I happen to agree with Scorgie's conclusions, but at times I find the case he builds tenuous. I think he gives a pretty excellent feminist critique of church history, and he brings to light some good points about the trinity's connection to gender relations. However, in his exegesis of Paul I can't help but feel Scorgie cuts off his nose to spite his face. By apologizing for Paul's seemingly patriarchal and hierarchical biblical prescriptions, Scorgie, in my opinion, weakens the Bible's claim to divine infallibility. Scorgie suggests that Paul wrote what he did 1) to be tongue-in-cheek, 2) to sell people on the gospel even if it meant compromising on gender equality, 3) to illustrate a different principle altogether and 4) because he though Jesus was coming soon so he put women's rights on the back burner. If Paul had known better, Sorgie suggests, he might not have written what he did. That to me sounds like Paul, and by extension God who breathed Paul's inspired words, made a mistake. Anyway you slice Sorgie's argument the Bible is framed as a document nearly impossible to understand and difficult to trust. Now Scorgie may well be right about all of it (though he gives little evidence to back up his hypotheses) but I have an inkling that undermining the legitimacy of Scripture was just about the last thing he wanted to accomplish. Nevertheless, I appreciate his zeal and his dedication to an egalitarian vision of Christianity. Yet for my money, William Webb's book on the subject is still the best reasoned work I've read on the role of women in the church.