Christianity Today‘s Her.meneutics blog hosted two posts on the issue of women in leadership:
William Webb the egalitarian: Her.meneutics: The Gender Debates Come to Her.meneutics.
Russell Moore the complementarian: Her.meneutics: The Her.meneutics Gender Debates (Part 2).
I think both make good points, but personally, I like Webb’s arguments better (perhaps because of my own perspective on this issue).
Particularly moving is Webb’s story of how he lost his job because of 
convictions and writings about women. It’s great to see a man risk his job advocating for women. I would like to think I’d be willing to do that, but I’m not sure.
Which perspective do you think is more convincing? Why do you think CT decided not include a woman in the debate? The interviewer was a woman (Rachel Stone).