The Mark Driscoll Scholarship Fund for Women in Ministry

So, the title of this post isn’t a joke… which makes this whole idea infinitely cooler.

Yesterday, Shane Claiborne (if you don’t know him, you should) posted this picture to his Facebook. In the caption, he mentions that some of his friends are currently raising money for women in ministry, and actually hope to establish the Mark Driscoll Scholarship Fund for Women in Ministry.

Absolutely hilarious.

Encouraging and equipping women for leadership in ministry? Fantastic.

Doing it in the name of Mark Driscoll? Priceless.

Tell you what: if you guys actually set up this fund, I have a check for you. It doesn’t even have to be tax deductible, I just want to donate to this worthy cause.

Obviously, you know where to find me!


"Dr. Corey, is the clicking through multiple slides a permanent change for the blog?"

5 Steps Toward Better Holidays, When ..."
"Thanks for sharing. I see God's hand in my life every day that I take ..."

Camel Through The Eye Of A ..."
"That must be why that in the 5000 year history of Palestine, modern archaeologists agree: ..."

No, The Bible Doesn’t Command We ..."
"I find Zionist Jewish-supremacists to be among the most despicable in terms of ideology and ..."

No, The Bible Doesn’t Command We ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rachel Heston-Davis

    Oh man. Is there anywhere else we can read their plans/info about this hypothetical fund? This made my day!!

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    I haven’t seen any other info on it. Will keep you posted!

  • mrjb3

    Not very christian to do this simply to spite someone you disagree with.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Not very Christian to create a scholarship fund to help people pursue a calling to ministry? I think you’ve missed the point.

  • Jessey Mook

    I don’t think you read mrjb3’s post Ben. The point is not whether or not a scholarship fund for women in ministry is good thing. Of course its a great thing to have a scholarship for them, but to do it at the expense of bringing down and mocking someone you don’t agree with publicly is not the way to do it.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Have you ever read what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and giving your garments when sued for your coat? Those passages are actually teaching that we should shame our oppressors. Mark Driscoll, is an oppressor, and ought be publicly shamed.

  • Drew Knowles Sr

    Maybe I’m misreading but are you really saying we are to shame our oppressors? seriously?

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Yes. Yes I am. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew. If you do an exegesis of those passages, you’ll be amazed at what you’ll discover.

  • Jennifer Aycock

    When the oppressed shames the oppressor, they become the oppressor. In no way shape or form do I agree with Mark Driscoll. I’m a female pastor after all. And I think this is all hilarious and ironic. But shame? Christ removed that, not inflicted it. The last thing Driscoll needs is shaming. Ignoring, yes. Shaming, not in the name of Christ.

  • Paul

    i beg to differ. shaming is NOT synonymous with oppression. those who have never truly been oppressed cannot understand the distinction fully. public shaming is a powerful force in non-violent resistance. gandhi used his hunger strikes to publicly shame the british-colonial oppressive institutions, to bring light to their oppressive ways. in no way was this a form of oppression. to call this public shaming a form of oppression is offensive and diminishes the virtuous act of resisting by equating it with oppressive domination. creating a “mark driscoll scholarship fund” exposes an oppressive viewpoint that hides itself behind a certain theological rectitude. and i applaud it.

  • Benjamin L. Corey


  • Capiscan

    Do you think that Mark Driscoll is going to be shamed by this? I don’t. He doesn’t understand shame.

  • JarredH

    “When the oppressed shames the oppressor, they become the oppressor.”

    No. Oppression requires systemic power over the oppressed. No amount of shaming or mocking of Mark Driscoll will grant those he oppresses power over him. At most, it will draw more attention to his acts of oppression. Doing so is not oppression.

    Also, this whole idea of “shaming the oppressor makes the oppressed the oppressor” is rooted in the politics of respectability, which is a tool to get the oppressed to participate in their own oppression.

    It’s also based on the false equivalency that shaming oppressors is morally equivalent to using real power to oppress others.

  • Antony Wright

    I’m with Jennifer to an extent on this one. What is the end result of this approach taken to its logical extreme? Via mass-shaming which necessitates a response, make sure he is put out of work, and any organization which touches him will be associated with accusations of extreme patriarchy? That sounds pretty “systemic” to me.

