The CBE Scroll

Comment by Craighton

September 16, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

Will the literalistic hermeneutics of fundamentalists never die? Now we’ve got a new generation of fundie complimentarian megachurches multiplying like rabbits. Is this awful situation, to say nothing of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, what the Lord really meant when He said the Kingdom was at hand? Who is going to rescue these poor families?

Fundies go on the warpath regularly about all sorts of things. Isn’t it about time egalitarians do a little more than ponder the depths of family life and moan sweetly at yet another gender horror story?

Comment by Beyond Words

September 17, 2006 @ 6:28 am

I need help to discern how to bring the kingdom truths to my complementarian church without being strident and disresectful of the leaders. Can we have more articles and posts about this? A lot of us are grieving every day as we do the work we’re called to do.

I’ve been praying specifically for Mark Driscoll and his church. I think he is the most dangerous phenomenon in Christianity right now. Men are latching on to his message because it gives them validation for things they haven’t wanted to repent of.

Where is the Holy Spirit in this?

Comment by Dana Ames

September 17, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

Craighton,
I’m convinced that the way forward is not to go on any warpaths — otherwise, we become like those with whom we so deeply disagree. Speak, yes. With the emotion we honestly feel, and charitably. It’s hard for people to believe something they haven’t yet heard. And, some people don’t want to hear. They are too frightened that they will be on some “slippery slope” that will somehow lead them away from God if they contemplate letting loose of literalism. It’s a tough path, but I think the ethos of CBE as an organization is what can best engender :) the best response — faithfulness to God and one another, with honest, non-hierarchical relationships lived openly. We will have to, in a sense, “outlast” them. It’s hard — and I believe we will do it, because our way has the most potential for actual love in actual freedom. Law-bound people must place blame, particularly on God, instead of taking up the the awesome responsibility to which God calls us as human beings. For freedom Christ has set us free. We do not have to submit again to a yoke of slavery. Let us exhibit fruit which shows our lives are animated by God’s Spirit. Against such things there is no law.

Comment by Kathryn

September 17, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Is Bro. Driscoll saying that God’s Word teaches that a woman’s place is in the home? That is and always was a lie of the devil.

Comment by molly

September 17, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

I am a woman coming out of the aforementioned camp, coming out of patriarchy, etc… I joined that camp because I love Yahweh and I want Him glorified through my life… so it seemed to make sense: if God’s will is for me to subsume my own will and to take on that of my husband’s, if God’s will is for my womb to be open at all times, then…yes, I will do it. And I did.

Meaning, as you mentioned, many good educated strong women are in that camp, and it is not because they desire passivity, but because they desire God to be expressed. Unfortunately, if the patriarchal camp’s definition of God’s will is wrong… :(

I almost feel, to be honest, as if I am coming out of a cult. I know that sounds weird, but it is incredibly difficult to re-think these things without constantly worrying that you are in rebellion, that you are falling from God’s good favor, that you are not respecting His word, that you are out of His will for even asking the questions, etc…

While those are all things that all of us should probably consider from time to time, it is amazing how heavy those questions can be, how condemning, how difficult they make it to even ask questions at all.

And I think a lot of that comes from the patriarchal camp’s assertions that it’s their way or it’s wrong… As I openly process my “exodus,” it is amazing how fast the accusations and insults fly, much less the “you are leading people astray and you will pay for this one day,” type of comments. It makes it very difficult for women within the patriarchal circles to even admit to wondering about some of the camp’s conclusions, much less do it openly.

Comment by Craighton

September 17, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

Notice my careful wording in comment #1. I did not call for any warpaths but for new, stronger approaches. CBE is a creative organization and adds new ministries every once in awhile. This blog is a good recent example. The CBE presence at the Cornerstone conference/concert/happening is certainly another. But I would like us to start thinking about new strong but wise ways to confront the sin of evil gender teaching, including both group efforts and individual ministries.

What those actions might be, I don’t know. I’m not good at confronting, and my guess is that many CBE members may not be good at it either. While CBE has conferences, publishes books, magazines and tapes, and generally is not shy about making its views known, I don’t think you could say it is a verbally confrontational organization. With CBE’s intelligent and gifted membership, however, I’m sure we could come up with quite a few new [and challenging!] ideas.

I’d like to see us do a better job at reaching Joe and Jane Average-Church-Goer at the pew level. I mean functional (for all intents and purposes) non-readers.

Comment by Kathryn

September 17, 2006 @ 9:24 pm

One way we may reach them is to read their complementarian blogs and post comments on them. I’ve been doing that lately, and my comments have sparked a lot of good discussion. Also, continue to buy egalitarian books and magazines, and put them in church libraries. I’ve been doing that too. People do actually use church libraries.

Comment by phred

September 18, 2006 @ 4:45 pm

I would suggest we think about how successful the comps have been and learn from them, without the fear mongering they constantly engage in of course. For example, a simple book in question and answer format to answer the usual litany of questions you get from them. “What about the creation order?” “Wasn’t Eve Adam’s helper?” “Adam named Eve, doesn’t that imply his authority?” “What’s wrong with saying equal but different in roles?” We all could list them out. A sharp book along these lines would be beneficial. If there already is one, great, but maybe it needs to be revised. I have found numerous great resources on the web, and I save them and give them out. But I also wonder if anybody who is asking questions about this will find them too.

To be crass, and to agree with Craighton, I’m talking materials and books for “non readers”. This is what the comps are producing and they are doing well it seems to me. Rebecca M. Groothuis makes the point well I think in Good News for Women, that the argument we make is more nuanced. Comps quote 1 Tim 2:12 and walk away. We need to equip people to think sharply and quickly with a response.

One example that comes to mind. About 4 months ago on Ben Witherington’s blog, he posted his understanding of 1 Tim 2:8-15. It was brilliant. The comments that followed were even more brilliant as Ben and others patiently defended the view from all the typical arguments. I have saved that whole blog discussion, have pointed others to it, and it has easily been one of the most effective tools of education on this issue I’ve used.

I’m telling you this: the average comp pastor and congregation really has no idea the strength of the exegetical arguments that have been put forward by Linda Bellville, for instance (or any number of others). They do not read these people, they only read the reviews by their favorite experts over at CBMW. But when I get them reading it Bellville/Groothuis/Witherington and others? The questions start to flow, the argument takes shape, and liberation happens.

My 2 cents….

Comment by Lori

September 19, 2006 @ 2:42 am

In terms of the original post, Mars Hill is far from the only Christian ministry pushing this message; they’re simply the most radical. I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from Focus on the Family, where readers can send in questions. Today’s question came from a woman finishing up college. She wants to attend graduate school, but her fiance’s career is going to take him to a different city. What should she do? Here was their advice.

Or do you mean a supportive wife who puts her husband’s career above her own? If that’s the case, then your bigger challenge is to reassess your idea of what it means to be in a Christian marriage. Because Scripturally, preferring your husband’s career before your own applies to more than just military couples.

When God made Eve, He did so in order to meet Adam’s need for a helper. Women were designed to help. And men were designed to need help. When we follow the biblical model — our created design — we fit together in a complementary way.

You need to be able to fit in with him.

[emphasis mine throughout]

And later in the response, we get:

In the end, your decision comes down to your priorities. Either it’s marriage to this man or grad school and the career that will follow. If you decide marriage, then you have to at least be willing to lay down your career aspirations if they conflict with his…

I realize that our culture sees nothing out of the ordinary when a couple weighs equally his and her career options with the goal being to balance both. But in a biblical marriage, God’s design for a man to take responsibility for headship and provision makes his career primary. That doesn’t mean she shouldn’t get an education or even pursue a career track, but her career will, at some point, require flexibility that his doesn’t.

And as an added bonus, the woman writing the response refers back to the old stereotype that “if you pursue a career you won’t get married.”

But keep in mind if you walk away, another opportunity like this may not come along. There are no guarantees. As one Boundless reader recently wrote,

I’ve spent most of my 28 years of life setting and attaining goals, seemingly for the purpose of filling the black hole that was my ego. Now I find that the more I submit to the Lord, the greater are my desires for a husband and family…. I would gladly trade my six-figure salary and law degree for a home, a husband and children. I wonder if I’ve missed my chance.

