not like disagreeing with the Bible, but like traditional aberration, uh uh aberrations, traditional interpretations of the Bible. There's nothing in the Torah that says you can't, you know, eat heads of grain on the Sabbath. Like those were kind of uh rabbinic laws that surround rabbinic interpretations. So, you know, at the very least, Jesus is um di interacting with and debating current interpretations of Torah. He's not challenging the authority, authority of Torah.

Randy 48:47

Or what about Acts 10 then? Let's just leave Jesus out of it and say, Peter is like a dedicated Jewish man, it's in the scriptures, you shall not eat a whole lot of these things. And all of a sudden the Holy Spirit says, Hey, Peter, kill and eat. I want you to eat all these things. And Peter's like, Hell no, I'm not doing that because it says in the Bible, don't do it. And God says, I know what it says, I still want you to do it. There's something bigger at play here. Yeah, and then all of a sudden we see all the Gentiles, you know, a huge revolution of inclusion come into the church. That's a really, really easy example of like the Bible said it, but God actually says to break that rule.

SPEAKER_01 49:23

Well, yeah, that passage is in the Bible, though. Again, as a Christian, my I have a full canonical view of authority. And as a Christian, you know, I'm not Jewish, I'm a Christian. So of course I believe in you know two different covenants. There's discontinuity, continuity, there's a canonical flow where there's some things in the New Testament that um uh conclude uh the story and uh don't always affirm earlier parts of the story. You know, violence is a big one, you know. I mean, the old testament doesn't say love your enemies, it says love your neighbor. Uh Jesus does say love your enemies, but that's that's uh all of that is within the the the development within the Christian canon. So um, yeah, um to to the experience point that that one I'm I'm not Wesleyan, I very much appreciate the Wesleyan collateral, collateral, quadrilateral. So I don't want to speak beyond my knowledge. I'm not raised in that tradition, but I from the little I know about it, I appreciate it. Um even Wesley, I'm pretty sure, would say that the the Bible is still the ultimate authority by which we measure experience. The experience one's tough because it is. I I'm so I so want to use my own experience as as a source of authority. But if we rely on experience, my big for authority, my big question is whose experience? Couldn't you say the same thing about 8 million people in the world and people have you know, I've got evangelical brothers and sisters whose political experience or whatever is very different. Like, I don't who's exper like is there one person that has kind of a fail-proof experience, or or do we take all experiences in consideration, but not as authority? I I I don't that one I don't know. I that's uh yeah, uh that's a philosophical quandary to me.

Kyle 51:13

Yeah, so but I mean you could do the same thing about the Bible, right? Whose Bible? Which Bible? Which interpretation of the Bible? Which collection of things? Like you said, the canonical one. Well, that wasn't the only option. It could have turned out differently. There were people who were like in the decision-making process who thought it should have turned out differently, right? Um, there are Christians today with different Bibles, different different books in them, right? Um, so like uh to say biblical authority, which Bible, I mean, it's the exact same logical move as which person's experience. The point being that um I think I'm not a Wesley neither, but like experience has to be foundational because everything you think about the Bible is also a product of your experience. So, like, uh it's not it's not really helpful to pit those against each other, they have to be wetted together, you know. Um, but like to get back to your earlier question about yeah, what else quick quick comment.

SPEAKER_01 52:03

I I would make a distinction between biblical authority in in terms of the original inspired manuscripts, which we don't have, um, the original languages in which it was written in and which we don't have.

Kyle 52:15

Um I would I would I would say that's where the authority resides, uh latter church interpretation of Yeah, but you think that because of a bunch of experiences you had, thinking about arguments and reading through books and talking to other people in your you know your social sphere and being formed in the ways that you were formed, which are quite different from the ways that other people were formed that lead them to think that that's not real authority, but their book actually has the real authority or this other kind of thing has the reality.

SPEAKER_01 52:39

Yeah, that's true. No, that's true. Yeah, yeah. No, that there is a subjectivity to my uh as a Protestant, historically Orthodox Christian, there there is a received viewpoint of biblical authority that I by becoming a Christian, I kind of sign on to. Again, if I convert if I convert to Islam, what comes with that? Well, the Quran's kind of a big deal. Like that's you don't get to kind of say, well, no, I want to be a Muslim, but you know, I'm not so sure if I you know care about the Quran or not. Like that's just kind of part of that religion that I that I signed up for, you know. Yeah.