    As for the argument of false equivalency, you’re speaking in terms of a moral relativism which allows you to deem some things “more acceptable” than others. Which is utter crock.

    The question is, is there a better response to Mark Driscoll than shaming? I don’t know the answer. But to be honest I do think the shaming is pretty dang funny.

  • Amy Green

    @benjaminlcorey:disqus, I think you have a point–turning the other cheek should make a person doing wrong realize that. However, I don’t actually see a connection between that and mocking something on the Internet with the primary goal being getting attention/laughs (or even contributions to a scholarship fund). That’s a lot easier than an intelligent and gracious critique of Driscoll’s actual thoughts. Should we lighten up a little and enjoy the irony? Maybe. Has Driscoll mocked those who disagree with him in similar ways? Probably. But I tend to see this fund as cute, but immature.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    I’m not mocking him for laughs. I am exposing that there are some very good men who are working hard to help a group of people he oppresses.

  • Amy Green

    Oh, I wasn’t talking about you. Sorry. I meant more that the idea of the fund is clearly intended to mock Driscoll. And maybe that’s okay since it creates a conversation. I’m just not sure it’s the best way to do things. And I think framing things in terms of “oppressor” might be a bit strong, although I do disagree with almost everything that Driscoll says. I think that Christians (especially online) have gotten good at namecalling and not as good at more balanced, thoughtful discussions that could never be put on a meme and wouldn’t go viral.

  • Jessey Mook

    I have and I found that Jesus is talking about not rendering evil with evil. The first blow doesn’t start a fight, it is the second one. Jesus tells us that it is how we react to unfair treatment that sets us apart. Our forgiveness…I also know that Jesus said that if we have a problem with another believer that we should go to them in private, not a public place, and talk to them. If you read all of what Jesus says “you’ll be amazed at what you’ll discover.”

  • timdemay

    This is what Brian McLaren argues – that turning the other cheek shames the oppressors – but I hope sincerely that Jennifer Aycock’s post is enough to show the error in his exegesis. The message of Jesus isn’t a radically ironic politic of trickster power but a Levinasian call for openness, and peace, and love, no matter the cost.

    I really hope that, as Christians, we run as far away from anything close to “shaming another” as we can, given the sordid history of our faith, and how often shaming has been employed in the name of Christ.

  • kareninfla

    What I read in Matthew 5 after the part about handing over your coat and going the extra mile is Jesus instructing His followers: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” That doesn’t sound even remotely to me as though Jesus is teaching us to shame those who oppress us. But it does sound to me that regardless of whether we consider Mark Driscoll an enemy or a brother in Christ (albeit an errant one), we are called to love him and pray for him. It’s a difficult thing to love and pray for those we consider our enemies, but we have to remind ourselves that not only did Jesus choose to die on the cross for Mark Driscoll, He also chose to forgive Mark for his sins, just as He has forgiven us.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Thanks for your insight, Karen. There is a lot more to the Matthew 5 passages than what meets the eye… stay tuned… those topics will have their own articles coming out shortly.

  • kareninfla

    With all due respect, all I know is that I prefer Corrie Ten Boom’s example of how to treat enemies and oppressors. When she stood face to face with her oppressor – a guard from the concentration camp who cruelly abused her and her sister – Corrie chose to… nay, she was *compelled* to extend God’s unconditional love, grace, and mercy to that guard by forgiving him. She felt no love in her heart for her enemy, but she was humble and obedient in her actions; thus, God used her as a vessel to pour out His love on an undeserving sinner. I believe THAT is the essence of Christ’s teaching to His followers, and it is that kind of radical love that transforms hardened hearts and closed minds, not public shaming.

  • Antony Wright

    I don’t think this was intentional on your part, but there is really no need to patronize her as if she’s incapable of reading the scriptures.

  • mrjb3

    Exactly Drew!

  • Go Broncos

    What first-world entitlement-driven crybaby nonsense. Oppression is not that someone has an opinion different than yours. So Driscoll doesn’t think women belong in ministry? You can ignore him. He has no power over you. He certainly didn’t stop my wife from getting her MDiv.

    There are real oppressed people on this planet that goes way beyond petty disagreements between pseudo intellectuals.