[Note: Boundless is FOTF's relationship magazine.]

As I said above, that’s not quite as radical as “women can’t work outside of the home, period.” However, I see the two messages as being on the same continum. “Women can work outside of the home, BUT they need to be willing to sacrifice their job for their husband, since his job will always take priority. A woman who does that will be a good Christian, because that’s the role God ordained for her in marriage.”

And this comes from one of the largest Christian organizations in America.

Comment by Lori

September 19, 2006 @ 3:00 am

Re: #5

I almost feel, to be honest, as if I am coming out of a cult. I know that sounds weird, but it is incredibly difficult to re-think these things without constantly worrying that you are in rebellion, that you are falling from God’s good favor, that you are not respecting His word, that you are out of His will for even asking the questions, etc…

Molly, I’ve never said this publicly because I didn’t want to be offensive. However, I, too, have thought over the years that the hard-core comp. movement resembles a cult. In all my experiences trying to talk to a comp., the most common response I got was anger. It wasn’t anger at the evidence I presented, it was anger at the very idea that I dared to challenge God’s Word. After all, it says right there in plain English that women aren’t supposed to have authority over men, so any questioning of that is just an attempt to pervert the Bible. I have also heard mild comps. who just want to live in peace say that they’ve been viciously and personally attacked by the hard-cores for not believing in every single thing that the comp. movement teaches.

And I think a lot of that comes from the patriarchal camp’s assertions that it’s their way or it’s wrong… As I openly process my “exodus,” it is amazing how fast the accusations and insults fly, much less the “you are leading people astray and you will pay for this one day,” type of comments.

Molly, take comfort in the fact that you are not alone. Susan Wise Bauer used to be a comp. and a huge leader in the homeschooling movement. Then she coverted to the egal. cause, and my stars, you wouldn’t believe how badly she has been attacked on her own blog. You would think she had converted to the New Age movement or something. And I’m sure the two of you are not alone.

Comment by LJR

September 19, 2006 @ 8:22 am

Molly, I too am an escapee from the Land of Comp, and I’ve said and felt many of the things you’ve described. Stepping out of that kind of bondage is hard, but it’s worth it. The lingering doubts about whether you are in rebellion do pass because you aren’t in rebellion when you embrace your freedom in Christ. The road ahead isn’t an easy one, but you aren’t walking it alone.

Comment by Kathryn

September 19, 2006 @ 11:44 pm

Did anyone ever note the irony that Barbara Billingsley, the actress who played June Cleaver, was herself a working mother? Food for thought.

Comment by Gorhendad

September 19, 2006 @ 11:45 pm

After attending Mars Hill for about a year and a half now, I have concluded that the complementarian position of the elders is one of the greatest detriments to whatever the church seeks to do.

The teaching elders at Mars Hill are fixated on gender roles. They seem to have a compulsive need to push the cause of complementarianism whenever they can slip it in.

They say many things that I feel are unnecessarily antagonistic towards women. I wonder if Pastor Driscoll understands the reaction of women in the congregation when he uses the words “whorish”, “butch”, “femininist” and “demonic” in a single sermon to describe women who do not conform to his definition of complementarian behavior.

Is that chivalry? (Chivalry being a description of complementarianism from the same sermon.) Am I to trust a pastor who says those things about perfectly respectable women who simply differ from his complementarian views?

An acquaintance heard that sermon and kept saying over and over that he didn’t understand why Pastor Driscoll used extreme language like that. And that acquaintance basically agrees with the idea of male headship!

I think that among women who faithfully attend and even serve the church, there is a certain sense of distrust and concern regarding how the male elders and leaders at Mars Hill will treat them.

The people above who mentioned that complementarians seem to be angry are absolutely correct. Mark Driscoll seems angry at any rejection of complementarianism. The counseling pastor at Mars Hill, Leif Moi, seems angry at any rejection of complementarianism. Their anger indicates that their approach to this issue is warped. They will never be very credible in claiming that complementarians love and protect women unless they start protecting women from their own verbal excesses.

Comment by Lori

September 20, 2006 @ 4:45 am

How do you spread the Kingdom truth of equality for women? I’ve been pondering that for quite some time now, so here’s a few thoughts.

To begin with, you need to define your audience. It’s no good trying to reach the majority of the comps, or at least the comp men. They’re content to listen to whatever their leaders tell them–egals are disgruntled feminists out to destroy Christianity–and so they can simply dismiss you without even trying to consider what you say.

Therefore, who else would respond to this message? Many comp. women won’t. They believe the lies that they are told and are quite happy to defend them (in my experience, it’s the comp. women who are the most vocal defenders of the movement). Crucially, however, there are women like Molly, women who harbor private doubts but may not be able to express them out of fear of the consequences. There are also many women who have left the church, and even Christianity itself because of the oppression they felt. And of course, there is the younger generation. Many of them are spiritually seeking, and with our modern culture would find it offensive that anybody would seek to deny women the rights within the church that they have outside of it. So there’s your target audience: disaffected women and young people.

Now, how do you get the message to the audience? With great difficulty, because the Christian media is dominanted by comps. Here are just a few examples.

–I belong to the forum on a site that bills itself as “the largest Christian website in the world.” The chief moderator of that site is heavily comp, and punishes anyone who dares speak the egal. view. In fact, he won’t allow you to post a link to CBE because he considers it an offensive website! And so many women have been banished for speaking their egal. minds, that they set up their own forum as a protest. On the website that hosts this “comp.” forum, I have never seen anything written by an egal. I have, however, seen plenty of articles written by leading comps.

–I frequently buy books from what I consider the Christian version of Amazon, You can find egal. books there–but only if you search for them by name. You never see those books mentioned in their catalogue or on their website.

–Ever walked into a mainstream Christian bookstore? When’s the last time you saw an egal. book there? In fact, the Evangelical Publishing Association nominated Wayne Grudem’s Bible translation for Bible of the Year!

So how do you get the message out? Well, blogs and books are a good start. However, only egals. tend to read egal. books, and the comps. who visit blogs are only a tiny fraction of their group. Setting up booths at festivals like Cornerstone is a good idea. However, those festivals tend to be frequented only by younger people, which leaves out your disaffected women.

What you need is a modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr. You need a leader who can reach out across the groups and force people to realize that there’s a problem in American Christianity that has to be dealt with for the good of its soul. That leader should also meet certain other criteria.

1. She should be a woman. I know there are many fine men who support the egal. cause–my husband is one of them. You don’t understand what it’s like, though. You are still part of the privileged class. You don’t know what it’s like to suffer under the comp. movement. In the same way, many wonderful white people fought in the civil rights movement, but they still couldn’t truly understand what it meant to African-Americans.

2. She should have a charismatic personality. We can probably all think of a time when we fell asleep during a sermon or speech. Many people have wonderful ideas; not all of them can communicate those ideas well. And not everybody has the ability to inspire people to follow them. The egal. movement needs somebody who can do both. They need somebody who will give the disaffected people courage to step forward and say, “I don’t agree with this, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

3. She has to have the ability to communicate with the masses. The problem with the egal. movement is that it’s too intellectual. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; there have been many tremendous advances in biblical scholarship that have helped us understand more fully what Paul meant. However, to most average laypeople, all that scholarship is wasted. They simply don’t understand it so they tune it out. A classsic example of this is my husband. On a practical level, he has no problem with women ministers like me. However, when I start reading articles from CBE to him, his eyes glaze over. He just doesn’t get all that Greek and knee-deep scholarship. If the egal. movement is going to be successful, then, we are going to have to move out of the ivory tower and down to the level of ordinary people. We are going to have to simplify the message. In our modern era, people will respond much more to a message of oppression in the name of religion than they will to a theological debate over the meaning of some Greek word.

Again, MLK is a great example of this. If memory serves correctly, he had a PhD. And yet, in all his civil rights speeches, he never used technical language. Instead, he concentrated on the basic unfairness of the issue and communicated it in simple, beautiful language that touched hearts as well as minds.

