Thinking Aloud 17 – 1Corinthians 1; headship and hair?

You are currently viewing Thinking Aloud 17 – 1Corinthians 1; headship and hair?

Our latest episode of Thinking Aloud is out! We discuss the recent controversy regarding EQUIP and complementarianism.

Go to the website, Episode 17 – EQUIP and 1 Corinthians 11, or listen right here!

Leave a Reply

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. Kerry Farley


    Having listened to the episode on Equip, may I suggest that the discussion was a bit ‘light on’ ? Was the intention to consider the issues, as it seemed to be more a case of being dismissive and to ridicule those who raised questions/concerns.

    Am I being unfair in any way in making the above statement ?

    It is my understanding no one on the panel attended the conference ; have you all since had the opportunity to listen to the DVD ?


    1. David Ould

      hi Kerry. Thanks for coming and commenting. First off, apologies for the delay in getting your comment through moderation.
      I’m sorry that you thought the intention was to be dismissive. My recollection of recording the episode (it’s been a while now and I haven’t listened to it again in the last 24 hours) is that we attempted to address some of the underlying theological questions around the particular chapter of 1Corinthians that was addressed at the Equip conference.
      I don’t remember being dismissive but if there’s a particular moment in the episode that you’re concerned about then do please let me know what the timestamp is and I’ll attempt to address your specific concern.


    Hi David,
    Its quite some time ago since I last commented
    – I understand none of the panel members attended the actual conference ; have any/all since listened to the DVD so that they then would have some insight into the questions/issues from many arising from the conference ?
    – I didn’t actually state that I ‘thought the intention was to be dismissive’. In answer to my own question ‘Was the intention to consider the issues’, is ‘No, that was not the intention of the panel in the podcast’
    Is it fair to say that the 2 points below are examples of a somewhat ‘dismissive’ attitude, rather than any real endeavours to address any aspects of the underlying controversy ?
    – the fellow stated on the podcast (and I paraphrase) that this was a conference about complementarianism…likewise, a conference on egalitarianism wouldn’t talk about complementarianism, so why should this conference be any different ?
    – the lady stated (and I paraphrase again) the committee members are all complementarians, so why on earth would anyone expect to hear anything else ?
    – the podcast sub-title states that its about complementarianism. However, to the best of my knowledge, this key word was never once stated in the conference. Why not be upfront and inform the attendees that this is what it is all about, as per your sub-title ? How many women attending knew that this is what, in fact, it was all about ? Correct me if I am wrong, but given that the speakers had all gone thru Moore College and have adopted its stand on complementarianism, and two of the speakers actually teach complementarianism in bible colleges, then I struggle to see how there were any serious steps taken to ensure that the full picture and extent of bible research undertaken on this topic was conveyed to the attendees. Is that a fair comment ?



    On the DVD, there is also a final conversation between 2 of the Equip organisers. Would u say that u fully concur with their comments/statements ?

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rules