    This whole idea has the maturity of a South Park episode.

  • Antony Wright

    I’m sorry, but I do not agree with your hermeneutical approach in the slightest; I have heard this reading and fully understand the argument and the logic. Try evaluating those teachings of Jesus in light of the Crucifixion and Resurrection and you end up with a vastly different reading than the one you speak of. If shaming so as to undo oppression was the end goal of turning the other cheek, then the Cross was the ultimate failure. And if the cross WERE successful in shaming the oppressors into ceasing their oppression, then there is no need whatsoever for the resurrection.

    And this is coming from a guy who thinks it’s absolutely hilarious to have a “Mark Driscoll Women In Ministry” fund.

    Please do not transform the absolutely central Christian passages against violence into a form of “nonviolent” coercion. You confuse our Christ with the teachings of Ghandi.

  • Kimberly Ferland

    Jesus allowing himself to be crucified was the ultimate turning the other cheek and confronting of oppressive systems. He laid down all His power and basically tricked the kingdom of this world and kingdom of darkness into believing they had won. Then he rose from the dead and turned everything upside down. The ultimate in confronting and shaming oppressive systems — the temple, the old law, the religion and death. He turned the other cheek, went the extra mile and gave up his cloak all at once.

  • Antony Wright

    I agree that it was the ultimate turning the other cheek, but “confronting oppressive systems” is where you roam off into a particular and questionable interpretation. You ignored the entire point of my post. The Crucifixion did not fix anything. It fails the pragmatic question which this interpretation of “turn the other cheek” depends upon so centrally. The insufficiency of the Cross to live up to your model is strong evidence that the interpretation is invalid.

    The absolute foolishness of the Cross is essential. When you transform it into the “wisdom” of shaming you miss the entire point – you turn the whole thing into some kind of machiavellian power grab.

  • tmcgill

    No, they’re not. Not in a way that connects to this issue. They teach us to return our oppressors’ unkindness with kindness. That can indeed inspire shame in people by the severe contrast, yes. But it is basically the opposite of treating unkind people with unkindness, which is what is in question here. You can’t read it as a general license to public shaming of people who wrong us, especially when you remember all the many places where we’re told to forgive people who wrong us and to avoid public self-righteousness on our own part. Especially when you bring in the Luke version and widen your reading of both excerpts to the full passages concerned, not just the 1 or 2 verses with the cheek-turning, and when you remember that the behavior asked of us is not in any way specifically directed toward handling offenses in public only, it is clear this is not a teaching on how to gain the reward of public satisfaction and worldly approval but one on how to gain Godly approval, trusting in Godly reward.

  • Kranston Snord

    The Seattle Police Dept.’s number should not be hard to find. Please call the and tell them how Driscoll is oppressing women. Who exactly has he been holding against their will and forcing to listen to his sermons?

  • mrjb3

    Exactly Jessey. Thank you!

  • Louis P

    @benjaminlcorey:disqus This article is not turning the other cheek, this article is throwing the first stone. Defending it just makes it worse…

  • mrjb3

    I think YOU’VE missed MY point.

    My post had NOTHING to do with the fund, but rather doing it in someones name to cause a fuss.

    I really don’t see how this is the Christian way to go about vocalising your difference of opinion. Especially a theological difference of opinion.

    It’s funny yeah, but also immature and passive aggressive. It’s simply done in spite and detracts from the purpose by making it all about Mark Driscoll.

  • Ellen Polzien

    Not very Christian to call out misogyny in a creative way that actually contributes to the persons hurt by it? I’d say it’s very Christian indeed.

  • mrjb3

    Actually, I think you’ve missed my point.

    My post had NOTHING to do with the fund, but rather doing it in someones name to cause a fuss.

    I really don’t see how this is the Christian way to go about vocalising your difference of opinion. Especially a theological difference of opinion.

    It’s funny yeah, but also immature and passive aggressive. It’s simply done in spite and detracts from the purpose by making it all about Mark Driscoll.

  • Janie Rager

    ooooohhhhhhh dang….my heart is giddy. :)

  • Em

    Found the group and emailed. Will keep y’all updated. I’m reeeaallly eager to hear more.

  • Em

    I emailed the group, and they’re working on making it happen. Here’s the facebook page for the people doing it: And they’re going to be giving us all more info in maybe the next week or so.