3. This next part is going to be controversial, but here goes. The egal. movement needs somebody who will force American Christians to confront this issue. Now listen very carefully to what I am saying here. I don’t mean “force” as in getting angry and ranting at the other side. I mean “force” as in making people deal with the issue instead of running away from it. Right now Christendom is divided in two: those who support women’s equality and those who don’t. Those who do have their own denominations and pretty much let the comps do what they want, as long as they stay “over there” in their own circles. Somebody has to make the church wake up and realize that this affects the Body as a whole.

Again, this has classic parallels with the civil rights movement. Racism existed in the South after the Civil War because the North was pretty much content to turn a blind eye and let the South go about its own business. MLK changed all that. In a non-violent and non-confrontational way, he forced the country to examine its conscience and decide if they wanted to be a country that would tolerate the oppression of black people.

4. She needs to come across as reasonable and intelligent. Right now the secular world thinks all Christians are ignorant yokels who lord it over their wives. The egal. leader needs to provide a new face for Christanity: that of an ordinary yet reasonable woman who simply wants basic human rights. Who can argue with that? Such an approach will gain the approval of the secular world and hopefully make some of them more willing to listen to the gospel.

Comment by Lori

September 20, 2006 @ 5:16 am

I’m sorry. I know I just made a lengthy post, but I have to say something. I just now got around to reading that Salon article in the origianl post, and it makes me so angry.

(The author of the article followed couples from Mars Hill around for a few days.)

One June evening, I arrive at the small, pleasant home of Dietz and his wife Sarah to meet their kids and join them for dinner. Sarah is clearly exhausted from caring all day for two children, cleaning the house, setting the table, and preparing a nice meal…As Dietz carries on about church affairs and lectures about the importance of children’s obedience, Sarah serves the meal, cuts the children’s food, minds their behavior and eating, and clears the table.

….

Like every woman I’ve gotten to know at Mars Hill, Sarah talks about her appointed role within the church not in terms of subjugation but in the language of difference feminism. She tells me a sisterhood forms between women who celebrate their domestic roles and talents as offered from God, delivered unto their children, marriages, and community as part of his “perfect plan.”

At the end of the evening, when I go into the kitchen to help Sarah with the dishes, she confesses that she’d love to go back to school for her master’s degree, but she just can’t see finding the time. “I guess it’s just not part of the plan,” she says in a soft, distracted voice.

And then it gets better.

For Judy Abolafya, a young mother in her early thirties, it was harder to come around to the Driscolls’ version of what a woman should be. As she sets out coffee cake on the kitchen table in her Seattle apartment, straining to be heard over her infant daughter’s cries, Abolafya tells me without apology that she never wanted to have children. She shudders as her daughter wails, shaking her auburn ponytail. “Listening to her like that just grates on me.” She grimaces. In a high chair at the table, her toddler, Asher, glumly pokes at blocks of cheese with grubby fingers, periodically mashing them into a paste he rubs into his black Metallica T-shirt. “Let’s face it. Asher is whiny and clingy and talks back. It’s dull and tedious here — there are myriad things I don’t enjoy about being at home, but it’s a responsibility.”

….

At a weekly Bible study class at a Mars Hill pastor’s home, Abolafya first heard about the doctrine of wifely submission. The pastor’s wife gave Abolafya a book to study called “The Fruit of Her Hands,” which can essentially be summed up in Ephesians 5:22: “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.” When Abolafya stretched out on her couch one evening to read the first chapter of the book, she screamed and threw it across the room. But she prayed to God and was led back to the Bible, to understand Wilson’s perspective. In the Bible, Abolafya found story after story about women being willfully deceived, following their own desires, wreaking travesty in their relationships and homes.

….

Abolafya no longer reads secular books or speaks to her old friends, She is now a deacon at Mars Hill and is responsible for planning the weddings held there, which always include a biblical explanation of marriage and gender roles; each year Mars Hill averages about one hundred marriages between couples within the congregation, all of whom must agree with this doctrine. Between her marriage ministry, the women’s Bible study she runs, her two small children, and taking care of her husband and her home, Abolafya says she doesn’t have time for many relationships anyway, and when she starts to home-school her kids soon, her time will be even tighter. “It’s not what I ever imagined,” she tells me, “or even what I ever wanted, but it’s my duty now, and I have to learn to live with that.”

And here’s the really scary part.

Radical conversions like Judy’s aren’t what Driscoll has in mind just for Seattle, but for the entire nation. During the late ’90s, a number of young people approached Driscoll for advice about starting their own churches. His response was to establish a church planting network called Acts 29, which has been growing rapidly ever since…

While cultural specifics — media, music, dress, attitude, and so on — vary widely in the churches that Acts 29 encourages nationwide, cultural politics do not. Most significantly, in founding the network, Driscoll has established a nationwide apparatus to push back women’s rights through the “liberation theology” of submission. The online application for church planting is an extremist screening device to this effect. It begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine. “We are not liberals,” it says. “We are not egalitarian.”

Oh, Lord, if this church is taking over America, then I’m staying right here in Britain. I will not live in a country that looks like that. If anybody wants to join me, we’ve got a spare bedroom…

And in the meantime, please Lord Jesus, send that MLK figure soon. We need her.

Comment by Beyond Words

September 20, 2006 @ 6:36 am

Gorendad, can you give us a link to that sermon, please?

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

September 20, 2006 @ 7:50 am

Thanks, Gorhendad, for the “insider’s” perspective. I think it’s telling that so many of the most vocal “complementarian” (patriarchy) advocates are so selective about which women they will be chivalrous toward. IF a woman agrees with what they say and “keeps her place,” they’re all sweetness and light with her. If, however, she challenges even the minor points of their beliefs, suddenly she has the “spirit of Jezebel” or is the “whore of Babylon” or is otherwise insulted as a woman. And I don’t mean how they respond to women who might refer to them in equally insulting terms (which I’ve seen happen), I mean merely refuting their beliefs. They seem to get angriest and resort to lies when women (or men) use scriptural grounds to reject their patriarchal beliefs. If you don’t interpret the Scriptures exactly as they do (which means you must yank verses out of context and read patriarchy into them), you’re “denying” or “twisting” the Bible to suit culture…yet it’s a distorted version of 1950′s middle-class American culture that *they’re* idolizing as handed straight down by the Divine hand!

It’s so clear to me, coming from outside the patriarchal camp, how misogynistic the system is. Really, it’s refreshing to hear you, as well as Molly and LJR and BeyondWords, bearing witness to your experience inside patriarchal churches. The false picture being presented is that everyone in those churches believes every little patriarchal point and it’s just us “carnal Christians” or “heretics” in the “liberal” churches that are “rejecting God’s design for men and women.” They seem to be expending a lot of energy on hiding the fact that there are miserable men and women who don’t fit the Ward and June molds and who are looking for a deeper, more genuine way to be the people God created them to be. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this.

Comment by Light M.

September 20, 2006 @ 7:58 am

I have recently been accused of being An Agent of the Evil One and “full of darkness” on one female subordinationist’s blog. Instead of explaining their case from scripture, they resort to name calling and mocking. It’s really quite sad. See the August 29 entry and comments, “Feminists’ scripture-twisting of mutual submission” and September 18th “Mutual submission is rebellion” at http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/ . It’s really quite disturbing that we have such individuals leading our churches today. I have since received emails from individuals that attended the church of this pastor, and the spiritual abuse they suffered was quite sickening. How do we respond to this? I am quite disheartened, and I don’t have any answers.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

September 20, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

I read that, Light, and it was disgraceful. I think the best thing to do is to keep on telling the truth about Scripture’s witness to eqality in Jesus Christ. This includes the truth that people such as the bloggers there, and so many other comp leaders, are wielding ungodly, world-style authority and using it to jockey positions of power for themselves. The same power struggles and self-serving hierarchies that are so ugly in the world are alive and well in too many pro-patriarchal churches. If you don’t believe this, just try making a respectful criticism of anything about such systems. You, too, can be called everything but a Christian!