Kyle 53:11

Yeah, and I I hear that and I can appreciate it. I can say, you know what, this is my this is my tradition, I'm sticking to it. You know, uh I don't have a good, or maybe I see, you know, similar issues in all the other traditions, I don't have a good reason to change, whatever. So this is this is the thing I bought into, and I'm thinking from that perspective, right? That's not the way I would go, but I can at least see that and acknowledge it as um some reasonable in a sense of reasonable. Um but it takes me back to my other question about the moral weightiness of some of this stuff. Um, because like when when the thing that I'm saying, hypothetically, you're not saying this, right? But when the thing that I'm saying is women can't have authoritative positions. Right. Or even to flip it around, women can have authoritative positions, but it's because of my choice to align myself with this tradition. Uh right. That just seems like a weirdly flimsy basis to predicate such an intense, weighty uh thing on. Um and you do say similar things in other areas, right? Like with the LGBTQ stuff, right? If I understand your position there correctly, it is not an affirming position. So you are taking stances, irenically, you're right. You're trying to be you know peaceful, you know, loving and all that stuff. But you're taking stances that have serious consequences for people's lived experience, for the sort of you know, relationships that they can have, the sort of love that they can experience in their life. And it sounds to me like your your foundational justification for the the positions that you're taking publicly that have those consequences is this is the tradition I'm in.

SPEAKER_01 54:42

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I I think any any human has to has some authority that they're relying on, whether it's their own experience, somebody else's experience, the religious tradition, the religious book, the religious uh history they're relying on. So yeah, I guess everybody is in that boat that their beliefs have consequences. Um so yeah, I guess, yeah.

Kyle 55:05

The old Bob Dylan song, right? Yes, or somebody.

Randy 55:11

And here's like an ex an example of what I'm talking about, and it's from the beginning of chapter 10 in your book. Um, you talk about having Bill Mounts, a New Testament scholar, on your podcast. Who I tried to learn Greek from. It didn't take.

Kyle 55:24

I just read his book. I don't know Bill.

SPEAKER_03 55:27

Oh, it's so sad. He he wrote the most accessible It was very good. I just wasn't smart on it.

Randy 55:34

Let me read the first first paragraph that you wrote for chapter 10. You say a few years ago, I invited New Testament scholar Bill Mounts onto my Theology in the Raw podcast to talk through 1 Timothy 2, verses 8 through 15. Major, you know, major problems for egalitarians. Um, most seminary students know Mounts' name since he wrote a widely used New Testament Greek textbook, the one that Kyle struggled through. He also wrote one of the most in-depth commentaries uh on the pastoral epistles, a commentary that took him 14 years to write. I'll never forget what Mounts said in our podcast conversation when we came to 1 Timothy 2.13, where basically it says that Adam was created first, not Eve. And he said, and you quote, if verse 13 weren't there in 1 Timothy 2, I'd be an egalitarian, he said. If first 13 weren't there, I'd be an egalitarian. Now you were not endorsing that way of thinking or that thought from Bill, but when I read that, I was like, are you serious? Like 1 Timothy 2.13, because that one verse is there, yeah, you can't be an egalitarian. First of all, I don't think that's a really good way to look at the interpret the scriptures. And I know I'm saying that to a New Testament scholar who's not even, you know, in this conversation. But I I don't think it's the best way to interpret the scriptures, and but also I don't think it's a trustworthy and reliable way to make a statement about whether women should be in leadership in any any place, especially including the church, because that one verse said Adam was created before Eve, and therefore, you know, blah, blah, blah. Um, help what are your thoughts on that? What were your thoughts when Bill said that on your podcast?

SPEAKER_01 57:19

I was shocked. I was kind of blown away. Well, I I I yeah, I was like, wow, that that one verse, you know. Um now he did now uh and I explain past the part you read, you know, he he has he does have other reasons. I think he was trying to maybe rhetorically highlight the importance of that of that verse. But uh, but but no, I I I agree. I mean, as you know from from my book, I I don't think we should just start with First Timothy two. I think there's many other passages um that are at the very least in tension with First Timothy two. If not, um yeah, I and I actually don't think there's tension because I think there's better ways to understand what Paul was saying there. Um but uh yeah, yeah. So I I I would not want to form a view on on like a single verse, especially when there's many other verses that address the same topic.