  • Valerie Tarico

    count me in!

  • Adam McLane

    I’m in.

  • Nathan Colquhoun

    Hey all, thanks for taking interest in this. The Shane post made this popular way quicker than we were expecting. We are hoping to have the details of this figured out over the next few weeks and then will make sure all you folks are made aware. Pumped that there is interest in the idea!

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Thanks for commenting, Nate! Apparently, there is HUGE interest, so let me know when you guys figure out the details and I’ll give you guys another plug. Happy to help get this going.

  • Amy Green

    Humor can be a tricky thing. So, just wondering: when do you all think sarcasm/satire is a good thing, and when does it cross the line and become hurtful, insensitive, or rude? Put another way, when is it okay for Christians to publicly make fun of other Christians as a way to create discussion on an important issue?

  • Digger

    Thanks, Amy. This entire blog–including comments–seems hateful to me. I believe that scripture says that the Pastorate is to be filled by men; not women. My motivation for this belief is 100% based on scripture. In fact, I did not think that way UNTIL I studied the issue in the Bible. I have absolutely no hatred or bigotry toward women. Yet, bigotry is the only motive ascribed to those of us who share this belief. To ascribe only hateful motives is itself a form of hatred.
    I haven’t read whatever it is Mark Driscoll said, but I’m sure he isn’t deserving of the firestorm that is coming solely from left-leaning Christians.
    Thank you for defending him–and by rote–me.

  • Johnson

    Digger, you need to do your research about Driscoll. I don’t defend anyone’s hatred. But I have no issues with this article and the fund being set up for women who are pastors. I can also support claims for women in the ministry 100% from the bible and don’t need to be hateful or spiteful to do it. I am not saying you are but Mark Driscoll has and so are some who’ve responded here. I make no excuse for them. I do believe humor has it’s place and has done nothing to Driscoll’s ego which proceeds him.

  • Kranston Snord

    ” but Mark Driscoll has.” Care to elaborate or is this a baseless accusation?

  • Al Cruise

    Once Driscoll started getting popular as a religious mouth piece he started the hate talk directed at progressives and everyone who doesn’t believe what he believes, go and check his sermons. Now your trying to make him out as a victim? Classic fundie reform tactic.

  • Kranston Snord

    “Now your trying to make him out as a victim? Classic fundie reform tactic.” An Ad Hominem and straw man in 14 words. You should really look into Jesus’s teachings. You might learn and grow some in your conversational etiquette.

  • Digger

    One more thing–your comment reminds me of the Samaritan who helped the poor man who had been beaten and robbed after the other people who should have known better walked on by.

  • JazzyFlavors

    Is it appropriate for Christians to call out other Christians? Absolutely. Especially when those Christians are hugely powerful and influential church leaders, and especially when the theology in question is a matter of injustice: something that the scriptures would show that God and Jesus are very passionate about. They also indicate that God has quite a sense of humor, and I can’t help but feel like Jesus would dig this idea. He was a master at calling out religious leaders in creative ways. I don’t feel like these guys are being “hateful” at all, or that they’re “shaming” Mark Driscoll… in fact, I think it’s an excellent way of fighting discrimination and oppression with imagination and love. If we are more concerned for the feelings of the oppressor than we are with the reality of the oppressed, I think we have a serious problem.

  • Al Cruise

    Well said.

  • Kranston Snord

    Definition of oppression:

    dominate harshly: to subject a person or a people to a harsh or cruel form of domination.
    inflict stress on: to be a source of worry, stress, or trouble to somebody.

    Jesus called religious leaders out because he could judge their hearts and so he has that right. What’s your excuse? Unless of course you can prove your point by listing which women are held against their will and forced to endure his teaching.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    Have you read the stories of folks who have fled Mars Hill? Women who have been cornered, and asked to confess which of their husband’s friends they fantasize about? Have you read the stories of folks who have been banished and lost all their friends, or the guy who was told he had to confess all of his past sexual experiences to his girlfriend
    or get kicked out of Mars Hill, or the pastors who were fired because Mark thought they were disloyal?

    Mark’s behavior totally fits your definition of oppression.