The really sad thing is, as I recall, you showed Eph. 5:21 as the basis for mutual submission in marriage. TB edited that message shortly afterward to omit that reference and claim you had no scriptural foundation for your belief. The truth is, he couldn’t afford to include vs. 21 in any discussion about what he LIKES about Eph. 5, namely what he sees as two separate, dissimilar commands, one for wives and another for husbands. Gosh, put all that in context and (gasp), there IS support–irrefutable–for submitting to one another EVEN in marriage. Yep, you’re dangerous, Light. (The light usually is!)

Comment by Gorhendad

September 20, 2006 @ 11:19 pm

Beyond Words, the link to the sermon I was quoting is
http://www.marshillchurch.org/
You have to search their download section for the sermon on I Cor 11:2-16 “Under Authority Like Jesus”

Pastor Driscoll begins with a series of untruths, which he probably actually believes, such as the idea that egalitarianism teaches that men are bad and women are good, and that egalitarianism is synonymous with feminism.

The recorded version may be edited to mellow it down from his original remarks, but I suspect just about everything I heard will be in there.

Psalmist, I think it would probably be surprising to find out how many disgruntled people are sitting in complementarian churches. On the whole, I enjoy and learn from many of the sermons I hear at my church. It is a letdown when I discover the sermon will involve gender roles, because those sermons are inevitably edgy towards women. Likewise, Mars Hill is unreasonable in its expectations of men, and I feel sorry for any man who thinks he will be able to support a wife and children in Seattle on a single income, while affording a house, and a few other trappings of middle-class life.

I read an article in the Mars Hill newspaper, in which a writer named “Nadia” bemoaned the fact that one of her friends avoided getting too involved in the church, even though she attended services. Nadia couldn’t figure out why her friend would be so averse to participation. In fact, several women were in agreement that they were leery of the church. “Gee, I wonder why?” mused Nadia. I just chuckled to myself, because I figured I had a pretty good guess as to why those women were nervous.

Light, I have seen you commenting on the blog you mentioned above, and my admiration is great for you. You continue to debate seriously with an agent of Inflated Rhetoric, which is more than I could do.

Comment by Beyond Words

September 21, 2006 @ 7:56 am

Hey everyone, I’ve been burdened with a call to prayer about the gender issues in the church and have been praying continually as I go about my daily work and study and devotions. I just finished reading “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9 by Gordon Fee, and the light bulb turned on.

In so many passages we quibble about what Paul really meant and we make it more complicated than it really is. When Paul says in all those letters (Fee posits that many of the epistles circulated around from the same source, dealing with issues in Roman households) that “the husband is the head of the wife,” it makes sense that in Roman households, the husband WAS the head of the wife–both in the “source” sense as provider and the “authority” sense. So we don’t need to quibble about some esoteric meaning of the word “head.” Paul’s whole point was NOT that God ordained it that way–his point was that was the reality in Roman culture BUT Jesus had a radical new way of relating within that culture. He turned it upside down and inside out. If we miss that point, we are perpetuating the very sin Paul wanted us to overcome in Christ.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

September 21, 2006 @ 10:06 am

Thank you for all the wonderful conversation! Molly, LJR, and Gorendad thank you for sharing your personal stories. I think Lori’s post on what the egalitarian movement needs to do to get our message out should be put in a post on the front page. It’s an excellent post.

I agree with those who said we need to put out resources that are for the ordinary church goer. That is one of my goals with my website and my own writing: getting the egalitarian message out in a non-scholary fashion that your average Christian will read.

Kathryn, no I had never thought of Barbara Billingsley being a working mother–but she was! There’s just all sorts of irony there.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

September 21, 2006 @ 11:12 am

BeyondWords, you’re exactly right about that cultural context, though I’m convinced that the semantics of the Ephesians head+body metaphor does NOT connote an authority “role” for the husband. Yes, that’s what reality was for the 1st-century Christians, and yes, today the pro-patriarchy Christians glom onto “head” and make it all about authority. We can’t NOT deal with this, because THEY make it the linch-pin of their “support” for patriarchy as God’s way. They’re reading authority of men over women into every possible passage, and quite a few impossible ones, then teaching uninformed Christians that they must accept this twisted interpretation or else be [insert religious insult du jour here].

It boils down to pro-patriarchy people insisting on blending American traditional (mid-20th century) culture–one income, women have no/give up career upon marriage–with 1st century Greco-Roman upper-class culture–husband/father has full temporal authority over wife/children, women have no place/voice in public gatherings, and teaching that this blend is “biblical.” The trouble is, they’re imposing bits and pieces of both cultures. They can’t do it wholescale for several reasons: 1. Our current cultural context is vastly different from both; 2. Women have secular legal rights that were unheard of in the 1st century and unexercised by many women at mid-20th century; and 3. Much of the church has recognized the flaws in exegesis that permit this kind of extrabiblical teaching and now teach more accurately, thus giving Christians access to the truth to counter the extrabiblical applications.

This gets very tricky to convey. Women in these patriarchal systems get taught from birth that their value centers around their potential to be wives and mothers who submit to their husbands’ authority (note, the Bible says that people submit to other PEOPLE, not to authority; this distinction is invariably ignored by patriarchalists). Meanwhile, they’re also taught that a worthy man is one who measures up to the highly subjective secular cultural standards of “masculinity” (robust, outdoorsy, adventurous, “Wild at Heart-like,” a good “leader”–usually means authoritarian in leadership style). They’re taught, a la RBMW, that God ordained it this way before the Fall, that holiness requires submission to these “roles” (again, biblical submission is to people, not to roles). They’re taught that any deviation from this is suspect, evidence of capitulation to current secular culture. And they include acceptance and practice of biblical equality as deviation from “God’s design.” I’ve read story after story describing this, and I’ve read the accusations from pro-patriarchalists–including women–leveled at those who tell such stories.

Make no mistake: in some Christian pro-patriarchy circles, they’re considering the situation a war to be won at all cost. We Christian egalitarians are called the enemy. I can see why. Since patriarchy is so far off the mark of God’s intention, the call to biblical equality is a threat to much that the patriarchalists hold dear: positions of power for husbands and male church leaders and a system that encourages men to seek such positions for themselves with women and other men supporting them in their quest. Nobody to tell them it’s wrong, except the pesky egalitarians. So we just get cast as the enemy, not a part of the body of Christ, so we can be called liars and be ignored.

That’s why it’s so good to hear people from within such systems telling the truth, too. Yes, I don’t doubt that plenty of people are/appear to be happy as clams within patriarchal churches and homes. But I now know many who could not reconcile their confessed faith with the heavy yoke of patriarchy, and so have come out of such systems, often at considerable cost to themselves. I know it can’t be easy, but brothers and sisters, I pray that you find your renewed freedom in Christ to be well worth the struggle.

Comment by Dana Ames

September 21, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

Reading through the comments, the suggestions and actions talked about are what I mean. Keep talking about it without vilifying others.

Lori, I agree with you about the parallels to the civil rights issues in MLK’s day, and the need for visible persons in leadership. I think in the current climate it would be good for egalitarian men to be VERY visible and vocal. I think that would give the complementarians much more to think about that would not be easily dismissed. Remember that it took a white president and white legislatures to get the laws introduced and passed that put an end to official segregation/racism. Black voices were there, and they made people really think and reconsider- and the changes solidified when those who actually held the power became willing to do the work needed to open the doors for everyone.

Gorhendad, I greatly appreciate your voice here. I find I have to limit my exposure to Driscoll because I get so angry. If I keep my distance, I can even pray for him.

God bless all of you, and may he fill us with wisdom and grace.
Dana

Comment by Kathryn

September 21, 2006 @ 1:49 pm

Let’s see: Jane Wyatt, the actress who played Margaret Anderson of Father Knows Best, and Harriet Nelson of Ozzie and Harriet-both were mothers who worked outside the home! What delicious irony!

Comment by Kathryn

September 21, 2006 @ 7:33 pm

Thank you Dana and Lori. Both of you made points worth pondering about the civil rights movement, and our own need for such. Yes, it took black voices and leadership to raise the issues of justice and injustice; that was a part of black empowerment, and white people had no reason to change until they did. (In some ways, they still haven’t, but things are much better). It also took white leaders, once black America had forced the discussion, to effect changes that ended official American apartheid. It will take female voices and leaders to empower women, and male voices to help bring about loving change.

