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!

 

"My reply to the writer "Christian Truth" unfortunately seems to have hit a spam filter, ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"What a confession of Nazihood!Zion heil!"

Yes, What Israel Is Doing To ..."
""Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"CT, Romans 13:1 has been used twice in the last 100 years we are aware ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."

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!!

  • 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.

  • Janie Rager

    ooooohhhhhhh dang….my heart is giddy. :)

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

  • Em

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • count me in!

  • Drew Knowles Sr

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

  • I’m in.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Exactly.

  • 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.

  • Capiscan

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

  • 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.

  • “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.

  • 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.”

  • 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…

  • Ian Irwin

    I know right, 2000 years ago, it’s just mental! And then there’s that crazy socialist carpenter everyone keeps quoting from around the same time. Does he not know we’ve progressed to modern capitalism? Sell all your possessions? Man, God must have been so mad at all the suckers buying that nonsense.

    All I’m saying is that there comes a point where God is bigger than our “modern” opinions. Where that point is will be different for everyone based, naturally, on what their opinions are. The choice then is to decide whether the revelations we’ve received from Him through the bible (which, and I hoped also to demonstrate above, have oft been poorly understood) are more or less important than our own sense of freedom and justice.

    I also don’t believe Paul can simply be dismissed in the way he is. Or was God incapable of stopping the man he called to found the early church from misogynistic attitude? And was it impossible for Him to omit such passages from His message to humanity? God’s word is the tool by which he brings people to Him through Christ and I, personally, like to believe he had a careful hand in its construction ;)

  • Ian Irwin

    Note here that I’m not saying you cannot disagree with me based on scripture. I would just like to see more arguments that run “Well we can see here from this chapter in Jeremiah…” and less that run “God Ian wake up its the 21st century dumbass”

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Paul Paraventi

    But you won’t get chapter and verse arguments here! As a matter of fact, you will get permission to ignore verses that talk of men being the heads of churches and household (while in subordination to Jesus Christ). And to further make their point, they will say if you believe “that nonsense” you are probably a misogynistic, oppressive, fundamental control freak.
    I always wondered who gets to decide which verses we get to ignore? As for me, you can call me a fundamentalist, I don’t mind. It must be easy to ridicule someone like me who diligently, with my wife study the Bible and try to live our lives accordingly. But, come that fateful day standing before my Creator (thankfully with Jesus as my advocate) I will be able to say I read Your Word and took it literally and tried to live accordingly. To those who find it so easy to ridicule me, I’m wondering what they will say to the Author? And maybe they are right, but then again maybe they/you aren’t!

    And before I’m bombarded, I do see a difference in the Kingdom Gospel preached to the Jews (so, yes I eat pork) and the mystery Gospel preached by Paul to the gentiles.

  • 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.

  • It’s not about deciding which ones to ignore, it’s about deciding which ones were cultural norms and which ones were intended to be unchangeable for all time and all cultures. And, unless your wife covers her head, you do this too– because Paul said to do that. Yet, most of us understand that this was a cultural practice, not intended to be a blanket command for all time. We simply see the gender issue in the same way– it’s not that we ignore it, it is that we place it in proper historical perspective and realize it was not intended to be a blanket prohibition for all time and all places.

  • gimpi1

    If you insist that everyone must follow your beliefs regarding family life regardless of weather or not they share them, you are a misogynistic, oppressive, control freak. But if you are willing to leave my egalitarian family in peace, you’re not. I’m glad you and your wife are happy following your beliefs. But I wouldn’t be willing to sign off my personal agency for anyone. Fortunately for me, I fell in love with a man who shudders at the word “submission.” And fortunately for me and many others, no one has the right to use force of law to compel us to follow a patriarchal path.

    I do have some questions. I don’t ask this to make fun of you, but because I genuinely don’t understand; do you think your wife is less intelligent, less ethical, less honorable than you are? If so, how can you love her? If not, how can you expect her submission? Do you simply turn off your respect for her because you believe God demands it of you? (And yes, in my view it’s impossible to demand submission of someone you respect.)

    I don’t share your faith, and that may mean I won’t understand any response. Chapter-and-verse means little to me. But if you have reasons outside of scripture that can explain what seems from the outside to be a contradiction, I’d be interested in them.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Go Broncos

    >”to actively force half of your congregation to feel inferior…”

    If someone who attends Driscoll’s church is forced to feel inferior, and they keep coming back, they’ve got serious serious problems.