    “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done” – Mark Driscoll

  • Kranston Snord

    Nope, but if a law was broken and people were (and I will repeat the focus of my request since you chose to use a red herring) “held against their will”, I will be happy to read the police report. Let’s stick to facts shall we and not agenda driven anecdotes?

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    You are arguing that oppression is only holding people against their will, or when a law was broken– something I didn’t claim that Driscoll does. You’re thinking of kidnapping.

    If you’re definition of oppression only includes kidnapping, then segregation was not oppression.

    Oppression doesn’t require kidnapping or even the breaking of laws.

  • Kranston Snord

    The root word in oppression is “press”. It seems difficult to press something that is not contained. Otherwise you are not pressing it but pushing it. So, please tell me who was pressed against their will, whether that be physically, psychologically, spiritually, etc. If escape is possible and someone chooses not to escape, it makes it difficult to claim oppression.

  • Tara

    Anytime one group of people, in Mark Driscoll’s case- women, are told they are not called by God, something that is absolutely spiritually a part of them and who they are, there is religious oppression. If I am condemned, treated unequally, and spoken out again because of what I believe God called me to do, I am oppressed. Oppression occurs when there is any imbalance of power. Mark Driscoll, and those similar minded, lead a part of Christianity that regularly condemns people based on gender and calling rather than recognizing anyone can be called, to the extent that death threats, loss of jobs, and refusing to hire the most qualified person (and even blacklisting them) have occurred regularly. That, my friend, is the definition of oppression.

  • JazzyFlavors

    I did not find the same definition that included words like “harsh” and “cruel”:

    prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

    And yes, Jesus called religious leaders out because he knew their hearts, and obviously he was God and was very qualified to do so. But what about the rest of the Bible? Prophets were specifically DESIGNED to call people out. Jesus’ disciples, the apostle Paul, and many of his followers went to call people out on bad theology after the resurrection of Jesus. So I don’t think that we need to know people’s hearts that way that God does as a prerequisite for calling them out. I mean, most of us are calling each other out in this forum, are we not?

    Based on the conversations that I’ve had and the exegesis that I’ve done, my understanding is that women can be called (and indeed, often ARE called) to ministry. I would say every single Christian is called to ministry! But I’m saying that I think that women can lead worship, hold formal roles, and even teach. And while there was no true equivalent to the church structure that we have, what I see in the corresponding structures in the New Testament have also led me to believe that there is very strong evidence for women serving in whatever capacities that they are called and gifted in.

    Now, many don’t feel that way. I would argue that it’s bad exegesis and misinformation that lead to those beliefs, and studying the Bible in a different way than it was intended to be studied. I understand that I could definitely be wrong, but that’s my best understanding, and I’ve come to it by study, prayer, and seeking the wisdom of those more studied and wise than I. And based on that understanding, many women in the church today are OPPRESSED. That does not mean that they’re forced to listen to Mark Driscoll’s teaching (some of which I’m sure have great value), but they are raised in a church culture where the feminine is seen as inherently weaker and subservient, and women very limited in the capacities in which they can serve. I’ve had girls tell me that elders at their church told them that they shouldn’t be studying the Bible by themselves, because their job is to hear from men, who are the ones who are capable of hearing from God. Their job is to support men, who are the ones who are used by God– women can only be used as support for men. Women can serve at church, but only in Sunday School with the children. I see over half of the population of the world being crippled by bad theology, held back from being the prophetesses, warriors, and leaders that they could be, defined only by their roles as wife and mother rather than valued simply for their personhood. But I also see what could be: generations of women who God longs to fill with passion and fire and send out as radical servants, world-changers, who might be wives and mothers, but will be defined by their role as disciples above any other human role.

    Just because women aren’t “forced to sit and endure his teaching” (though I’d argue that I’m sure that there are daughters and wives who would rather not hear some of the things that he says but are made to by their families) does not mean that women are not systemically oppressed by the hugely gender-discriminatory theology that espoused by many Christian leaders today and forms the Christian culture that we live in, Driscoll being one of the foremost among them. I think that the hyper-masculine ideal and saying that you wouldn’t want to worship Jesus if he was “a wimp that you could beat up”, but only if he was a ripped stone mason/carpenter, is missing the point of the Gospel. I think its harmful to men and women.

