I feel that the Complimentarian vs. Egalitarian is merely a Trinitarian debate with four or five basic positions that could be taken:
1)If the Father is ontologically greater than the Son then Patriarchy is more biblical.
2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could not have been/be the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could have been/be the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.
4)If the Son is ontologically greater than the Father then Matriarchy/Pure Feminism is more biblical.
5)If the Father is the Son then a pantheism is more biblical.
A different way of writing positions 2 and 3 would be:
2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and functionally different than the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is both ontologically and functionally equal to the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.
These of course ignore the entire debate of Economic Trinity vs. Ontological Trinity; but I think that debate is really a debate about Sola Scriptura. Also it rather silly as it seeks to know God as Himself in eternity thinking he might reveal a different ontology of himself in time.