The Personal Cost Of Changing Mind

Randy 58:10

And thanks for putting that in your book. I mean, I I enjoyed I I enjoyed Richard Hayes's per perspective that you brought in a previous chapter. We're getting to the end of our time, and I want to respect your time and make sure that you have like lukewarm at least food, you know, with your family. Um, I've got I've got like two more questions. Do you have time for two more questions? Sure. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Um can you take us just this is way more of just a like take us outside of the book and just take us through Preston Sprinkle's journey of what it felt like to change your mind about this? Because this is a big deal to change your mind about something in the church.

SPEAKER_01 58:45

I that's a good question. I don't I don't I I don't have a very high emotional intelligence, so I don't uh I could ask my wife, hey, how do I feel about um honestly it felt totally fine and exciting, actually, um largely because I feel like I did as much of my homework that I that I could do, you know? Um I'm fallible, we're all fallible interpreters of whatever authority you're relying on. Um and um I'm fallible too, but I I at least I want to put as much time and energy and thought and humility into understanding this this ancient religious document to the best of my ability. And I feel like I did that. So I'm I'm very happy to stand on on my conclusion and live my life based on that. Um so yeah, it was exciting. There we you know, and again, I I don't um maybe because I don't have a theological tribe, it's it's not it yeah, would would it have been hard if I was like in nothing but complementary circles and taught at a complementary school and now have to find another job and the job markets, you know, yeah, that that that would have been tough. And um and I don't take it lightly for people that are in those kind of environments that are starting to rethink some things and say, gosh, there's a lot at stake if I change my my mind. But I have had the privilege, I mean, fortunately or unfortunately, of being able to um change my mind and it and it doesn't you know radically affect my life.

Randy 1:00:15

Yeah. And do you think have you already, or do you think you will get written off by people that you care about because of this take?

SPEAKER_01 1:00:24

Nobody I care about, no. No, no, no, I know. I mean, I look, I've been this ain't my first rodeo. I mean, I would say when I when I when I wrote my book on nonviolence, um that's when some people within the more conservative evangelical crowd thought I went off to deep end. So um, and then you know, even though theologically I landed on traditional views on sexuality, the way I go went about it has um troubled a lot of again conservative evangelicals. So um yeah, no, I don't uh you know I I really could care less what some you know bot says on Twitter about me, and you know, so you know there's nobody that I care about, you know, that that will write me off. Okay.

Randy 1:01:12

I mean, for somebody who was educated by in John MacArthur's, you know, world, that's that's a lot.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:16

Oh, I have that. I mean, I they even at one point I think kicked me off their alumni list, even though I graduated Sumacum Lade. That was like 15 years ago. So no, I haven't even um I have I've been out of those circles for a couple decades already. Okay, still appreciate some people still there. There's some kind, really good, humble people in that environment. But no, I'm not, that's not like the circles I run in for a while.

Randy 1:01:40

Yeah, yep. Last question. It has to do with the the last one. And you ended your book this way, so I feel okay asking it. Um, but you you were pretty clear at the end of your book, end of the epilogue landing the plane, that um, hey, just because I changed my mind on this one about leadership in the church doesn't mean I'm gonna change my mind about human sexuality and and traditional view on marriage. And I just want to just ask a real quick question of why do you think that is? And do you see a similarity between those two things? And I know I'm the pastor who's like, jump on the slippery slope. It's a good, it's a good fun ride, you know, come along with us. But um uh why draw the line there, Preston? And by that by why draw the line there, I don't mean like tell us tell us why you're non-affirming and give us all the biblical extra, you know, interpretation of it. I just mean what's different about women in leadership from human sexuality.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:34

Yeah. And I don't know if I use the phrase, I wouldn't change my mind on it. Um I don't think so.

Randy 1:02:40

That was just me paraphrasing.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:41

No, no, no, no, no. But I I I get what you're saying. Um I think I made the comparison because uh that is a kind of a um fear that's often brought up. If you if you embrace egalitarianism, you'll go affirming whatever. And I only brought that up because I've written so much on sexuality that I wanted to kind of just preempt maybe what some people might wrongly say about me. Um and it and I don't to me, it's not it's not that like I care about changing my mind on even that. It's just that I've I've been studying that issue for over over a decade, more than over a decade, dozen years, and have you know, up until this point exhausted all the alternative viewpoints, revisited my view. So it's something that I've studied so thoroughly. If there is a new argument or something I'm missing, you know, yeah, I'll revisit it and lay it all out. I'll do with anything, you know. Um, but uh yeah, so it was more to address just that slippery slope argument that I I really don't like. The slippery slope has two sides.

