During the past 14 years (2007–2021), archaeological digs have taken place at four separate sites in the Judean foothills: Khirbet Qeiyafa (biblical Sha’arayim, mentioned in 1 Samuel 17:52 and 1 Chronicles 4:31), Khirbet el-Ra’I (biblical Ziklag, mentioned as being in southern Judah in Joshua 15:31), Socoh (Joshua 15:31), and Lachish (mentioned as being in southern Judah in Joshua 15:31). As cities mentioned in Scripture in the southern part of Israel (and during the divided monarchy, Judah) at the western border with the Philistines, they should be expected to have been fortified cities, with walls and gates.

Since the 1990s, more and more evidence of the southern kingdom of Judah has come to light, including seals, pottery, inscribed tablets, and rings which mention David, Solomon, or a later king from the “house of David.” While skeptical biblical archaeologists and historians have grudgingly accepted these findings, they have maintained the attitude that Judah was a petty kingdom, or even a small chiefdom of little significance. Even as recently as 2010, liberal Jewish archaeologist Israel Finkelstein said in an interview that Jerusalem was little more than a “hill-country village” and David’s armies were “500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting—not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text.”1

But the recent archaeological digs have begun to change that opinion as more and more information comes to light. Evidence of well-fortified towns and cities has been unearthed, and several important artifacts with biblical names have surfaced.

Sha’arayim

The smallest of the sites excavated was Khirbet Qeiyafa (biblical Sha’arayim). The town was located on the border with Philistia, opposite Tell es-Safi (biblical Gath). After David killed Goliath and the armies of Israel routed the Philistines, the Israelite armies chased them as they fled back through Sha’arayim on their way to Gath (Joshua 15:31). Excavations took place from 2007–2013 and revealed a heavily fortified city with “a rich destruction layer” surrounded by a casemate wall (a double, parallel line of walls with partition walls), two gates and a row of houses adjacent to the city wall.2 During their last year there, a monumental administrative building was uncovered on the acropolis in the 2013 season. The building was found out to be from the Byzantine era (c. AD 500), but further excavation found that it had been built over a building from the time of King Saul and David (c. 1050–1000 BC). This earlier building covered more than 10,000 square feet and its walls were three feet thick. According to the authors of the paper, they believed it “occupied the highest and most important location—at the center of the site, overlooking the entire city as well as the surrounding countryside as far as Jerusalem and the Hebron mountains to the east and Ashdod to the west. This huge structure was both a prominent and potent point of the city. It reflects power and authority over the city, as well as the region. We believe it was an administrative center of the recently established Davidic kingdom.”3

But the major find was an ostracon (shard of pottery with an inscription) discovered in 2008 with five lines of the oldest known Hebrew text ever discovered, believed to be a thousand years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. The text has received numerous (and differing) translations, one of which contends that it contains a reference to the chief officers establishing a king,4 while another contends it is instruction for the king to remember the poor and the widows and execute justice on their behalf.5 Both of these things are mentioned in Scripture, Saul being made King of Israel by the people at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:14–15) and God’s instructions to kings, princes, and leaders in Israel not to pervert justice (Isaiah 1:17, 23; Jeremiah 7:6–7, 22:1–3), so either translation is consistent with Scripture on these points. The translators of the text mentioned above both consider the ostracon to be from the time of King Saul (c. 1100–1050 BC).

Interestingly, the only other biblical mention of Sha’arayim (1 Chronicles 4:31) tells us that this city was inhabited “until David reigned.” This is significant because after Saul and his son Jonathan were killed on Mt. Gilboa (northern Israel) and the armies of Israel routed, the Philistines raided several towns in Israel and Judah. Not long after Saul’s death, the armies of David and the armies of Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, had engaged in a battle (2 Samuel 2:12–17). Then after Ishbosheth was killed in a palace coup, David was crowned king of all Israel at Hebron. Subsequently, David and the armies of Israel fought the Jebusites in Jerusalem and took the city (2 Samuel 5:6–9).