    The good news is that anyone can leave Driscoll’s church at any time, the upside being that they don’t have to listen to Driscoll anymore.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • Paul Paraventi

    I would never force anyone to believe or act as I do. Here’s the thing though, we have different definitions of “submission”! It is not a master- slave relationship. She is subordinate to me as I am to Jesus. Jesus did not “lord over” His disciples (although He was Lord), but rather He more often acted as their servant. He ministered to them for years until He finally was brutally tortured and crucified for them! You see it is that I aspire to in our relationship. I don’t understand why you would think I would think my wife is less intelligent, ethical or honorable than me? Often the exact opposite.

    As far as an egalitarian household, I never found that to be efficient, I’m not talking Bible but in real life…if that makes sense. We simply do things because of talent or time, not because of Scripture or egalitarianism. Today, for example it was I who made the bed and was up early to make lunches for the boys, she went to work. But if there is a decision to be made and we don’t agree, we go with me… but here’s the kicker if it doesn’t work, that too is on me. I’m curious how are decisions decided in an egalitarian house, I’m equally as curious as you.

  • 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.

  • Digger

    I am not an Israelite.

  • Nor a first century Christian, which is who Paul wrote to.

  • 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!

  • Glad to hear you are okay with making the bed. ;-) I do have an egalitarian marriage and what you are saying is exactly the point. We do things because of talent or time or for other reasons not based on some supposed “gender role” distinction that is actually not in the Bible. But I’m commenting because I found it a bit curious that someone as equality-minded as you seem to be also is the one who gets to make the decision if you disagree. Why? How are decisions made in my home/marriage? The answer is, “it depends.” For example, if we disagree it might make good sense for the one who will be most affected to weigh in. Other times, we just wait. We pray. We talk and sometimes struggle…but growth happens. When we have agreed to pray and wait and seek the Spirit we have NEVER, in 43 years of marriage, had an impasse. Sometimes the decision becomes clear, and other times it just becomes clear which one of us feels most strongly, or whatever. Decisions made between partners, lovers, friends (all of which a spouse should be) should never be made on–to put it bluntly–what body parts or chromosones one has.

  • Paul Paraventi

    I said I understand the difference between the Kingdom Gospel and The Gospel Paul wrote to the church and by extension, us. So, no I have no problem not killing the Amalekite and I appreciate the question. I’m sorry I didn’t make myself more clear. If what Paul wrote

    was written to only those people long ago, the what is the purpose of the Bible? Couldn’t we always simply say “that doesn’t pertain to me/ us”?

  • Paul Paraventi

    I don’t see the difference. You’re just adding a step…you are deciding that it was a cultural norm and so you ignore it. Couldn’t someone simply say it is all cultural norms and ignore it all together? I don’t mean to sound flippant, I am honestly curious. So, if I understand what people here are saying we can say Ephesians, Timothy (1&2) and Titus and I guess Corinthians (I also guess 1&2) can be disregarded as cultural. But the only evidence offered is the fact that it is so obvious that women to show respect for God in church wear something on their head, is so absurd, that we can categorically disregard most, if not all of the New Testament. Because if that is the basis then what about letters to the Galatians, Philippians and Colossians? And if I look a little further didn’t Jude and John write to specific churches that were having specific problems? And that was my point, that to look into Scripture and have differences of opinion is one thing but to say we decide that this can be ignored as a cultural norm is another. Here’s another funny thing… that “historical, cultural norm” was practiced by many until maybe a generation ago. In other words, that cultural norm went on for about 1,960 years after Paul said it!

  • You could say that, but it would be lazy for a person to do so.

    You’re faced with three options:

    First, you can say that everything Paul said to every church in the NT was intended as a command for all cultures and all times. If you adopt this view, your wife should be covered, silent, etc. You must adopt all of it, under this view.

    Or, you could say that none of it applies, which I think would be silly.

    Thirdly, you can say: these were inspired letters sent from an author, to a primary audience. The primary meaning is what the author intended to say to the primary audience (Corinth, etc.) From there, you have to do exegesis to come to an educated guess (since we can’t ask him) as to which things were meant as commands for all time, and which things were cultural and not intended to be applied 2,000 years later.

    It sounds like you are advocating for the first option, which I have no problem with as long as you follow it to it’s logical conclusion and are consistent in the application of it.

  • 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.

  • gimpi1

    I’m glad to hear you have no interest in using force of law to press your views. That isn’t always the case, and it’s good to know.

    To me, viewing someone as subordinate and yet as (or more) intelligent, ethical and honorable is a contradiction in terms. I do understand someone in authority working for the good of those under them. All legitimate authority does that, in my opinion. However, I don’t get how you can respect her views, honor her abilities, and not regard her opinion as the equal of yours. Different strokes, I suppose. If you’re happy, I’m happy for you.

