I was greatly encouraged to receive emails from David R. Booth from Balcatta, Western Australia, sharing how my book helped to change his views from his previous complementarian position:

“Thank you so much for your book, Man and Woman, One in Christ. I have found it a most challenging and edifying read. From the purely exegetical perspective I think your book is the best I have read to date and certainly places the onus on  the ‘complementarian’ camp to refute.”A long time adherent to CBMW’s Danver’s Statement, I had assumed the exegetical and theological issues to be well and truly settled by Wayne Grudem’s research and responses on kephalē, along with Schreiner, Köstenberger et al’s latest tome on 1 Timothy 2. However, your meticulous study of the relevant passages in the Pauline corpus has given me much food for thought and stirred afresh certain reservations I still held regarding CBMW’s position. I thought your argument for interpolation (1 Cor 14:34-35) was very well argued and … persuasive.

I did find your refutation of Moo’s stance convincing and am heartened that he did withdraw his previous position on women’s inate susceptibility to doctrinal deception – a most unfortunate and untenable position if women are then exhorted to teach other women (and children).

Your analysis of kephalē was for the most part clear and persausive – though my competence is based only on three years of koine greek and greek exegetical classes under the godly tutelage of Leon Morris, David Williams and Colin Kruse towards a BTh (US MDiv equivalent) at Ridley College, Melbourne quite a few years back. I must confess I had thought Grudem to be quite meticulous in his articles – and his work seems to be foundational to much of CBMW’s position on kephalē. However, you raised some serious doubts about his research which extends and echoes those mentioned in Thistleton’s and Fee’s commentaries. … I do not think a persuasive defense can be presented for authority being the only viable translation of kephalē based on what your study has shown. Incidentally, I was troubled by your footnotes, which certainly suggest a form of censorship has [been exercised] … by [Köstenberger and Carson]. This certainly does not promote the cause of truth or a ‘Berean’ attitude to matters of controversy between fellow believers. I would have hoped both John Köstenberger and Donald Carson would have had the confidence to allow your responses to be published in the cause of rightly handling the word of truth. 

I am persuaded by the argument that ministry is a matter of the Spirit’s gifting and calling recognised by a congregation.

Please accept this extended email as a sign of the fruitful and stimulating paradigm-changing challenge your book has proven to be for me.

Thank you once again. With your questions in mind, I have set myself the task to re-read your book. I have certainly by God’s grace come a long way from the days when I loudly opposed and even debated against any position which had a whiff of egalitarianism on this subject.

As I have stated previously, you have won me over with regards to ministry roles.