Then we read that David turned his attention to the Philistines, who by this time had occupied much of western Israel as far north as Baal Perazim, about six miles northwest of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:19–25). A short time later, he routed the Philistines again and drove them all the way back to the coastal plains, even taking the city of Metheg-ammah, which was likely a western suburb of Gath (2 Samuel 8:1). David then defeated Moab, Edom, and Syria (2 Samuel 8:2–5). He put garrisons in Syria and Edom (2 Samuel 8:6, 15) but did not put garrisons again in western Israel. It therefore appears that the Philistines destroyed Sha’arayim right after the defeat of Saul, but David’s routing of the Philistines a few years later and their being put under subjugation and tribute meant he did not need a strong border on this western side of the kingdom. So the city walls and “administrative building” mentioned above may have been built during Saul’s reign and lasted to the time of David’s reign over Judah, but by the time he became king over all Israel, the city had been destroyed. This accords well with 1 Chronicles 4:31.

Socoh

Of special note in this 2010 archaeological dig was a royal jar handle with the name Zephaniah on it. The prophet Zephaniah was a great-great-grandson of King Hezekiah and prophesied in the time of King Josiah of Judah.

Socoh (also spelled Sochoh) was one of the towns of southern Judah (Joshua 15:35). Socoh was a small walled town with two primary building phases, fortified during the time of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:7) and also in the eighth century BC, likely from the time of King Uzziah (Azariah), who is recorded as fortifying southern Judah and even occupying Philistine lands. But Socoh/Sochoh had been in existence as a village long before and was actually the site where the Philistines camped when the battle of David and Goliath took place (1 Samuel 17:1). The last mention of Sochoh is in 2 Chronicles 28:18, when the city was captured and occupied by the Philistines during the reign of wicked King Ahaz (Uzziah’s grandson). Of special note in this 2010 archaeological dig was a royal jar handle with the name Zephaniah on it. The prophet Zephaniah was a great-great-grandson of King Hezekiah, and he prophesied in the time of King Josiah of Judah. King Hezekiah had recaptured much of southern Israel from the Philistines and had even conquered parts of Philistia (2 Kings 18:8), so it is likely that Judah reoccupied Socoh at this time, meaning it is plausible that the Zephaniah seal was the prophet’s or referred to him.

Ziklag

The excavations at Khirbet al-Ra’I (biblical Ziklag) that occurred from 2015–2018 revealed several layers of occupation from the time of the judges, massive fortifications during the time of King David (c. 1050–1000 BC) and Solomon/Rehoboam (c. 1000–900 BC), and a Persian and Hellenistic layer. Between the layers from the time of the judges and David, there were periods of Philistine occupancy (deduced from Philistine pottery dominating at certain levels). Ziklag is not a Semitic name but appears to be of Philistine origin.6 When Joshua listed the tribe of Judah’s land portion, it included many cities that were held by the Philistines at the time, including Ziklag (Joshua 15:31).

We read in 1 Samuel 27:1–6 that Ziklag, during the time of King Saul, was occupied by the Philistines but given to David as a gift by Achish, king of Gath. Of special note was a destruction layer between the Davidic and Solomon layers, corresponding exactly with 1 Samuel 30:1, which states that while David was away, the Amalekites came and burned the city down and took everyone captive. David was able to catch up to and decimate the Amalekites and recover all the people and spoils (1 Samuel 30:16–20). But likely he and his army had to rebuild the city. There is evidence of building stone being reused, and the rebuilding was on a much smaller scale than the former city had been, only about one-tenth the size.7

Again, this would fit well with the biblical text, which informs us that as David was returning to Ziklag, King Saul had been killed in battle. Shortly afterward, David went to Hebron and was crowned king of Judah (2 Samuel 2:1–4), so he and his family and armies moved to Hebron. Ziklag did not need to be as large as it had been, so it was scaled down. However, this smaller village lasted only a short time and ended in a sudden destruction, leaving dozens of complete pottery vessels in the destruction layer.8 This fits the account of Shishak’s campaign during the time of Rehoboam, when Shishak plundered southern Judah on his way to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 12:2–4). Shishak would not have been interested in looting Judean pottery, as his pillaging of the gold artifacts in the temple in Jerusalem makes clear.

