Gifted for Leadership

Comments

Sally, I believe Mark has responded to the article in Salon.com and in others that have twisted and manipulated facts in order to attract some controversy. Here is one such response. http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-09-19_its_always_something_at_mars_hill_church
Please be careful how you characterize people...lumping Mark in with the wacko from the UK is casting aspersions. While Mark definitely embraces gender roles, it really isn't as extreme as you've stated.

Posted By: Melissa Baldwin | January 4, 2008 2:08 PM

Thanks, Sally. As always, you choose to dive into the deep end of waters most of us are reluctant to even touch with our toes. Tough topic. Hard truths. And so much hope - knowing that you continue to fight the fight and call us to an eyes-wide-open reality.

Being from the OTHER Mars Hill in Seattle, Mars Hill Graduate School (no connection to the church - just the same name), it's so hard to hear the painful hyperbole that Mark has let fly and that Southwestern Baptist inculcates. My heart breaks for women who find themselves in these realms and are even remotely aware that something's amiss. My heart also breaks for women who find themselves there and don't know something's amiss. Oh, that I may offer grace AND continue to see, speak, and stand on their behalf.

Muriel Rukeyser's words bear repeating: "What would happen if one woman told the truth about her life? The whole world would split open."

Indeed, Sally, you have the power and grace to split worlds - and to compel me and others to the same. Thank you.

Posted By: Ronna | January 4, 2008 4:59 PM

I also believe that some of the women interviewed in the articles have left comments elsewhere in the blogsphere indicating that their comments where heavily "Cherry Picked" The reporters will spend hours with the women in friendly conversation, then only use the most inflammatory quotes, more or less out of context.

Driscoll's main push is to have men step up and be men so that their wives can be free to devote their lives to the children if they choose to. In a town like Seattle, where the cost of living is so high, that is not an easy thing to do, and it is highly counter-culture.

All of Mark's sermons are available online in their full context. If you want to fully understand him, look up his sermons on the issue from First Corinthians for example. You will find that he is quite a bit more liberal on the issue that some people would consider a literal translation to be.

It is very unwise to write on these subjects without listening to Driscoll's full teaching. He usually preaches for a full hour, covering all of the bases. Anyone who quotes him usually isn't going to use more that a minute or two of his text. Often his point is missed if you didn't hear the two or 3 points prior.

Posted By: Josh R | January 5, 2008 6:44 AM

Thanks, Sally, for raising the issue of "gender fundamentalism."

According to a recent letter from The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary "has stated that for this generation the gender debate 'raises an issue that does endanger the preaching of the gospel.'"

How can the issue of what women are, or are not, allowed to do "endanger the preaching of the gospel?" Is not the gospel the good news that Christ has risen from the dead? Did not the angel and Jesus tell women to go tell the disciples (men) that Jesus had, indeed, been raised from the dead (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-7; John 20:10-18)?

I do not find this type of rhetoric from men helpful, as I try to work through what the Bible actually has to say about these issues.

Posted By: Lynn | January 5, 2008 3:52 PM

If this is truly how Mars Hill is, then it is an out-and-out cult. No, that's not too harsh. There are false beliefs on either extremes of the liberal/conservative spectrum. Yes, conservatives are just as susceptible to false teachings as liberals are, usually in different areas. This is a typical example of the conservative (and I am a conservative Christian) tendency to make gender roles an idol. Driscoll probably believes that Jesus told Mary to get back into the kitchen with Martha. Keep watching Mars Hill in the future and see God's judgement on it.

Posted By: Cathy | January 5, 2008 7:00 PM

A well written article, Sally – both thought-provoking and somewhat scary!

But there’s a bone I have to pick here -- Not so much with what you say in your article (with which I heartily agree), but with a larger trend I hear often in the dialogue about what it means to be female.

My grandmother studied for four years at a state college in the 1940’s and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in “Home Economics.” There were probably some similarities between her studies and the types of courses offered in this new “homemaking” program at SBTS. I’m certain she took plenty of cooking classes and sewing classes, etc.

I always admired her for being a college grad in a generation in which it wasn’t as common for women to go to college as it is now. And she was never the type of woman who viewed her role in life as being a “helper” — she was no June Cleaver! Instead, she was an artist. Along with amazing, exotic cooking (I loved her Swedish pickled shrimp), she was an organic gardener before her time, a watercolorist, and sculptor. Further, she was a dyed in the wool, left-wing feminist — I remember regularly seeing her pen checks to the National Organization for Women (and having a long talk with my conservative parents later about why that wasn’t such a good thing.)

So here’s the bone I have to pick with many of the arguments made on either side of the discussion about a woman’s “role” and all that junk: It really bothers me that homemaking is always situated on just one side of this polarized discussion. It’s as if, on one hand, there are the women who love home-making and, oh, by the way, they’re subservient, ultra-conservative, backwards, stuck in a time warp, unenlightened, and slaves to their husbands. And then there are the victorious, enlightened, educated, brave and free women who’ve given housekeeping the swift kick in the rear it deserves and have moved on to bigger and better things.