    As to how egalitarian marriages work, it’s pretty simple. We both work. I sometimes work at home (free-lance) so I take care of most of the home-stuff. I love to cook, and am good at it, so I do that. I also take care of the garden, since that’s a hobby of mine. He takes care of home maintenance and repair, takes care of the cars and most heavy work. (I try to do some of that, to spare him since I have a desk-job and he’s often in the field. He gets upset at that, since my eyes are sometimes bigger than my muscles and I have hurt myself.)

    We make about the same money, and pool our resources into a household account, with personal checking-accounts for fun stuff. Our credit accounts are joint. I handle most financial stuff, because since I’ve run my own free-lance business for years, I have more experience with it. We have our own retirement accounts, but he often seeks my advice on moving funds. The house was my prior property, so when we married, we re-financed to put him on the mortgage. (ONLY 6 MORE YEARS! YAY!)

    Major decisions are made together. We’ve never, ever had a time when we couldn’t come to consensus. It just hasn’t happened. We talk, we compromise, and it might not be totally efficient, but it works. If we make a bad decision jointly, it’s on both of us, and we find a way to fix it together. I wouldn’t want to bear that burden alone, and neither would he.

    Personal decisions, we often make on our own. For example, I recently decided to take a class (professional reasons) and I certainly didn’t ask his permission, but I told him about it, explained the reasons, and got his input on how to work this time into our schedules. He’s a bit older than I, and coming up on retirement in a few years. He’s talked to me about how long he will continue working, but in the end, that’s his decision. He’ll want my input, but he’ll make the decision.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Al Cruise

    Well said.

  • Joel

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Amy Green

    I read all the comments, and found them fascinating. Four of my friends and I (three males, one other female) have been discussing gender roles for about a month in a Facebook conversation that’s now over 30,000 words. Because there are SO MANY things to be said. Bible passages that can be interpreted differently. Real experiences of women who feel God has gifted them with leadership. Question of what we mean when we talk about gender roles. All of these things are really hard to debate in the comments section of a blog. (Bring up the conversation with your friends…I dare you! We’ve all changed our minds on something in the course of the conversation.)

    Really, though, @kylejacobritter:disqus, the point of the original comment wasn’t whether women should be in leadership in the church. It was whether naming a scholarship fund with the intention of mocking another Christian is a good thing. I don’t think anyone would have a problem if these people said, “Hey, we disagree with Mark Driscoll, his interpretation of the Bible, and the way he presents those ideas. In fact, we find them appalling. So we’re going to devote our time and resources to helping women who want to go into ministry.” It’s just the added jab of the snarky name that’s bothering people. Maybe you feel it’s warranted, but a lot of people can’t reconcile it with the idea that Christ’s disciples should be recognized by their love for each other.

  • 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.

  • Em

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

  • Paul Paraventi

    I guess I would agree, with the exception of I don’t see much difference between the second two options. As far as being lazy I would offer the fact that if someone does take the time and effort to study Scripture and find verses that dictate their actions in life, I probably wouldn’t assume they wouldn’t be lazy. Also, if someone does careful study and finds a different version would not be lazy either. The only lazy people would be ones blindly following someone else, no matter what side they’re on.

    But I don’t take your premise…”you can say: these were inspired letters sent from an author, to a
    primary audience. The primary meaning is what the author intended to say to the primary audience (Corinth, etc.)”. Why can you say that? Again, I’m never trying to be flippant, I just want clarity. I always assume I might be wrong! I don’t see how any amount of study and/ or exegesis will allow discernment between Scripture meant for us and Scripture meant for someone else.

    It would seem to me God put a lot of work into something that we can simply say “it was for another people, another time”.

    I wonder where it would lead if I followed my view…”all of it”, as you say? You see I did study and still do and I would submit that women are to be silent in church as far as preaching and teaching only! Now you could say I disagree and here are the verses to back me up! (My original post to Ian). But, if you say those verses don’t pertain to us…well there’s nothing left to say. So my view leads to women not teaching or preaching and covered heads in church. Come to think of it, is that your main contention? Is your argument…Premise1- Paul says women are have their heads covered in church
    Premise 2 – Paul says women shouldn’t preach Premise 3 – we have no problem with women not covering their heads…Therefore, women should preach! Besides the head covering what other verses aren’t meant for us?

    I’m just curious, do men wears hats at your church? If so, I guess you’re consistent, if not why not?

  • Paul Paraventi

    Sorry, meant to add preaching and teaching men (especially their husbands) in church.

  • I guess I’m not sure how to defend “how can I say that it was written from an author to an audience”… it just was. That’s hermeneutics 101, you must understand the genre of the text in order to interpret it and you must understand that it was written by an author to a primary audience– and the primary meaning is what he intended to convey to them. The letters begin with salutations to a specific group of people. You can’t understand the letter until you understand the people.