Lachish

The second-to-last site excavated (2013–2017) by Garfinkel and his associates, and the largest by far, was Lachish. In the southern kingdom of Judah, Lachish was probably the second most important site besides Jerusalem. The city as it was in the c. 1000–900 BC timeframe (Level 5) was circled by a massive, almost 10 ft. (3 m) thick wall with residential buildings abutting the wall.9 According to 2 Chronicles 11:5–12, Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, fortified Lachish together with several other cities in Judah. This accords well with the timeline estimated for the city’s fortification and settlement during this period. Rehoboam’s reign is dated at 975–957 BC by Ussher and 931–913 BC by conventional archaeologists, either of which fit the proposed dates.

Lachish is mentioned numerous times in the OT, starting with the mention of its Amorite occupants prior to Israel conquering it in Joshua 10:31–32. Its last mention is in Nehemiah 11:30, as some of the Israelites returned there from the Babylonian captivity during the time of Ezra. Consequently, there are nine main archaeological layers to sift through on the Tell, with the oldest having the highest numbers. Level 3 has been positively identified as being the level when the Assyrian king Sennacherib and his armies destroyed the town in 701 BC, because positive evidence of a siege mound has been found at that level (e.g., 2 Chronicles 32:9). Level 2 was the then-current city which Nebuchadnezzar destroyed in 586 BC (e.g., Jeremiah 34:7), and Level 1 was the layer which covers the post-exilic times mentioned in Nehemiah 11:30.

Level 5 is the one with the most impressive defensive structures and is dated to 1000–900 BC. Pottery types found at this level are typical Judean pottery found elsewhere in Israel dated to the same period, and in addition to the thick walls, remains of a fortress have been found on Level 5.10 Of special note is that there was no destruction layer between Level 5 and Level 4. In fact, Level 4 seems to have grown out of and spread over a larger area than Level 5.11 As the population increased, people started moving and building outside the fortress walls but still had the option of retreating inside the fortress walls in the case of a battle or siege. This same pattern repeated itself between Level 4 and Level 3: no destruction layer, but urban expanse and reuse of materials.12 Four-handled jars, some with seals bearing the names of Hebron and Socoh (and possibly Mareshah) on them, attest to commerce between the Judean cities.

Archaeology Corroborates Scripture (Again and Again)

The excavations at these four Tells (archaeological mounds of former villages and/or cities) in what was the southern part of the kingdom of Judah correspond perfectly with the descriptions of events in the Bible, starting in Joshua and through the books of Kings and Chronicles (and even to the time of Nehemiah).

The excavations at these four Tells (archaeological mounds of former villages and/or cities) in what was the southern part of the kingdom of Judah correspond perfectly with the descriptions of events in the Bible, starting in Joshua and through the books of Kings and Chronicles (and even to the time of Nehemiah). They are proof of a widespread monarchy, from the time of Saul through to the last kings of Judah, with the resources to build and fortify large towns and establish trade between them. The Israelites (and Judahites) of the time of the united and divided monarchies were not a ragtag group of petty chiefdoms as envisioned by liberal critics but a complex society ruled by occasional godly and, more oftentimes, wicked kings who did not follow the Lord but instead fell into idolatry. Historical evidence of warfare with outside monarchs (from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon) testifies to the accuracy of Scripture when it touches on historical matters. Evidence does not “prove” Scripture, but it helps us to see that what God has said is trustworthy and true. And when one has the proper perspective of the Word of God being absolute truth from an omniscient and holy God, it follows that the Bible’s history is true, its message of the fall of man, the flood, dispersion at Babel, and most importantly, the gospel, is true.

The True Son of David

Archaeological finds of physical objects bearing descriptions of members of the “house of David” serve yet again to deny revisionist history which sought, and still seeks, to claim that David and Solomon were mythical characters. Answers in Genesis often points out that denying a historical Adam undermines the very gospel itself. Christ in his humanity was a literal descendant of a literal Adam and came as the last Adam to give life since the first Adam brought death. But denying a literal David is just as critical a mistake. Christ is descended from a literal David, and Paul emphasized this important connection: “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel” (2 Timothy 2:8).

