Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part I: On Thinking Biblically

Editor’s Note: Authors Andrew Bartlett (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light From The Biblical Texts, 2019) and Terran Williams (How God Sees Women: The End of Patriarchy, 2022) are respected communicators of mutualist theology. For the month of December, they will be offering a series of blog posts summarizing their response to Mike Winger’s complementarian video series “Women in Ministry,” published from March 2022 to March 2024.

Winger’s popularity and scope of influence necessitate a thorough response to his unbiblical teachings. While this blog series represents a brief summary, Bartlett and Williams have over 450 pages of detailed critiques responding to Winger’s thirteen videos. We urge interested readers to click through to their complete work. Bartlett and Williams have also summarized their main findings in a video interview with Michael Bird, which you are encouraged to like and share. 

In this introductory article, we will comment principally on Mike Winger’s first video in the series—the crucial topic of thinking biblically.

Video 1: On Thinking Biblically

Mike’s title and strapline: “Why We Can’t Think Biblically About It/WE BYPASS THE BIBLE”
Our summary: His list of mistakes is critically incomplete. He is unaware of his own mistakes, and this is why he can’t think biblically about it.

In his Part 1 video, Mike talks about seven “huge” mistakes which he believes that people make, which prevent them thinking biblically about the subject of women in ministry.

We firmly agree with Mike’s basic point that we should think biblically about women in ministry. We agree with a substantial proportion of what he says about the mistakes. Our major concern is that Mike misses the importance of some other basic issues—issues which prevent Mike himself from thinking biblically about it and of which he appears to be unaware. We will show that the reliability of his teaching on this topic is undermined by three basic shortfalls in his training. As we go through, you will see that they are interconnected.

As you read on, please remember this:

To say that someone has not acquired certain skills in research, in understanding context, or in assessing scholars’ arguments is not a personal criticism which impugns their character or sincerity. A person can be a good person, full of the love and life of Christ, without having developed those practical skills. But those skills are absolutely needed for a high-profile teacher who claims to offer his followers a thorough evaluation of the widely debated topic of women and ministry.

Background Knowledge and Research Skills

Mike’s shortfall in background knowledge and research skills shows up in many ways, as we have documented in our published responses to his videos. Here are some illustrations:

In his analysis of the use of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12, Mike mishandles or misunderstands the Latin Vulgate, the educational background of Church Fathers, and the standard abbreviation for a Bible translation. Mike has not learned how to read scholarly books with thoroughness.

Another translation issue crops up in Romans 16:7. Complementarians have translated this verse in a new way, with the result that Paul no longer describes the woman Junia as an apostle. Mike frankly acknowledges that his grasp of New Testament Greek is insufficient for him to understand what has been written about this question. He relies on a controversial paper published in 2015, which he candidly admits he is not in a position to assess. His inadequate research skills compound the problem; he did not find any reply to the 2015 paper, although a thoughtful and detailed rebuttal was published in one of the best-known theological journals.

Mike’s lack of background knowledge and research skills extends to more areas. We could show you how his lack of understanding of the scholarly conventions around footnoting leads him to misunderstand and misrepresent egalitarian scholars’ support for their opinions—which results in his mistakenly dismissing their opinions as baseless. He disregards the most basic rule of hermeneutics, lacks understanding of the chronology of New Testament events, and lacks knowledge of social conditions in New Testament times. In sum, Mike repeatedly demonstrates that he is not equipped with the background knowledge and research skills which are needed for what he has taken on in this series.

Reading Accurately in Context

In principle, Mike knows the importance of reading accurately in context in order to understand the meaning of Scripture.

However, there is a difference between knowing this in principle and implementing proper reading practices. In our detailed responses, we have often pointed out his failure to read accurately in context. Those failures are particularly acute in his expositions of 1 Timothy 2 and Ephesians 5. In both passages, he neglects to look closely at the words leading up to a text that he treats as a proof-text.