    I don’t hate Mark Driscoll, but I strongly disagree with some of his teaching, and I think that his teaching on women promotes sexism and systematic oppression within the church. I think that gives me cause to speak out, rather than stay silent. “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” -Isaiah 1:17. Speaking is my way of trying to correct oppression.

    This is a complex discussion, but if you’d truly like to break down my thought process on these issues and why I read the Bible the way that I do, I’d be happy to get into it. It’s challenging to communicate all these via comments on a blog, but I can try :)

  • Kranston Snord

    Again, people need to choose their words more effectively. Even with the definition you post, someone is subject to “prolonged…unjust…control” only if they have no option to flee. Otherwise, it is not oppression. So, again I ask, who was in one way or another “controlled” by Driscoll?

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    If you’re willing to meet in the middle on “control”, great– we can meet with that. But, I can’t do the homework for you– go read some stories (there are PLENTY out there) of people who have fled Mars Hill, and read about spiritual abuse and control… and then come back and we can chat.

  • Kranston Snord

    First off, this post was not addressed to you. Second, just to summarize, what you are saying is “Mark Driscoll is oppressive, now go look up my accusation.” That’s a bit lazy in my opinion as the burden of proof rests on you. Finally, I do not believe you understand the concept that someone in this country, whose rights are not being violated under the law, are only controlled or oppressed by someone if they choose to allow themselves to be. Therefore, they are not oppressed or controlled.

    I will meet you in the middle with my point of non-oppression and if you would like to continue the discussion that Mark Driscoll may be manipulative or demanding, then we can have that discussion. If you cannot acknowledge that and give up your hyperbole, then I guess the discussion is over.

  • Becca
  • Johnathan

    Anytime someone utilizes an imbalance of power to manipulate or control another, oppression is taking place. It doesn’t matter if that power imbalance is in the business sector, home, or religious institution. Hence Jesus calling out the religious elite for crafting a burdensome yoke and doing little to assist the populous in carrying it. Power imbalance used to control another: oppression. Also, if someone is interested in a topic they research it. The burden of proof argument falls a little flat here. We are talking about anecdotal evidence of, in your words, control and manipulation, not proofs of God’s existence.

  • Johnson

    While I agree it can be tricky when humor is involved this in no way shape or form has gone too far. Even Mark Driscoll would agree. In fact he would probably call you wimpy for even suggesting a thing. He’s called those who don’t agree with his viewpoint as “wimpy” and would “box them out of the church”. So if the man can stand behind a pulpit and bully those into agreeing with him he should be able to take a really funny and even appropriate joke. If not he should “man up” as he so aptly put it.

  • Amy Green

    Wow, great thoughts everyone. I think as long as we keep as our first goal the fact that the Church is supposed to be marked by love–not by our wit or popularity or sarcasm–we’ll be able to find the balance in our own choices. Maybe it’s even up to the Holy Spirit to let us know when we’re cutting someone down as an ego move and when we’re using humor to point out injustice/incorrect theology.

  • Justin Gentry

    This is pretty hilarious, chances are they will get sued for misusing the Mark Driscoll “brand” but is is pretty funny. Jesus publicly shamed, mocked and humbled religious bigots all the time; Paul told them to castrate themselves. I am not sure how humorous naming conventions are “un-christian.”

  • Kelly C.

    First, I can see the humour in this; this is the kind of thing my buddies and I would joke about and we would laugh at the irony. When I first read the title I smiled to myself. But none of us, I hope, would be so immature that we would actually carry it off. I am no fan of Driscoll’s or fundamentalism, but is there not a parallel between this kind of treatment of those with whom we disagree and calling them fools? And, despite Driscoll’s views, with which I vehemently disagree, is he not a brother in Christ? Is this how we are to love our brothers, or our neighbours? To actually create such a named fund would be nothing more than spiritual immaturity modelled after the ways of the world, not Jesus. Christian leaders are actually thinking of such a thing? Their mocking of another is a poor substitute for wholesome speech, gently dealing those with caught in sin, building one another up in love, or doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. If I held a sinful attitude about women, I would want someone to deal with me along the lines of Galatians 6:1 and Matthew 18:15fff., not in a way that directly contradicts the spirit of the beattitudes.