As Christians, we know from Scripture that David was the king of Israel, and this should impact our worship of Christ. How so? We should remember that Jesus’ human lineage was from the line of David, as emphasized in the very first verse of the New Testament (Matthew 1:1), and we can (and should) glorify God by remembering what was said of Jesus during his triumphal entry—“Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Matthew 21:9). And Jesus personally identifies with David at the very close of Scripture, reminding all true churches throughout all generations, “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star” (Revelation 22:16). From the very first verse to the last chapter of the New Testament we see Christ identified with David—a real person who was a real king—whose descendant is the true King of kings!

Many Christians have rejected the scientific theory of evolution in part because they think it rules out the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. Yet some scientists and theologians argue that recent breakthroughs in genetics make a historical Adam and Eve compatible with evolution, and that this development may help bridge what many see as a conflict between faith and science.

“For over 160 years, the societal conflict over evolution has been deep and stubborn. But now, in a surprise twist, evolutionary science is making space for Adam and Eve,” S. Joshua Swamidass, an associate professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, told Fox News Digital. “It turns out that the theological questions are about genealogical ancestry, not genetics. In this paradigm shift, we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.”

In his book “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry,” Swamidass argues that genetics and evolutionary theory do not conflict with the existence of Adam and Eve, universal ancestors of all humans whom Jesus died to save.

Modern genetics only captures a small sliver of the story of human ancestry, Swamidass writes. While your parents are both 100 percent your parents, you only get roughly 50 percent of your DNA from each of them, and only about 25 percent of your DNA from your grandparents. As you go farther back, you have more genealogical ancestors who each contribute less and less to your DNA.

While universal genetic ancestors are rare, universal genealogical ancestors are surprisingly common, the author noted. Each individual has four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on, but population size in past generations tends to get smaller, so overlap is inevitable. He argues that by 1 A.D., every person on Earth was descended from Adam and Eve.

Swamidass’ model of a Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE) claims that biological humans may still share a common ancestor with apes according to the theory of evolution, but God could have created Adam and Eve from the dust and a rib, without parents, and these two became the ancestors of all humans by 1 A.D. Swamidass claims that Genesis appears to require biological humans outside of Adam and Eve’s family line because after Cain murders Abel and leaves his parents, he fears that he will be killed, he acquires a wife, and he builds a city.

“Most readers of Genesis understood Adam and Eve to be (1) ancestors of us all, and (2) miraculously created without parents of their own,” Swamidass told Fox News Digital. “In contrast, evolution teaches that (3) we share common ancestors with apes, and (4) we arise from a large population, not a single couple. This conflict of fact only seemed solvable by revising foundational Christian theological beliefs, or by rejecting evolution.”

“But now, clearing up some big scientific understandings, we know that all four of these things can be true at the same time,” Swamidass said. “Even if Adam and Eve lived as recently as just 6,000 years ago, they would be the genealogical ancestors of everyone across the globe by AD 1. They could even have been created de novo, from the dust and a rib. Of course, at the same time, we would also descend from people outside the Garden, others whom God created by a providentially governed process of evolution.”

Swamidass’ GAE model has already made waves in theological and scientific circles. The BioLogos Foundation, a Christian nonprofit founded by NIH Director Francis Collins that embraces the scientific theory of evolution, appears to have reversed its position on Adam and Eve, deleting articles claiming that genetics ruled out a historical Adam and Eve and posting articles that echo Swamidass’ model. BioLogos did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter.

William Lane Craig, a Christian philosophy professor at Houston Baptist University and Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology, published the book “In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration” in September. His book echoes Swamidass’ arguments – although he places Adam and Eve further back in history.

Reasons to Believe (RTB), a Christian nonprofit dedicated to blending faith and science in a way that questions evolution but embraces an old earth, published a book in 2020 in which the author, Anjeanette Roberts, wrote that Swamidass’ model “provides a way for biblical interpretations of a historical Adam and Eve—understood as universal, genealogical ancestors for all humanity living at the time of Christ and today—to be reconciled with mainstream evolutionary science.”