There are different aspects of reading accurately in context:

• Consider the whole context—literary, historical and cultural.
• Look closely at the exact words, not relying only on English versions but checking what is in the Greek.
• Trace the writer’s train of thought through the letter and through the particular passage under discussion.
• Consider why the writer considers it important or relevant to say what he says.
• Use a Christ-centered, canonical approach. Scripture is God’s story with the world, a story about the coming of the Messiah (the Christ). A Christ-centered and canonical approach will ensure that our interpretation is true to the big picture of what Scripture is about. Adopting a canonical approach means that we assume a basic unity in the message of Scripture, so that where a passage is unclear and could be interpreted in more than one way, other passages, which are clearer, may guide us to avoid lines of interpretation which would produce a contradiction.

Of course, these considerations overlap. They are not separate; they need to be done together. Surprisingly, Mike does not sufficiently attend to these basic precautions.

How to Think and Reason in a Non-partisan Way

So far as we can tell, all of Mike’s formation as a Christian has been in complementarian churches. It is therefore very interesting that he repeatedly says he wanted to become egalitarian.

He discloses this in order to be transparent. Perhaps, in addition, he wants his audience to perceive him as willing to leave on one side his prior commitment to complementarianism and, instead, to assess and present both sides of the debate even-handedly. Such an approach would enhance his credibility both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his audience.

The problem is, he does not in fact evaluate or present the debate in an even-handed way. His hope that his audience will hear from him “all the best arguments” is not fulfilled. Why not? Because he has not learned how to think and reason in a non-partisan way—a shortfall of which he is not aware.

Six features display this shortfall unmistakably:

1. A discord in reasoning: When Mike opposes a view, he offers an argument which he believes justifies rejecting that view. But when he agrees with a view, he overlooks that the same line of argument would equally justify rejecting the view with which he agrees.
2. Straw-manning egalitarian arguments: Mike regularly misreads what an egalitarian scholar has written, erects a distorted version of it—a straw man—then demolishes the straw man. He doesn’t even realize that this is what he is doing. Someone thinking and reasoning in a non-partisan way would be diligent to avoid straw-manning and would seek out and address the strongest arguments of the opposing side.
3. A failure to engage with objections to his complementarian views: Mike makes repeated claims about the thoroughness with which he has examined the debate. He promises that his audience will hear from him “all the best arguments.” Instead, a refrain throughout our detailed response articles is that Mike did not address weighty objections.
4. A failure to question his own understanding: Mike misreads Linda Belleville, Ron Pierce, Elizabeth Kay, and others as saying things that cannot possibly be right. Rather than questioning his understanding, he presents his misunderstanding as fact. Someone thinking and reasoning in a non-partisan way would have said to themselves, “That’s nothing like what the Bible says in this passage, so have I misread something?” Looking again, with greater care, they would have discovered their mistake.
5. A discord in his presentation: Mike offers forceful criticisms of what he perceives to be poor arguments by egalitarian scholars but exercises tactful discretion when he perceives poor arguments by complementarian scholars. Someone who has learned to think and reason in a non-partisan way would expect to see some examples of poor reasoning on both sides of the debate and would take care not be distracted by it and not to treat the two sides differently.
6. False imputations about egalitarian motives: An even-handed researcher would not make false imputations about the motives of those they disagree with. They would be able to imagine how it could be that a brother or sister might disagree with them out of good and worthy motives.

Upholding Biblical Thinking

Mike thinks that those who disagree with him on women in ministry do so because of prior philosophical beliefs. He thinks the reason he has not become egalitarian is that he follows Scripture rather than such beliefs.

We wish to say that we did not arrive at our mutualist views on this topic, as set out in our books, by subjecting Scripture to philosophical beliefs. We arrived at them by reading Scripture as faithfully as we know how.

As we see it, Mike’s eschewing of supposed egalitarian philosophical beliefs is not the root cause of Mike remaining complementarian. The root cause, as we have demonstrated in some 450 pages of detailed responses, is that Mike has missed what Scripture actually teaches.

Mike is simply not equipped to think biblically about the massive debate around women in ministry. There is a shortfall in his background knowledge and research skills. He has not yet learned to read accurately in context, nor has he yet learned how to think and reason in a non-partisan way. Those shortfalls have made his well-intentioned output unreliable.

In Part 2 of this series, we will turn to Bartlett and Williams’ response to Winger’s analysis of the stories of women in the Bible.

Related Resources

Popular Articles