I do not hate Mark Driscoll and his like. But without a doubt, his use of stereotypes and select bits of modern culture to prove that females are more gullible/emotional/irrational will turn intelligent women away from a right view of Scripture. He is advocating attitudes that shape not only the world’s view of women, but also the psyches of individual women.

Some of the comments here are very concerning, as they appear to be made by women who advocate a sweeping generalization of females as irrational, unable to cope with criticism, driven astray by some kind of devilish “emotion,” masochistic…

I recently attended a Christian women’s retreat organized by my own church, which is essentially PCA in doctrine (but includes female deacons, giving as basis numerous ancient testimonia for this practice). The women in attendance were smart, devoted Christians, many with master’s and/or doctoral degrees. Upon attending a mentorship seminar, the opening discussion question asked primarily, “Who are we? What is our identity/character?” – essentially asking why we had signed up for the mentorship seminar. I was shocked that the flood of answers focused on how we as women were “emotional,” “nurturing,” “maternal,” “social creatures,” “talkative,” “caring,” and so forth. The lack of focus on the Bible or on Christ was disheartening.

This is what we’re teaching women as their identity. The Church is teaching it so well that when asked a question about our identity and character, smart & capable women either believe that the stereotypes above serve as the glue holding our gender together, or they think that those cultural generalizations were the expected (i.e. correct) responses to the leader’s inquiry.

As someone who defines herself as a child of God and a follower of Christ – as well as a rational, educated human being – I don’t have patience for these stereotypes. By cultivating an attitude that defines women as the cultural antithesis of man, the Church shuts out women who do not identify with society’s gender-specific generalizations. I’m tired of being told that I’m an “exception” & thus I shouldn’t be upset by the Church’s consecration of secular stereotypes.

I was quite disappointed to read Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood and find generalizations about the nature of men/women mixed into some of the scholarly discussions. Many will be induced, I am sure, to regard all the “evidence” cited in certain chapters as on equal footing, especially if they lack historical or philological training.

When lace was first invented, women were forbidden to wear it as it was considered too masculine an adornment.

Given that men commit the vast majority of violent and sexual crimes in the world, why do we consider them unaffected by emotion? Are anger, rage, and jealousy not emotions? Why are women “emotional” because sometimes certain women cry rather than yell/hit?

Furthermore, Driscoll & his followers are obsessed with conforming to culture. Women were fundamental members of early churches – many of the earliest Christian inscriptions are on female tombs. No one said anything about a feminized church back then. And many of the behaviors Driscoll finds “feminine” were commonplace for men, even just 100 years ago. Examples include:
* long hair or using hair products (check out portraits of American founding fathers and Native Americans, not to mention the warriors in the Iliad, who are described as having flowing, beautiful hair) * crying/weeping (Odysseus cries throughout the Odyssey; Achilles weeps in the Iliad; David & Paul & Jesus & numerous OT figures all cry)
* poetry/hymns (poets and songwriters were/are overwhelmingly male)
* expressing unabashed love for Jesus or Jesus’ unabashed love for us (see all those early hymns written by men)
* sweet food/drink/coffee (women were banned from coffeehouses during their initial heyday. If you think women pioneered luxurious or sweet foods, you are very wrong – they began as royal concoctions made for kings. Because women naturally have more body fat than men, they are often considered more gluttonous or “softer” when it comes to food – nevermind the countless women who lived severely ascetic lives, even dying from their extreme fasting.)

Generally, women are more suseptible to be lead astray by our emotions and be bogged down by criticism. Look how we ever criticize ourselves! (I think this is what Mark is talking about in relation to magazines etc).

I think God did intend for men to lead a family and be the head, and be accountable for his family. So he built men strong, resilient, critical and logical, and women compassionate, intelligent and complimentary to that.

If he had made both genders responsible for leading, it’d be chaos. And it definately is chaos these days, because men have it in them to want to lead, but (being human) can get lazy, irresponsible or abusive which leaves the women left to take lead of their family.

I don’t have a problem with a Godly man leading my family one bit, because the only leadership you can trust, even more than yourself, is leadership coming from God’s will, right?

I think that maybe in a perfect world, women wouldn’t feel like we’re being dishonored by not being the leader. Their man would take care of them, love them, delight in listening to them, provide for them and protect them. They would take all the blows like strong men should. And, just like God held Adam accountable in Genesis for what Eve had done, would be accountable to God for their families.

I have found a lot of entries online about how terrible Mark Driscoll is, because of one comment or another that he has made, but then these people will state that to truly understand the bible, then you must have an overall veiw of the whole 66 books.

This is correct, you must – yet they will take a soundbite from a sermon and then build a church on it.

There is a lot of misunderstanding, offence and confusion over the whole women in ministry debate, and I’ve found in my dealings with both men and women that the general consensus largely from women is that they want a man who will lead them, support them, love them, care for them and do right by them. Most of the women I’ve asked don’t actually want to lead the household – they want to manage the house, because there is something intrinsic in their nature that desires to be the homemaker, but when it comes to big decisions, vision and leadership, they want to be able to depend on their husband to take the responsibility in this.