Comment by Kathryn

September 21, 2006 @ 8:27 pm

Light: Thank you for providing that link. I have begun commenting over there too. Glancing casually through the comments, I have seen the abusive things that have been said about you and me, and I have only to say this: Don’t worry about it. Don’t respond to it. Just keep on feeding them the Word of God. Persevere. Remember, Jesus was called a drunkard and a glutton (of course, He wasn’t guilty) and a friend of sinners (of that He was quite guilty, praise His Holy Name!), but He never responded to deny the accusations. He only responded by giving His accusers more of the Word of God.

Comment by Renee

September 21, 2006 @ 9:26 pm

Hello all,

1. I find that the last comment bothered me:

“Remember that it took a white president and white legislatures to get the laws introduced and passed that put an end to official segregation/racism. Black voices were there, and they made people really think and reconsider- and the changes solidified when those who actually held the power became willing to do the work needed to open the doors for everyone.”

I take issue with that because it makes it sound like the white president and legislature at the time were benevolent, justice-seeking people who somehow did something worthy of reward or applause by ending racial segregation. I have no doubt that they did the right thing. But I think of it more as doing the right thing in terms of repenting of the oppression they had inherited from their forefathers. In the Bible, it would be like saying that the Egytians were to be credited with providing the funding for the Israelites’ exodus from slavery. Yet we never think of them in quite that benevolent light. I, as a black woman, feel no gratitude towards white legislature who made it possible for me to legally have the same rights as white people in America. I think of their actions more in terms of justice finally come, a wrong finally righted, than as a great act of kindness done to me or anyone else. The greatest kindness inherent in such an action is kindness to themselves, making their own influence of the world line up just a bit more with God’s justice.

The issue of racial oppression has to do with gender oppression, because the question common to both is, How do we deal with injustice?

I say, every power is temporary except God’s. There is no justice but God’s. I know that God will bring justice when He’s ready. So I don’t fret about the injustices I suffer. We may not need a leader. We might need to just listen to God, insist on serving Him, and insist on consistently speaking the truth in love. The mechanisms of the civil rights movement were not as important as people’s faith in God. I think it’s important to see that God is the source of justice. It was not the actions of the legislature that gave justice in the end, but God. And He would have given justice even if the legislature had refused to change the segregation laws. So, we don’t need to focus on what people who don’t agree with the egalitarian viewpoint can do to open doors, or even on what they are doing to stop the movement. I think you (this you is plural) are rightfully angry, but be careful not to let anger overtake you.

- (This is not a judgment on you, Dana. I don’t know you. I can’t make judgments on you.)

2. Although I have not been to Mark Driscoll’s church, so the firsthand observer’s comments may weigh more than mine here, having read the Salon article I have several thoughts on the issue. I think we should take note of the fact that the author uses exceptionally hyberbolic language. She does not always support her facts: all evangelicals, in her mind, think and act that way and apparently there is a horde of “evangelicals” who are carbon-copies of these people out to invade the nation. Should we really allow ourselves to believe such an article? This one kind of reminds me of one I read last Spring that moved me nearly to tears- Vanity Fair had an article about evangelicals that threw a wide net. Everyone who was evangelical there, who believed the Bible was the true perfect Word of God ended up painted over as warmongers who believed everything in the Left Behind series and were actively trying to politically engineer endtimes prophecy.

I laughed and cried. It was heartbreaking. It was like looking at myself distorted in a mirror in a funny house. Is it possible that this article is another twisted mirror through which we look at others who oppose us?

Comment by Lori

September 23, 2006 @ 3:02 am

Shawna (#22), do you have a link to your website? Maybe we could post some comments and help you.

Well, here we go again. Do y’all remember a while ago I talked about this new book for singles called Getting Serious About Getting Married by Debbie Maken? In it, she advocates that single women stay at home until they get married, and let their fathers screen all their potential relationships. Well, this week, Candace Watters from Boundless is talking about the story of Ruth and Boaz, and how a man should always initate a relationship. She mentions Maken’s book.

Ruth’s is not an ideal story — the norm we should strive for — but a story of redemption in difficult circumstances. Debbie Maken reminded me of that when I read her book, Getting Serious about Getting Married. In it, she points out that the stories of Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob and Rachel, not Ruth, are the biblical norm for family formation. Unlike Ruth, those women had fathers and extended families who took an active part in helping them marry well and in a timely fashion. She writes,

“The Bible does include stories of women who didn’t have a family agency working on their side, showing the vulnerability of flying solo…. Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, an elderly woman herself, hardly qualifies as an adequate covering with bargaining power because her idea of sending Ruth to the threshing room floor in the middle of the night was fraught with danger, physical harm, and costs to Ruth’s reputation…. Ruth represents a widow in a rather exceptional situation. Rachel and Rebekah represent much more accurately what God intends for us through the protection of family and an active and negotiating father…. It’s far better to be in the protected place of Rachel and Rebekah than in the perilous position of Ruth.”

When I read that, I burst out laughing. Let’s take a look at the marriages of Rebekah and Rachel, shall we?

In Genesis 24:50-51, Laban and Bethuel (Rebekah’s brother and father) say to Abraham’s servant, …”This is from the Lord; we can say nothing to you one way or the other. Here is Rebekah; take her and go, and let her become the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has directed.” So essentially, they give her away.

In vs. 67, it says Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death. This is probably why, by implication, Maken thinks the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah was a success.

But was it? In chapter 27, Rebekah connives with her son Jacob to lie to Isaac and deny the other son Esau his birthright. Jacob hesitates, and Rebekah talks him into it! If this family were alive today, they’d probably be on “Oprah” or even “Jerry Springer.” And this is an example of marrying well?

And poor Rachel. Yes, Jacob loved her–but Rachel’s father, Laban, never consults with her about her marriage. Just like Rebekah, Rachel’s marriage is arranged between the male parties involved. And then her father spends the next several years lying and trying to cheat her husband. (Is that an example of protecting your daughter?) Rachel eventually lies to her father after she steals some valuable objects from him. Again, this family would be on Jerry Springer today. And these two stories are supposed to be a convincing reason why women should return to patriarchy?

And what’s this about “negotiating father”? Doesn’t that imply that each party gives something to the other? So the father gives his daughter away, and the new son-in-law gives the father–what? What’s the modern price for a bride? Do they still deal in camels?

And you’ve got to love the phrase “marrying in a timely manner.” Rebekah and Rachel were probably married off in their early teens. (Many biblical experts believe the Virgin Mary was only about 13 or 14.) So what’s the new modern marrying age? 18? 20? Does that mean my marriage is against God’s will, since I got married at 30? Or is it valid because my British husband gave my father a box of tea “in exchange” for me? (It was a joke my husband played at our wedding reception, and I thought it was quite cute. According to Waters and Maken, though, I guess we should have made it a solemn ceremony. Maybe we should have included it in the wedding?)

Comment by Dana Ames

September 23, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

Renee, I don’t feel judged by you. I’m glad you commented.

I have no illusions about the motivations of those white legislators; I’m sure they were all over the map. I think that for some number of them it was not at all about kindness, or even repenting of the wrongs of their forefathers, and certainly not justice- it was simply political expediency. And you are absolutely right that justice is God’s alone. May it be spread abroad among us.

Thank you for adding to my understanding.
Dana

Comment by Kathryn

September 23, 2006 @ 4:00 pm

Renee: Thank you for your firsthand insight. I think the point we were trying to make here was not that benevolent white leaders were in there pitching for civil rights, for clearly that was not the case. Most of them hated civil rights, with some exceptions. They resisted. They still do, to some degree, although changes have come. I myself remember at least some of that resistance, and I am white. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and other civil rights leaders must take full credit for saying “I’m tired of being mistreated, I’m tired of my people being mistreated, and we’re not going to take it any more.” Of course, nothing was ever going to happen until they did.

Our point was that, as much as we long for oppressed people to be empowered and rising up and forcing the majority to look at you is a critical part of that empowerment. The clear sometimes cruel fact is that laws are not passed or repealed until a few of the privileged class finally get involved, maybe not from the kindness of their hearts, but still, even reluctantly, involved for whatever reason. I know that you know this from first-hand experience. They might not even know why they get involved, but God does, as you so wisely implied! It is the same way with attitudes, which are harder to change than laws.