Michael Murray, a Christian philosophy professor at Franklin and Marshall College, recently said at an evangelical conference that due to the work of Swamidass, Craig, and others, “we have arrived at the point where we can confidently affirm that the basic evolutionary story is not the threat to Christian orthodoxy that we once feared, and not because we had to compromise on orthodoxy.”

“My view is that recent findings in genetics and paleontology have shown that our best scientific theories and data do not rule out a historical Adam and Eve,” Murray told Fox News Digital. He said the developments do not make Adam and Eve more or less likely, but they do show that, “for all we know, there might have been a pair that is the ancestor of all extant humans or extant Homo sapiens.”

Murray noted that “there was an emerging consensus among both secular scientists and scientists of faith that the relevant empirical data was flatly inconsistent with an ancestral pair.” Yet these recent developments have shown “that an ancestral pair is not flatly ruled out as was previously thought.”

Nathan Lents, a secular professor of philosophy at John Jay College, told Fox News Digital that recent developments have made Adam and Eve more plausible.

“I would not say that there is any evidence, historical or scientific, in favor of the existence of Adam and Eve, as they are presented in the Bible,” Lents said. “However, there have been developments in our understanding of ancestry and genetics that allow for the possibility of universal ancestors of the entire human population in the surprisingly recent past.”

He noted that “there are important caveats” about the possibility of universal ancestors, such as isolated populations, and about the impact of the GAE model – it does not involve “sole progenitorship of the human race from just two people.”

Many Christians disagree with the model, however. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans say God created man in his present form, and between 38 percent and 66 percent of White evangelical Protestants say the same, according to the Pew Research Center.

Fazale Rana, vice president of research and apologetics at RTB, told Fox News Digital that the models of Swamidass and Craig “both suffer from theological problems, despite their agreement with mainstream science.” Rana said that since the models do not consider Adam and Eve the sole progenitors of humanity, they “potentially put key Christian doctrines (such as human exceptionalism, the Fall, Original Sin and the Atonement) in harm’s way.”

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a Christian biologist with the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, told Fox News Digital that Swamidass’ “definition of Adam and eve is almost unrecognizable from a Young Earth perspective; it’s essentially the mainstream model with an undetectable supernaturally created pair inserted at some point.”

Jeanson said that his forthcoming book “Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise” uses the same developments in genetics to show that “the DNA history of mankind makes sense from a young-earth perspective,” making and examining testable predictions.

Yet even Rana and Jeanson admitted that the GAE model may decrease the public perception of a conflict between science and religion.

“It may soften the antagonism on the part of the evolutionary community,” Jeanson said. 

Rana described these developments as “good for the Church” because “they offer models that preserve the biblical narrative of human origins for those people who are persuaded by evidence for human evolution.” Yet he suggested that the GAE models “will have little or no impact” in the scientific community because they do not offer anything “that distinguishes them from materialistic evolutionary models.”

The secular Lents noted that “science and Christianity have been pitted against each other unnecessarily. Conflicts over evolution have bred mistrust on both sides that has bled into other issues,” like skepticism about vaccines.

“When Christians and evolutionary science find harmony and common ground, or at least a peaceful truce, we can build trust and begin to work together on matters that threaten the healthy, safety, and flourishing of us all,” Lents said. “For this reason, I applaud the work that Christian scientists are doing to bring greater acceptance and understanding of science into their communities. We need not be at war with each other.”

Ken Keathley, a theology professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that the efforts of Swamidass, Craig, and others “have been very fruitfrul.”

Southern Baptist Convention leader Paige Patterson was fired Wednesday following a meeting of the board of trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he served as president. With a following of over 15 million, Southern Baptists are America’s largest Protestant denomination.

Trustees were responding to a petition by over 3,000 Southern Baptist women regarding what they called Patterson’s “unbiblical” remarks on womanhood, sexuality and domestic violence. In an audio recording from 2000 that surfaced recently, Patterson was heard counseling a woman to stay with her abusive husband. In another sermon, he commented on a 16-year-old girl’s body. Trustees specifically cited Patterson’s handling of a student’s assault allegations. One female seminary student claimed that Patterson advised her not to report a rape to the police.