I have seen this many times, and I’ve also seen it modelled the other way around – where men act like little boys who want their wife to make all the decisions, look after the kids, and let them play on the xBox until dinner’s ready. The women in the second scenario are often stressed and a little unhappy, but don’t know why. This isn’t of course, universally true – there are women who love to lead and are good at it.

The difference between home and church is really one of scale – there are other differences of course, but I don’t want to go into that. The basic idea I want to get across is that home life should be a reflection of church life. If the father loves, supports, leads, guides, teaches and provides for the family, there is usually less rebellion and more happiness within that family. If the wife is forced to lead, then she is spread across more areas of life and thus more stressed out. The children take the cue from the father that it is okay to slack, and so the wife must pick up yet more weight.

In church, men and women should work together to build something that would be better and more alive than without the other half, but to do so must be done in a manner that is biblical and right.

As a whole, men are granted a leadership gift – if the wife comes to church without the husband, then chances are the kids won’t (i can’t remember statis – it’s something like 75% chance they won’t). If the man goes to church without the wife, then there is a much higher chance that the kids will (something like 75% chance they will).

There are many cases in life where you see men leading because they are designed to, whereas women often lead because they have to – often when the men won’t step up and lead.

Men are called to lead and to take on that responsibility. They are called to love and support their family. That responsibility should not be taken with an authoritarian attitude – that’s wrong and evil, it should instead be one of humble servant leadership that allows the children to grow into men and women of God, and where the husband and wife enjoy different, but equally valued roles. When the big decisions should be made, the husband should take council from his wife – she knows him, the family and the situation better than anyone, add that to his own thoughts and ideas and make the final decision on what to do. Then if it all hits the fan, it is the husband’s responsibility.

In a church context, this leadership gift has to be strong and already well-honed. Family is the greatest teacher, and a man who has learned to lead a family well and has leadership annointing should arguably be able to lead a church well – for they have spent time growing as leaders in another context.

For a woman to lead a church would require years of leading in family, and other areas of life. This can and does happen, but if you look at people, spend time talking to them and listen to them – and pick ones from different cultures and contexts, you inevitably find that women gravitate toward a supportive role, whilst men gravitate toward the leadership and decision making role. This isn’t sexism, this is just life.

This natural inclination has been completely distorted by idiots in the past – by men who take this to mean that women are commodities, and then women lashing out against this (evil) attitude. This has caused so much evil, division and hatred in our world that we can only see it as being demonic – not women or men, but the attitude that somehow one role is greater than the other, or one sex better than the other.

Men should love their wivess and lovingly lead them by dying to self, as Christ did for the church and women should understand that and lovingly speak into her husband’s life in all things in all ways, but be willing to step back at the final decision.

As for Driscoll? Having read all his books, I believe that what I have written above is a close approximation to his heart. His words are sometimes less thought-out than perhaps they could be, but if we have no grace for others that allows us to understand the heart behind the vocabulary, and no patience to seek the heart in the first place, then why are we even judging? Are we simply clanging cymbals and noisy gongs?

Finally, please allow me to apologise for my long post and repetition, I am very tired and this is an issue very close to my heart. I love my partner very much and long to see her released to soar like an eagle in the things that God has for her – but her natural inclination to hand responsibility over to me to lead has been distorted by a post-modern femenistic attitude that tells her that she shouldn’t want that, or indeed a man in the first place.

God Bless all of you who seek Jesus diligantly and I trust you will find your answer with Him personally.

Following on from Heathers comment I believe we, as women should look to what God has given us. I have studies a psychology degree and also see how male and female are made so different in terms of emotion, abilities, hormones, cognition etc. From studying this subject for five years I am utterly convinced that God made us male and female for a reason… we are both made in the image of God and by embracing not fighting against these differences we can create a healthy environment to flourish and grow. Male and female side by side.

An all male church world not work without the important input of women and their gifts and vise versa. A church resentful of other peoples roles will not work either. We need to stop arguing and look to what God has given us and embrace it.

We are coming into a day and age where women don’t seem to embrace this difference but battle against it. I think this is sad.

During that time women were treated no better then dogs. The greeks, romans and even jews forged chains on women that would last for thousands of years. Saying women were a curse, less valuable then a man, and should be avoided. When Jesus came in, he showed a different view on women. How radical it was! From dealing with a crippled woman at the synagogue, to sharing some of the most important messages to women, to having the woman at the well evangelize to her whole town! He treated them as images of God. Not something lower. Again. Radical. Paul shared similar views and sadly, he is sometimes known as this woman hater in the Bible. So not true. Read 1 cor 11:2-16, 1 cor 14:26-40 and so many more.

My last thoughts come from one of my fav. books called, “why not women” by loren cunningham and david hamilton. I know both and some of the wisest minds I know. Davids final words are these:

It is time for us to rethink some of our oldest beliefs and traditions. It is time for us to repent for whatever ways we have hindered God’s work and misread His word. It is time for us to release women to be all that God has called them to be. It is time.

Release women to be all that we are called to be. I think God has been heartbroken, dare I say “emotional” eh hem, of the mistreatment of women from the very start to even know. All over women are oppressed and beaten. Let us see each other as equals and partners. As I’ve heard it said… God did not make Eve from Adams skull to reside over him, nor from Adams foot to be below him… but from his ribs. To stand side by side. Partners.