In the same vein, I believe Biblical equality will take both male and female voices partnering together, first because God made it that way from the beginning (would we have it any other way?); secondly, because with the Holy Spirit’s leadership all women are potential female MLK’s; and thirdly, whether we like it or not, men have most of the authority in the church, and we know why.

As to justice, you have a great deal of godly wisdom. Good teaching without Divine leadership dissipates into bad attitudes, and on occasion, corresponding actions, and threatens to undo the very things you are trying to accomplish. Apparently, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about evangelicals. Painting everyone who shares that label with too broad a brush isn’t fair or accurate.

Lori, I agree: Maken and Watters are rehashing old rules that are patriarchal in nature and unworkable in too many cases. What’s the “going rate” for a bride these days, anyone? Shawna, please let us know your website address. I know of some authors that are down-to-earth and readable, yet informative too.

Comment by Dana Ames

September 23, 2006 @ 7:22 pm

See this site for an interesting post from September 22 by one of my favorite bloggers, sociologist Jenell Paris:

http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2006/09/young_pastors_m.html

She is sharing some observations and questions as a sociologist and a woman. Comments there are usually thoughtful and non-polemic.

Dana

Comment by Gorhendad

September 24, 2006 @ 12:14 am

Hi Renee,

I wanted to comment on your message.

I agree that people who write articles about Mars Hill or other evangelical churches or movements often generalize. It is very difficult to write about any group of people without being an insider. When secular journalists try to write about evangelicals, it is usually comical. When “The Passion” came out, journalists attributed medieval Catholic beliefs, like blood libel, to modern Christians. The Christians I know were asking each other “What IS blood libel, anyway?”

Many in the media elite have a hard time distinguishing modern Catholicism from older versions, and they tend to forget that Protestants separated from Catholicism several hundred years ago. Perhaps they understand the distinctions but prefer to misrepresent people’s beliefs.

I noticed the overall impression of those who commented on the Mars Hill article was that they believed that Mars Hill was coercive towards women, and edging towards a cult mindset.

On one hand, there are pressures on women to conform to certain stereotypes due to the teachings of the church. Pastor Driscoll is charismatic enough to gain a cultic following if he ever chose to do so.

On the other hand, I do not see anything close to the high-commitment, high-control environment one would find in a cult. The pastor seems to sincerely want to make Jesus the focal point of the church and repeats the centrality of Jesus week after week. He calls complementarianism a secondary issue, although it often doesn’t feel that way during his sermons. People aren’t afraid to disagree with him regarding doctrinal issues and he often mentions that people like to corner him and argue about Calvinism.

The church is extremely informal and seems to seek to serve and meet needs of people coming through the doors. There are four services to choose from: 9, 11, 5, 7. People come and go as they wish during the services. Some people only stay for the sermon. Some come late and skip the music. People seem to mill around everywhere at all times. The most common sight where I sit is a parent patiently following a journeying toddler.

I have never been approached by someone trying to ferret information from me, or trying to get me to participate in some activity or another. I am not aware of any sort of controlling discipleship programs or the suchlike.

Complementarianism is overemphasized at the church. Additionally, there are many young people and new converts who do not think critically and tend to follow the teaching elders. This is a maturity issue, and not confined to Mars Hill.

However, no one in the general congregation is being forced into doing anything. Rather some people choose to surrender their responsibility to think for themselves and blindly follow the pastor’s opinions.

Comment by sally

September 24, 2006 @ 12:43 am

This is really apropos of nothing that’s gone before… I just wanted to tell you all my husband’s reaction to the ‘wifey-poo’ stereotype.

A friend wrote me an email the other day telling me about a hard time she’d had in her marriage. Her thoughts were: “How can I be a submissive wife in this difficult relationship when I don’t even think he likes me any more, and when I just don’t like him?”

My husband read the email and said to me: “That system of ‘woman is passive and says nothing to man’ is impossible in a marriage. If she can’t confront him, it puts so much on the men to be absolutely godly all the time, and I don’t think we can do that!”

Yeah, baby. Power shared is power misused much less!

Comment by Lainie Petersen

September 24, 2006 @ 11:48 am

The complimentarians/patriarchalists are very clever in their use/misuse of language. Methinks that some of them have had training from Madison Avenue copywriters!

They frequently make legitimate critiques of modern culture which, in my humble opinion, any thoughtful Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) would want to take seriously. Careerism is a bane upon society, and modern methods of mate selection leave something to be desired.

But once they appeal to the “common sense” of the reader, they then insert their own agenda into the discussion. The solution to rampant careerism is for women to give up notions of a career altogether, and for men to reconsider their own career in light of their “headship” responsiblities. The solution to objectifying dating practices is for fathers to control their children’s love lives, oftentimes to disturbing extremes. Less careful readers may not be aware of what the complimentarian/patriarchalist writer has just done, and they may find themselves shaking their heads in agreement as they read.

I’d love to see feminists/egalitarians take action in this regard, by offering up their own cultural critiques that don’t involve patriarchial “solutions”.

Comment by Mike

September 24, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

Re: Harriet Nelson–

Let’s not press the analogy too far…Harriet’s “outside the home” job was singing in her husband Ozzie’s band…nod nod wink wink

But the point is well-taken. We would not have these icons of “biblical femininity” if the actresses who played them were stay-at-home moms!

Comment by ShawnaRenee

September 25, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

My website is at Shawna R. B. Atteberry. And I agree with Dana: Janell’s post at Generous Orthodoxy is very good along with the discussion going on the comments.

Comment by Kathryn

September 25, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

We could add one more name to that: Donna Reed, who played Donna Stone in her own show. Donna Reed actually complained about the two-dimensional women on TV, and eventually dropped out because she had had enough of producers and their limited view of women. Oh well, I could name others but I must stop with her. Harriet Nelson was also the set decorator and clothes designer for her show. Of course, some would say that that is a “feminine” role, but she was doing it at the studio!

Comment by Karl

September 25, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

Please. This is a lame attempt to exalt women to jobs that God didn’t ordain. Deborah stepped in to lead, through God’s providence, because Barak was a coward.

You cannot honestly read the Bible and see that there is inequality between man and woman. But if you read the Bible honestly, it’s obvious that men and women are given different roles by God.

To deny these obvious truths and themes from the Bible simply reveals deception and a blind reading of God’s holy Word.

Comment by Lori

September 26, 2006 @ 4:29 am

Renee(#28), I remember reading that a lot of Congressmen didn’t want to vote for the Civil Rights Act. LBJ had to do a lot of arm-twisting and calling in of favors to get the Act passed. So I tend to agree with your feelings that civil rights legislation was not passed out of a sense of doing the right thing, but as simply another political deal.

Re: #33

A friend wrote me an email the other day telling me about a hard time she’d had in her marriage. Her thoughts were: “How can I be a submissive wife in this difficult relationship when I don’t even think he likes me any more, and when I just don’t like him?”

Sally, remember how I talked about the “largest Christian website in the world”? Well, in the Marriage section of their forum women frequently post a question like that. “My husband is viewing porn/verbally abuses me/runs around with other women. How can I continue to be a submissive wife if I don’t like his behavior?” And the usual response is: “Just pray for him. Other than that, there’s nothing you can really do.”

Every time I read something like that, I don’t know whether to get angry or sick to my stomach.

Re: #32
Gorenhad, I certainly agree that the mainstream secular press cannot seem to portray Christianity positively to save their lives. Virtually everything you hear from them makes us all seem like ignorant twits who believe in subjugating women. However, I still believe there are valid concerns about Mars Hill that need to be expressed.