It would be easy to assume evangelical Christian educators like Patterson uniformly discriminate against women because they believe the Bible teaches women to submit to men. But, as a historian of women, religion and higher education, I know that the story is not that simple: Evangelicals actually led in opening higher education to women.

Evangelicals pioneer women’s higher education

The very first college in world history to offer a bachelor’s degree to women, Oberlin, did so in 1837, with the goal of training more people to spread the evangelical gospel.

In other words, theologically conservative Christians pioneered women’s higher education for theological reasons.

I call these people “evangelical pragmatists” because they were willing to bend cultural norms about appropriate activities for women in order to get more hands on deck for God. For the same reason, they structured Oberlin to be unusually affordable and even admitted African-American students starting in 1835. Prior to this time, only a handful of African-Americans are believed to have graduated from any American college.

Remarkably, the first and longest standing single-sex institution of higher education for American women, Mount Holyoke, was founded in 1837 by evangelical pragmatists for the same reason. Mount Holyoke was only a three-year institution at its founding, and it did not immediately admit African-Americans. But it was the most advanced and affordable single-sex education available to American women at the time.

Evangelicals historically disagree on women

Even in the 1800s, when almost all ministers were men, Oberlin president Charles Finney, one of the most famous evangelists of that era, allowed a woman, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, to enroll in Oberlin’s attached theological seminary. Members of Oberlin’s faculty disagreed on whether the Bible permitted women to preach, but they supported Christian women getting the best education possible.

Unlike the founders of Oberlin and Mount Holyoke, not all evangelical educators believed in theological education for women and their role in the church – a disagreement that continues to the present.

The problem is that the Christian scriptures contain some passages that affirm absolute equality between men and women – which is truly radical for the time they were written. Other passages, however, seem to teach divinely ordained roles for men and women.

Even Christians who agree that the Bible is a reliable communication from God to humankind disagree on the meaning of the teachings on gender difference. The contentious debate about those passages has often centered around questions such as: Were they simply advice to women and men in past cultures on how to act wisely in those contexts, or did God intend those roles to be binding at all times?

Modern Southern Baptists and women

Since the 1980s, the Southern Baptist Convention has fallen into what is called the “complementarian” category that believes God intended different gender roles for all times. In particular, Paige Patterson was a leader in the “conservative resurgence” within the denomination that led to a more restrictive interpretation of the Bible.

The SBC statement of belief subsequently published in 2000, The Baptist Faith and Message (BFM), asserts, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Many Southern Baptist seminaries interpret this ruling to mean that the professors who train pastors should also be men.

Indeed, the thousands of Southern Baptist women who signed the petition against Patterson explicitly affirmed SBC doctrine and did not ask for women’s ordination. They, and many Southern Baptist men, believe that while women and men have distinct roles to play, they should receive equal hearing and respect.

Many of the first women to attend Oberlin would have agreed with the BFM statement as well, although Oberlin also graduated early Christian feminists like Lucy Stone, who founded the American Woman Suffrage Association and was one of the first women to keep her maiden name after marriage.

Thus, even evangelicals who agree on different roles for the sexes disagree on what types of educational and church leadership opportunities women should have. “Culture warrior” Christians, focused on defending the accuracy of the Bible against liberals, have tended towards being more restrictive of women’s opportunities. Pragmatists, who are more focused on spreading the Christian message, have, on the other hand, tended to open up opportunities for women.

Prominent among Southern Baptist pragmatists is women’s Bible study teacher Beth Moore. She recently penned an open letter to Southern Baptist men about the sexism she has encountered in the denomination. Moore noted many men use her lack of formal theological training as an excuse to discount her, but that she was unwelcome when she sought to attend Southwestern Seminary in 1988. Even today only three of the seminary’s 38 faculty members are women. All three teach in a separate women’s studies department.

With the upcoming June annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention following closely on the removal of Patterson, it remains to be seen whether the denomination will follow Moore’s lead and open more opportunities to women.