Randy 1:03:46

What do you mean by that?

SPEAKER_01 1:03:48

Meaning, like if you take it uh an overly say conservative view of scripture, um, that can lead to unbiblical um values as well, you know. Um, I mean, there's no there's no say you can't like rely on some safe view of scripture, like, oh, if I just stay conservative, then that's the safe view. No, there's unbiblical things about being safely conservative too. Like you have I think we should all take our pre presuppositions back to the text of scripture to see if these things are so uh again, acknowledging my bias for biblical authority, but yeah.

Randy 1:04:23

Thank you. Can uh go ahead.

Kyle 1:04:24

Can I ask quickly? I'm sorry, I know we're gonna keep you from your dinner. Um what do you say? Because I know we have listeners that are in this place, and I feel like I need to speak what I know is on their mind. Yeah. Um, someone who hears this conversation and says, Why are we still talking about this? In the year of our Lord 2026, why do we need to publish a how many pages are in a two almost 300-page book arguing that women should have similar authoritative opportunities as men? Um, and and an addendum, and I know that this part is a little prickly, okay? But I know that some people are thinking of why are you the guy who needs who needs to say this?

SPEAKER_01 1:05:07

You know what I'm saying? I'm definitely not. No. In fact, I I almost didn't even want to publish a book on it. I mean, I yeah, I mean, I thought this question was a done deal. There's scholars who've been talking about it for decades. I feel like everybody made up their mind. It began as just my own personal project. I didn't even, it's not like I plan to write a book on it. I just says, I really want to research this, I want to know what the Bible says. And, you know, I even told my publisher, I'm like, nobody's gonna buy this, no one's gonna read this. Like, you know, um, it there's so many books out there. I'm not looking to add something to the conversation. I just want to figure out for myself. And he's like, well, maybe other people might want to see what you have to say. So I was like, all right, well, we'll publish a book. So it's not like I set out to reignite the conversation or, you know, um start things up or whatever. It was just more of a personal journey that I happen to, you know, have a publisher that wanted to publish it.

Randy 1:05:58

Yeah. And let me say, I mean. I had that question too when I got the book and interacting with your publisher and I had the question too of like th th the biblical scholarship has been done on this, you know, like we don't it Yeah. W so why Preston was my question. And then I would and then I had the thought of, you know what, a lot of the biblical scholarship that's been done on this, a lot of the people who are on the other side who are complimentary and would never listen to them, would never give them the time of day, would never think that anything they have to say is interesting or no noteworthy or authoritative. But when you say this, Preston, you have the ears of different people that people like me and Kyle and all those actual real biblical scholars um don't have. And that's why I appreciate that you wrote this book, because I do think this is such important stuff. And I do think that there are so many women who have been marginalized and sidelined in our tradition and to this very day in the church. And I'm so glad that a person with your evangelical credentials can come out and say, I've changed my mind on this. Um and I I've I've done it because of the Bible. I love that. And so I'm I'm grateful to you for writing writing this book, Preston.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:07

Thank you. I appreciate it. Appreciate you guys.

Reviews Email Social And Goodbye

Randy 1:07:09

Preston Sprinkle, thank you so much for joining us. The book is from Genesis to Junior, an honest search for what the Bible really says about women and leadership. Thank you for your time. Thank you and thank your thank your family for letting you uh miss dinner. Yeah, thank you guys, really appreciate it.com/slash a pastor and a philosopher, where you can get bonus content, extra perks, and a general feeling of being a good person.

Kyle 1:07:51

Also, please rate and review the show in Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen. These help new people discover the show, and we may even read your review in a future episode.

Randy 1:07:59

If anything we said pissed you off, or if you just have a question you'd like us to answer, send us an email at pastor and philosopher at gmail.com.

Kyle 1:08:07

Find us on social media at at PPWB Podcast, and find transcripts and links to all of our episodes at pastor and philosopher.buzzsprout.com. See you next time. Cheers