  • Justin Gentry

    While I don’t necessarily disagree, I still contend that both Jesus and Paul used strong language, satire, humor to shame/ridicule their opponents. In Jesus case they were religious figures in the same house of faith (Judaism). In Paul’s case they were Christian brothers (I know that it is debatable if Paul thought that but today we probably would). Is naming the fund after Mark Driscoll in poor taste? Maybe. Is it un-Christian? Personally I don’t think so.

  • KateHanch

    I appreciate the effort–women need to be affirmed as pastors. I wonder in what way women were included/involved in this planning. Are women in ministry pawns

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    I don’t think so, do you? I think these guys legitimately want to support and encourage women in ministry.

  • KateHanch

    I don’t doubt their intentions. They have continually been prophetic voices. But I do wonder in what way women were involved in the planning. There is some humor in this, I understand, but this also makes me hesitant because of what I see as instrumentalization–using a “shock jock” approach in a way to raise money. What if it was inspired by disapproval for his behavior and hope for a different way of thinking about church and affirming women, but named after a woman who never got the opportunity to be a pastor?

  • Chris Larsen

    Kate, I completely agree with you on this. I would like to see these guys invite women into this discussion as well as rename it into something that will have a lasting effect that is greater than “Look How Cool, Progressive And Hilarious We Are Fund”, I mean, the “Mark Driscoll Hates Women Fund”, I mean…you get my point. No one who is serious about this issue would use it as a punch line. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of guys sitting around talking about a theoretical equivalence in which they don’t actively participate. It’s the church that says we value women in ministry in leadership, we just don’t actively and intentionally pursue women to be ministers or leaders. Culture is better caught than taught. Women in leadership should not be used as the punch line to advance a bunch of guys’ agenda for women. I know these guys probably feel they are being chivalrous, but they are still the center and point of the story.

  • KateHanch

    that’s also why I have a problem with “letting women preach/minister” because it still implies that there is a male authority that authorizes women to preach (instead of the Holy Spirit). This same kind of thinking is reminiscent of what I see here. There could be some goodness from this, if there is discernment involved and if women are not instrumentalized.

  • Guest

    Kate, I completely agree with you on this. I would like to see these guys invite women into this discussion as well as rename it into something that will have a lasting effect that is greater than “Look How Cool, Progressive And Hilarious We Are Fund”, I mean, the “Mark Driscoll Hates Women Fund”, I mean…you get my point. No one who is serious about this issue would use it as a punch line. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of guys sitting around talking about a theoretical equivalence in which they don’t actively participate. It’s the church that says we value women in ministry in leadership, we just don’t actively and intentionally pursue women to be ministers or leaders. Culture is better caught than taught. Women in leadership should not be used as the punch line to advance a bunch of guys’ agenda for women. I know these guys probably feel they are being chivalrous, but they are still the center and point of the story.

  • Andrew Esqueda

    This is fantastic! It’s interesting to me that so many people, here, are upset at the advent of any irony – especially in regards to Mark Driscoll. Mark Driscoll has made his claim to Christian fame by way of an unashamed complementarianism, something ironic in and of itself (What’s complimentary about men deciding on the roles of both men and women). This is harmless jest, and if anything Claiborne and the like are simply bringing Driscoll’s oppression of women to the forefront. Luther posted the 95 Theses, which were hardly gentle, on the door of a Catholic church, Calvin referred to people as dogs, Augustine was, unbeknownst to many, quite harsh, and I could go on. Yet, people are upset about a scholarship in the name of a pastor that not only oppresses women, but has undoubtedly sinned against them. Make that scholarship happen, and if it’s worth anything, it will have my backing. About time people start publicly standing up to Mark Driscoll.

  • Georgia Ridgway

    I will totally give money to this fund. Just saying! As a woman who is a pastor, I appreciate the difference in opinion, and hear that this humor is healing for those of us who have dealt with oppression and sexism for far too long.