For me, the stories of the women in the article are pretty clear. One has to do all the housework and childrearing while her husband sits around and chats with the men. Another is given a book that portrays the women of the Bible as being willfully deceived, following their own desires, wreaking travesty in their relationships and homes. And the remedy? Women must submit and give up all their dreams and desires, but never the men. They must accept the “duty” of staying home and raising children, even if they don’t like it. Like many other comp. women, it appears the women of Mars Hill are being brainwashed into believing that women are inferior and that they need the authority of men or they’ll ruin their lives. Yes, technically, these women are adults, but how many of them would have the courage to voice their doubts and disagreements? How many would have the courage to pack up and leave when over and over they’re told God will punish them if they do? Ask any of the former comp. women who have posted here and they can tell you that it’s incredibly difficult for a woman to speak up in comp. circles.

The same applies even if the husbands agree with their wives. [Weddings at Mars Hill] always include a biblical explanation of marriage and gender roles; each year Mars Hill averages about one hundred marriages between couples within the congregation, all of whom must agree with this doctrine.

My father has been a pastor for most of his life. While he requires couples to undergo counseling before he’ll marry them, he never requires them to agree with a doctrinal statement or even with Christianity itself. The fact that Mars Hill couples are required to admit publicly that they believe in the extreme misogynism preached by the leaders is, I believe, a form of “enforcement.” Once a couple has done that, will they have the courage to pack up and leave that church?

The pastor seems to sincerely want to make Jesus the focal point of the church and repeats the centrality of Jesus week after week.

Jesus would never endorse what Wilson teaches about women there. Ever. And neither would Paul.

People aren’t afraid to disagree with him regarding doctrinal issues and he often mentions that people like to corner him and argue about Calvinism.

I wonder how many of those disagreeing are women? The women profiled in the article certainly didn’t seem like they had the courage to disagree.

I am not aware of any sort of controlling discipleship programs or the suchlike.

See my comments above. Those women sound pretty controlled. And given that this church makes a huge deal out of how “we are not egalitarians” and “the Bible teaches you must believe in male headship/authority” in order to start a new church with their name, I simply can’t believe the women in that article are rare exceptions that the author plucked out to make the church look bad.

Comment by LJR

September 26, 2006 @ 8:27 am

Karl: So tell me, how did the man you call a “coward” end up in the Faith Hall of Fame (Hebrews 11)?

Barak lived 100 miles away from where Deborah was judging. Yes, she was a legitimate, godly judge. For him to respond to Deborah’s call took a great deal of faith. For him to recognize that God could speak through a woman in his time and then act upon her instruction took incredible faith and courage. He kept Deborah with him in battle because he knew she heard from God and he wanted God’s direction — not because he was afraid to go alone. Barak continued to obey God even when he knew he would not get the credit for the victory in battle. This is hardly a man I’d call a coward. If anything, Barak had a backbone of steel and high character to do all he did.

It’s sad that Christians unfairly bash this courageous man of God. I’ll owe him a few apologies, too, when we all get to heaven, because I once thought the same way you did before God opened my eyes.

Comment by Kathryn

September 26, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

Lori, I agree with you that these women sound “controlled.” Speak up to defend Biblical equality in comp circles, and you will most likely be branded a “liberal” who denies the inspiration of Scripture. I have had that experience, and it isn’t pleasant, although I understood it wasn’t personal (most of the time).

Karl, Deborah was already judging Israel, and was their acknowledged leader at the time of those events. She “dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment” Judges 4: 5). She was a Supreme Court Justice, so to speak. All of Israel came to her for judgment. She did not “pop up” for this one incident. Barak was not a “coward”; he in fact tried to call the shots, and was rebuked for doing so. He obviously received the rebuke well, for he and Deborah are both mentioned in the Hebrews 11 Hall of Faith.

Comment by Gorhendad

September 26, 2006 @ 4:18 pm

Hi Lori,

I realized after re-reading what I wrote that it could be construed that I am letting the church and leadership off the hook in terms of their complementarian teaching, or that I am blaming women for buying into it. Trust me, I am very concerned about the complementarianism at Mars Hill. It is hurting the church–women and men both.

The thing to remember about the article is that those two women are a deacon and a community group leader. Of all the people in the church, they are expected to have high agreement with the church’s doctrines. (And yet, discontent is busting out all over…even from the church’s wedding coordinator! The joy of a complementarian marriage is obviously just about to send her off the deep end.)

As far as those people who are not in the inner circles of the church, I am guessing that a significant number do not agree with the church’s complementarianism. Listening to the pastors, you get the impression that they are getting constant emails and other negative feedback from people regarding their stance on women. Pastor Driscoll claims that women text message him from their cell phones DURING THE SERMON, sending him what he calls “hate mail” but which is more likely just frustrated complaints about his complementarianism. He claims that women corner him and try to set him straight. They are probably from SPU, a Free Methodist university with enough smart women to give Pastor Driscoll night terrors.

He is clearly annoyed that there are so many free-thinking women who will not conform to his opinions, which is one reason I refuse to leave.

Perhaps I am too hopeful, but I believe that there will have to be a change, either in the hearts of the elders or in the way they present their beliefs.

You said: >

I may have been unfair in my comments, simply because I am an extremely contrary person who questions everything. My idea of an exciting bible study is what amounts to a low-level, multi-person argument with snacks afterwards.

Many people feel that they have to agree with everything their pastor says and view pastors as people to be followed rather than questioned.

My feeling is that that idea itself is unscriptural, and Paul specifically recommends that we question pastoral teaching and weigh it against the scriptures. For this reason, I don’t believe that one needs to agree 100% with one’s pastor and there are actually compelling reasons to go to a church in which you have certain disagreements with your pastor.

I will say that pastors at Mars Hill, while pushing a complementarian perspective, have never suggested that God would punish anyone for leaving the church in any sermon that I’ve heard delivered from the pulpit. Officially, the complementarian doctrines are always referred to as secondary issues on which Christians can disagree (aka “be wrong!”) and still be Christians and in communion with each other based on the more central doctrines of Jesus and the cross.

Comment by Dana Ames

September 26, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

Karl,

There are many people who hold a high view of the bible and approach it with a great deal of prayer, who love God and want to be submitted to Him, who read the bible honestly and do not see separate roles for men and women. There is a discussion at another blog on the subject of women in ministry, wherein a commenter writes:

“I’m fine with allowing for the fact that many Christians truly believe that the Bible limits women in this way (so long as they recognize that those of us who interpret the Bible differently do so with integrity and affirm that we do indeed take what the Bible says seriously).”

This is my view as well. There is a problem in that many who hold the interpretation suggestive of separate roles for men and women do not offer us here the same charity. Some even believe that holding the views we do about women disqualifies us from being called “Christians”. It is disheartening. I hope you can hold out that charity for us and not write us off with some label.

Please note that the sponsor of this blog is Christians for BIBLICAL Equality. That means something very important to me.

God bless you.
Dana

Comment by ShawnaRenee

September 26, 2006 @ 5:17 pm

Judges 4:1-9: The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, after Ehud died. So the LORD sold them into the hand of King Jabin of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-ha-goiim. Then the Israelites cried out to the LORD for help; for he had nine hundred chariots of iron, and had oppressed the Israelites cruelly twenty years. At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, “The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you, ‘Go, take position at Mount Tabor, bringing ten thousand from the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Zebulun. I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the Wadi Kishon with his chariots and his troops; and I will give him into your hand.’” Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” And she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah got up and went with Barak to Kedesh.

Karl as you can see from Judges 4, Deborah is already a prophet and judge in Israel when she calls Barak and tells him God’s command (That’s why she can call a military leader like Barak in the first place–she has the authority to do so). The only thing Barak’s cowardice makes her is a military leader. She was already a leader of the people.

Comment by Kathryn

September 26, 2006 @ 7:25 pm

Sally, I wonder: Does your friend consider that she might actually be “enabling” her husband to act that way? The submissive “go along with everything” wife is not good for her, but it’s also not good for him either. He obviously has no sense of accountability because of it. If she took some drastic steps to force the issue, he might have to “grow up.” Does anyone have any ideas as to what she might do to resolve the situation, scripturally of course? That might even be another blog!

Comment by Kathryn

September 26, 2006 @ 7:38 pm

Glancing through the comments, I can see that I put Sally’s comment in #34, and Lori’s comment in #40 “together”, so to speak. Nevertheless, I hope someone will speak to the issues raised by both.