    If I found a letter at an antique shop from WWII, written by a German pilot to his wife in Frankfurt, I wouldn’t be able to understand the letter until I understood: the language, the author, the recipient, the culture, the current events, etc. The same is true with the Bible.

    This is just hermeneutics. Nothing radical. The same concept is taught at even very conservative seminaries. I would be shocked if Liberty University didn’t teach this same principle– it’s not liberal or heretical, just accepted practices of hermeneutics by almost everyone.

    Historical exegesis actually does help understand these (all) passages.

    For example, women back then were not educated, so it makes complete sense to say they shouldn’t be teachers. Today, however, they are educated and can go to seminary. So, a way to honor the scripture in principle, realizing there were cultural reasons for what he said, would be to apply it as: “someone who has not been to seminary should not be a teacher in a church”.

    Telling women to be silent? Actually makes a lot of sense when you realize that men and women often sat on opposite sides of the room, and services were very disruptive with people talking back and forth across the room during church. So, this scripture can be honored by applying it as “worship should be orderly and not disruptive. Turn off your cell phones and take the conversations outside or wait until you get home to talk about the message”.

    There is a way to honor the inspiration of the text while also understanding that culture plays a role in understanding how they applied the principle, and how we should apply the principle.

    Doing historical exegesis actually does help understand passages. It is why seminary is absolutely necessary if someone wants to begin to actually understand what these ancient texts are saying to our time and our place.

  • 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.

  • mrjb3

    Exactly Jessey. Thank you!

  • mrjb3

    Exactly Drew!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kranston Snord

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

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • JazzyFlavors

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

    op·pres·sion
    əˈpreSHən/
    noun
    1.
    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 :)

  • PaulWilkinson

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

  • LOL. I will donate to that cause as well.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Becca
  • 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: http://joyfulexiles.com/

  • 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.

  • Paul Paraventi

    There is one small difference in your example… a simple letter between two people is simply that, a private correspondence between two people, actually wanted to be kept. Scripture, on the other hand, was on its face was often letters between people, but you act like the actual writer, the Holy Spirit, had no idea other people and yes people 2,000 years later would read, study and live by those letters! Paul later wrote in that same letter…
    1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

    I guess “you can” insert… church of “Ephesus” if you want, but I will pass on that.
    And here’s why… I understand your wanting to know the context of Scripture, it helps one understand it more fully. But, we can after careful consideration separate a command and the principal behind it. There are many verses that give the principle that women are not to be in authority over men (especially their husbands), like obviously men are not in authority over Jesus. Or, another way is women are to be in submission to men AS men are to be to Jesus. It amazes me how some take this to say the Bible tells women to be a doormat slave to their husband because that was how Jesus treated His disciples!!? My crazy wife willing to be in submission to a man who truly loves her, who looks for different ways to serve her and who would die for her. A man who tries to be like Jesus and admittedly always falling waaaay short, but who tries none the less, what a fool she is!

    But, you can’t erase the principle that Paul wrote about, you can look at the commands and I guess ignore some, but you can’t ignore the principal.
    I guess Henry Virkler in his book.Hermeneutics, Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, said it better that I have…”after all, would it be better to treat a principle as transcultural and be guilty of being over scrupulous in our desire to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a trancultural principle as culture-bound and be guilty of breaking a transcendent requirement of God?

    Remember in Paul’s defense of this principle, he went all the way back to Eve’s deception in Genesis, Not some loud women in Ephesus!

  • Paul Paraventi

    Yeah she’s good with that too (bed). Awesome 43 years we can learn much from you! I guess in the end we are not far apart. I have seen a few “egalitarian” households where it is like I do the dishes today, you tomorrow. I cut the grass this time you next time. Or better yet, you went golfing last weekend, I’m going shopping this weekend (so what we are short on money)! I don’t see that working well, but that is obviously not you. And it isn’t like I make every decision we have in our house. What I’m talking about is a massive decision that equally affects both… say a new job opportunity in another state. Say further each are on opposing sides and for good reasons…big opportunity, more money, kids in new school, moving away from (or towards) friends and family… it is that kind of decision I talk about and you are right, it might never come up. But if it did we’ve decided! that I will decide. And, frankly, that is not always a good thing, because with that decision comes the blame if it doesn’t work out, comes the worry and anxiety of making big decisions! An easier way might be egalitarian, I do this one you next. Or just roll the dice, which actually has Scriptural support, as that’s how they replaced Judas (although, they were all men).

    At the end of the day, I actually think our two couples would get along just fine, maybe going out to dinner…just as long as your husband and I decide which restaurant… just kidding!!! I seriously hope at 43 years (26 for us) we are doing as well as you seem to be doing!

  • $20251012

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.