That is how I see it too. You are way too logical!!

…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)

As he says that a man by virtue of his manhood is called to lead, then technically according to his logic, would a woman not “help lead” and thus equate her as a leader as well? Furthermore, if this is not the case then it would be logically so that if man were the leader, then woman would be a follower. . . which is not in Scripture. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that this interpretation by Ray Ortlund is sadly in error.

“A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. ”

Does this strike anyone else as arrogant? Who are we mere humans that God would look on us with favor, let alone have us “lead” for Him? I mean, you have Calvinists and Arminians (stances formed by men) both “leading” for God claiming they are right.
I hope I’m not reading into his words too much.

And although I’d use different arguments for why God did what and when in creation week, we’d all agree that there’s nothing about authority of one person over another there at all.

And yet again, the burning question: Why would any believer even want such authority, especially after reading Phil. 2:5-11 and Jesus’ “not so among you”? Will any of the male supremacists ever face that?

Those who believe in male headship seem to have conveniently lost Genesis 1 in their Bibles.

Yes, and we would not have recorded for us, Adam pronouncing her equality. ‘This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone’. While we have men today pronouncing woman’s inequality we have Adam having done the opposite in scripture.

‘Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman.’
Then this connects the first thought above (Adam created from the ground in Genesis) to 1 Tim 2 ‘Adam was created first’ and also to 1 Co 11 ‘8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.’

‘He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear.’
So, I wonder where does he see the nature of manhood and womanhood? 1 Tim 2 and 1 Co 11? How he interprets the order of creation then is attatched to how he interprets 1 Tim 2 and 1 Co 11 for there are no other verses that mention the creation order of Adam and the source of woman’s creation in the NT, except for those 2 and in them he sees apparently the nature of manhood and womanhood.

And who said women aren’t followers? lol!

1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. [/quote]

One of the most important thoughts in comp theology is that (1) Adam was created first therefore (2) he is the leader or had ‘headship’ over Eve. These two ideas are tied together in comp thought, but they are not so tied together in the written scriptures. When Paul wrote ‘Adam was created first’ (1 Tim 2) he did not write/tie it to ‘leader’ or ‘head’ (interpreted to mean ‘headship’) and when he did write ‘man/husband is the head of the woman/wife’ (1 Co 11, Eph 5) he did not tie it to ‘Adam was created first.’ 1 Tim 2:13 must be lifted out of it’s original home and helicoptered over to 1 Co 11:3 and dropped into that new context so that the two ideas can be seen tied together or vice versa. 1 Co 11:3 and Eph 5 which do speak of ‘head’ (some see this to mean that the man/husband is the ‘leader’) unlike 1 Tim 2, do not say anything about the order of creation, Adam first then Eve. Yet it is still managed by comps to see creation order in those 2 passages when it’s simply not there, or to see ‘head’ (made into ‘headship’) in 1 Tim 2. I ask why?