Comment by Lori

September 27, 2006 @ 2:40 am

Karl, I’m glad you’ve posted. I’ve told people here in many posts that the typical complementarian argument I’ve gotten over the years is “The Bible plainly teaches it. It’s sinful to question it” without any reference to culture, language, or the rest of what the Bible teaches. I’m glad you’ve provided an example so that they can see what I was talking about.

I’ve also noticed something else over the years: comps. try to make excuses for biblical examples of women in leadership when, if you read the Bible, those excuses are clearly not valid. Deborah is a great example. “She only served because the Lord couldn’t find a qualified man.” I’ve heard that many times, but since that’s not what the Bible says, I’m not sure where that argument comes from.

On that emergent blog Craig mentions, we’re discussing this subject. Many people have brought up Junia, and one guy said, “Well, she must have been an apostle to women and children.” The Bible nowhere qualifies what each apostle did—Paul was not the apostle of evangelism, James was not the apostle of music, etc. It simply says that certain people were apostles—including the woman Junia. Just like Deborah and the other judges, the Bible implies that Junia and the other apostles were equal. To say otherwise is to read into Scripture what isn’t there, which I find funny since that doesn’t constitute a “plain reading of Scripture.”

Comment by Kathryn

September 27, 2006 @ 1:24 pm

I too have heard the comp argument that women led because there were no men available. Barak was more than available, and Jeremiah and Zephaniah were available at the time of the prophetess Huldah. Why was she chosen instead of them? As to Junia’s apostleship, if it were limited to women and children, why doesn’t the Bible say so? None of these comp teachings can be found in the Word. You have to put them in.

Comment by sally

September 29, 2006 @ 12:00 am

Re #46: Kathryn, Your comment is very helpful. I used to ‘enable’ my husband to behave in unhelpful ways because I kept quiet about it, thinking it was better to submit to whatever he did. It’s only since I’ve started to see the principle of both truth and love in relationships that our relationship has been so much better.

My husband tends to be passive aggressive. I tend to be co-dependent. Who am I going to be corrected and encouraged by if its not him? And who is he going to be corrected by and encouraged by if it’s not me? No-one else is going to do it, because no one else loves him enough.

If I really love him, then I will tell him the truth. And I’ll do it in a way that shows I really love him. The two – love and truth – work most effectively in combination with each other.

Since we’ve started to do this, and have committed to truth telling in love, our marriage has improved 100 per cent.

I don’t think my friend even knows the language of enabling. I try to recommend ‘How People Grow’ or Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend to people. They are really wise with marriage and relationships, without any of the ‘submit’/'headship’ language that can confuse people. Instead they just go for the biblical principles of love and truth.

Comment by LJR

September 29, 2006 @ 8:33 am

Sally, except for switching “husband” with “SO,” (Significant Other) I could have written most of your post. The harder and harder I tried to “submit” to him and be a “good Christian” by my SBC church’s standards, the _worse_ his behavior got — and he considered himself a “good Christian”! If unilateral submission were the truth, we’d both be shining examples of godliness because I really submitted like I was taught, and he had all the control. Obviously, that didn’t work.

When I discovered Biblical equality, it rocked our relationship. He fought it tooth and nail, and he did all kinds of things to try to force me back into line (although he will deny this if you ask him!). When he realized I wasn’t tolerating the old routines anymore, he finally started getting serious about making necessary changes in his life. At the same time, Biblical equality rebuilt my own faith in God and put me in a position to straighten out a lot of flawed theology.

So what happened? My former non-reader SO is now studying apologetics like crazy and spending more time in bookstores than I do (that’s saying a lot). Even though he still doesn’t quite “get” Biblical equality, he’s starting to read CBE journals and think about what it all means. He’s treating me better, recognizing my strengths, and finding his own strengths. We switched churches. Most importantly, we’re tying the knot next spring. None of that could possibly have happened if I had stayed in the old ways and never learned about Biblical equality.

Comment by Kathryn

September 29, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

Re: comment #50: Thank you Sally. Re: comment #51: LJR, that sounds like quite a switch! Congratulations on your marriage next spring.

Comment by Lori

September 30, 2006 @ 8:36 am

Under the post about egal. vs. comp. marriages, we talked about how do comp. husbands enforce their authority if the wife rebels. With that in mind, I’m curious, LJR. If you had been actually married, do you think that your SO would have changed his mind? I mean, if y’all were married, he would have no reason to change. He would have all the power in the relationship. Now, however, you have the freedom to leave, just like he does, so you both have power. I’m not saying this in any way to criticize. I’m just curious, given everything we’ve discussed about the dynamics of comp. marriages.

Comment by Kathryn

October 1, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

Lori, that subject would make a whole new blog. What to do if one partner changes and the other one doesn’t. If they were both comps. when they married, what if one discovers egal., and the other is firmly opposed? Or, if they were egals., but now one is wavering toward compism? The dynamics would change too, depending on husband or wife, because if the husband was egal., but the wife believed in “male leadership”, perhaps he could “lead” her to Biblical equality; it would, however, be harder for an egal. wife to lead a firmly comp. husband to equality, unless he saw qualities in her that he knew were godly as a result of egal. It would be hard for him to give up that authority, but with God all things are possible, if he is sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s leading. Compism has a way of hardening as the years go by, but I have seen people change before.

Comment by Lori

October 1, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

We talked above about ways to spread the biblical truth of egalitarianism. Well, I have a really creative idea, and I would love to get some input. I’ve created a blog Anamchara, and I would for y’all to come over and give me some input.

Comment by LJR

October 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

Lori: I didn’t think you were criticizing. You’re telling it like it is (and would have been).

I don’t even want to _think_ about what would have happened if we’d been married! *shudders* A marriage could never have lasted under those circumstances. Either I would have been forced back into ungodly subservience, or I’d have had to get out and live under church condemnation because of his behavior. (He had become a danger to himself at one point, and indirectly would have been a danger to me if we had been married.) Of course, either way, all the problems would have been “my” fault. (Yeah, like I could have caused his behavior problems before we ever met, much less made him change.)

Unilateral female submission and a lack of male accountability led to suffering and spiritual bondage. Mutual submission and mutual accountability led to freedom and spiritual growth. There is no question in my mind or for those who know us what is truly the Biblical way.

Comment by Andy Rowell

October 17, 2006 @ 10:45 am

I had someone ask me if Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll are associated with one another. The answer is no.

Mark Driscoll’s “Mars Hill Church Seattle” has zero association with Rob Bell’s “Mars Hill Bible Church” in Michigan. The name similarity is coincidental.

However it is easy to get confused since both are young pastors who planted churches that absolutely boomed. Both engage with culture, stress innovation and are sought-after speakers. Both are working hard to channel the huge growth of their churches into service to the surrounding community.

Driscoll is a conservative Reformed complementarian whereas Bell is from Wheaton College and Fuller Seminary. I have never heard Bell talk or write about his views on women in ministry but all signs point to him being an egalitarian.

Driscoll writes this week in a blog post addressing the Salon article entitled “It’s Always Something at Mars Hill Church” that:

Apparently, I am Rob Bell’s evil doppelganger [evil twin], which I guess is true, but deciding which one of us is in fact the evil one would depend on whether you are a theological liberal or conservative.

http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-09-19_its_always_something_at_mars_hill_church

Comment by Diane

March 1, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Hello everyone. I don’t think anyone is commenting on this particular post anymore (the last post was dated 10-17-06, 4 months ago), I’m sorry for my late comment, this is my first time reading this.

I have been a christian for 17yrs and noticed the oppressive attitudes towards women in ministry and in marriage. It was very discouraging, because on the inside, I knew that this discrimination was wrong, but not having a response almost left me a prey, but it was these trials that forced me deeper into God’s Word for His truth.

I believe in the commands of Christ to “love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself”, godly qualified women in ministry, and mutual love and respect in marriage, but I do have to voice a concern that I have. If a husband and wife begin to have children and the wife feels that the role of nurturing children is oppressive and is a part of the “patriarchal” belief system, then I believe we have sent a dangerous message to women.

The world sends the message that materialism = success, but the fruit has been chaos.

I hope there is a balanced message here at CBE.