What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and
wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian
women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian
women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul
uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and
other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «
wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight
than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather
than the new creation that began at the resurrection.
Fact:» [W] hen husbands care for children while their
wives work, a majority of men resist the arrangement, and in the face of such resistance, these
women are more likely to quit work
than are
women who
use other modes of childcare.»