Hillary

I have not yet read the entire post but a quick comment on the quote from Ray Ortlund:

…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)

As he says that a man by virtue of his manhood is called to lead, then technically according to his logic, would a woman not “help lead” and thus equate her as a leader as well? Furthermore, if this is not the case then it would be logically so that if man were the leader, then woman would be a follower. . . which is not in Scripture. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that this interpretation by Ray Ortlund is sadly in error.