  • msjadesouza

    As far as I know, there is nowhere the Bible forbids satire or sarcasm. In fact there is some to be had throughout, so it can’t all be bad. To me the question is, does this joke point to something destructive, or something holy? In this case, I’d say it points to holiness.
    I think it is lawful and even holy to struggle against injustice in creative ways. To me this is not just a public admonition (and why can’t Christians call each other out publicly, especially those in leadership…this is a central part of our tradition. We are called to prophetic witness) but to me this is meaningful action. It says much more than simply writing a blog post about how Driscoll is wrong.
    Thanks guys! Preciate cha!

  • Libby delaCruz

    Stop the presses ‘Muchahos’ down there in the comment thread… If you are worried about hurting the feelings of a very, extremely, powerful male pastor, your priorities may be misplaced. Honoring Driscoll in this way is a hope for his transformation. Is a way of saying ‘buddy, we believe you can do better.’ And I am all for that. Humor is the best antidote for fundamentalism of the Driscoll kind and guess what!? I would give money to that fund. I love it!

  • Isaac

    I don’t like a lot of what Driscoll has to say, but I fail to see how mocking him serves Jesus in any way. I grow weary of stunts like this that are intended to do little more than create a stir.

  • Joel

    No way! Another “Edgy Christian Blog”! I can’t wait to read this and take sides!!!!

  • Chris Larsen

    So why not just go ahead and call it the Reformed Scholarship Fund…People in this comment thread are making this a Driscoll thing since it’s apparently “cool” to hate on him…oops, sorry, to “shame” him. But Piper teaches the same thing. As do most Reformed pastors. And most Baptist pastors. It sounds less like we are trying to have an open conversation about the role of women in ministry (which I think is probably the original intent of the fund) and more about how people don’t like Mark Driscoll specifically. All this talk about oppression and what a horrible person he is doesn’t advance the discussion as much as it makes the “shamers” come across as just as arrogant as they claim Driscoll to be. Meanwhile, a watching world laughs at us, not with us. Humility and unity would go a long way folks.

  • PaulWilkinson

    Nice of you to offer a donation, but I’m saving my money for the John MacArthur School of Signs and Wonders.

  • Benjamin L. Corey

    LOL. I will donate to that cause as well.

  • $20251012

    Thanks Paul — your comment was my reward for reading all the way to the bottom.

  • Heather McCuen Dearmon

    In the comments below, people keep suggesting that Driscoll is our Christian brother. Is he? Really? Jesus said, in Matthew 7:15-20, that we would know false prophets by their fruit, and Galatians 5:22-23 tells us that “…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” I DO NOT see this fruit in Mark Driscoll’s ministry, do you?

  • Chris Larsen

    Wow. Just wow. If someone’s peripheral theology is different, even though his baseline theology (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Sin, Salvation, etc.) is grounded, he might not be a Christian? Let the witch hunt begin.

  • Heather McCuen Dearmon

    Dear Chris,

    I am not suggesting a witch hunt. I am asking if Driscoll’s ministry is one of God’s love or not. Jesus, Himself, warned us that there would be many false prophets who would come in His name. So as Christians, we must always test the fruit of the Spirit in those who are placed in authority. Jesus told us to do so.

    Driscoll’s theology is not what I am questioning. His baseline theology may very well be correct, but what does that matter? If he is not demonstrating the love of God to his church or the world, then he is a false prophet, and needs to be exposed.

    May I remind you of what 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 says:

    “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

    Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

    Exposing Driscoll is not something I or any Christian would take pleasure in. I find it very sad that Driscoll has abused his position, become full of pride, and is hurting and misleading thousands. I pray he will humble himself and allow God to show him His sin, especially through the testimonies of those he has sinned against.

    Chris, if you simply research for yourself, you will find many accounts of Driscoll abusing his staff and members online. Read them, see if Driscoll has a ministry of God’s love or not. Here is one written by a pastor who was part of Driscoll’s staff:

  • Al Cruise

    What is really interesting and very predictable for that matter, is how the fundie reformers are trying to defend Driscoll even when evidence of his abuse and oppression is shown to them in black and white. When you got no place to hide and aren’t man enough to admit your wrong, you turn on the spin cycle as fast as you can. The one force that they cannot fight is time, young people of today have no use for the brand of theology taught by Driscoll and his ilk. Especially the children of the nones. Enlightenment marches on and Churches like Mars Hill will be forgotten like a bad movie.

  • Joel B. Green

    Let me know if this materializes. I’ll add my check to yours!