OK, so I’m just slightly exaggerating here. But I want to make a case for those of us who love and enjoy some of the “arts” of the home and who are simultaneously “liberated” from destructive ideas that stereotype, belittle, or pigeon-hole women. There’s nothing incongruous, for example, with being a career woman who comes home from work and immediately whips up a batch of chocolate cookies (because she likes it). One of the most brilliant, innovative working women I know also happens to sew a good deal of her own clothes (because she likes it). Another woman I know leads a pioneering boutique that sells garments for breast-cancer survivors (she herself is a cancer survivor). And each morning as she gets ready to head out the door for work, she makes a fresh loaf of bread – by hand – because she likes it.

I’ve been inspired by two recent, fabulous books in this arena. The first is Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by the acclaimed novelist Barbara Kingsolver. The second is Keeping House: The Litany of Everyday Life by Margaret Kim Peterson, a brilliant theologian and professor. No one in their right mind would pigeonhole either of these strong, vibrant, admirable women as backwards or unenlightened. While embracing career and education, they’ve both championed the meaningful role “home arts” like gardening, cooking, canning, and even cleaning can play in one’s life.

Some women hate these tasks and that’s fine. Others just resent the assumption that these tasks are “women’s work” – and I generally share that frustration. But when it comes to the way we talk about homemaking, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted By: Kelli Trujillo | January 6, 2008 3:19 PM

This is all rather academic. In reality I am a professionally qualified accountant, but prior to that I did a degree in home economics. I have two kids, and took a career break, and am now probably currently 'under employed' in a very part-time jopb, for my qualifications and abilities. However the fact remains that I am more fulfilled at home, running a complete home life, than sitting in an office, with my kids in the care of a well intentioned, but ever changing stream of unknown adults.

Posted By: nona | January 7, 2008 5:27 AM

This is a poorly researched article that says nothing that has not been said or alleged before. It is also poor journalism, and especially poor Christian journalism to dig up a quote that is given without context and that paints the subject in the worst possible light and does little to actually give the reader any sense of where the subject is coming from or what the general tenor of his views really is.

Posted By: John | January 7, 2008 11:14 PM

This article was thought provoking, and I looked up the youtube post you mentioned. My problems with his views are many, and would take up more than the 1500 character limit. I think the idea of smushing all women into one box, saying that ALL women must be exactly like THIS, is a terrible idea. When I see articles about "Biblical Womanhood" that come with pictures of genteel, delicate Victorian ladies, it makes my blood boil.

However, this article (or, to be more specific, the article you quoted) made my thoughts drift in a slightly different, though no less frustrating, direction: the trend that says the idea of a woman choosing to be a wife and mother is a sign of weakness. The "wifey submission" doctrine is Biblical (which Paul mentions in Ephesians 5 after telling all Christians to submit to one another and before telling husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church). Women who choose to be wives and mothers are not weak, insipid, or stupid. It doesn't make them soley for a man's pleasure. According to 1 Corinthians 7, the pleasure goes both ways.

Women (and qualities associated with women) have always been looked down upon. How come, in this day and age, we still look down upon them. It seems like the message I get is that the only way to be "strong" is to be like a man. I guess it's no wonder when most references to girls (that are also said to girls) are references to weakness: "You fight like a girl"; "You throw like a girl"; "You're so girly".

I am a college graduate who has all sorts of dreams of travelling and grad school and a fulfilling career, but if I get married and one day decide with my husband that I want to be a stay at home mom, that it will be more fulliflling both for me and my family, then that's my choice. Now, I know your article doesn't say this outright, but, because the only sources quoted or paraphrased are both incredibly biased and either downright insulting (the UK teacher video) or cynically mocking (the, LA Times article), it seems to be implied here that I will be weaker for that decision.

Posted By: Dani | January 8, 2008 12:32 AM

To women and/or men:

Are our roles being determined by the culture of our times or by the Word of God?
Be careful, "lest you find yourselves fighting with God".

Posted By: stlouis85 | January 8, 2008 12:13 PM

The power of our culture has very much clouded the issue of gender roles (if there are any or should be) in our country. It is very difficult with all our varied opinions and wounds that we all have to really determine, where and how we are suppose to fit, especially if we chose to lead a Christ centered life. There are somethings that are true and very obvious about males and females that can't be denied and should not be overlooked and minimumized. Guess what men are physically stronger than women. They can run faster, jump higher and lift more weight than women. Unless it is made a law, it is very unlikley the NFL will ever have any female football players. We shouldn't have any problem with that. I am one that believes that men and women are equal (particually in Gods sight). Their strengths and weakneses should and do compliment each outer. I am working on a book that will attempt to define these differences further and from the scripture. A biblical principle that seams to have been missed, that my book will explain in detail is something that I have shared for years to thousands of men and women. I have never had a women that didn't understand it perfectly but only about 10% of men know it. It is very simple, Men are strong on the outside but soft on the inside. Where women are just the opposite soft on the outside but strong on the inside,a woman has an inner strength that a man doesn't have. If we apply this principle relationally "The strong outer man protects the soft outer woman. The soft outer woman is what we men are attracted to, at least in the beginning (there isn't a women alive that doesn't know that). The strong inner woman protects the soft inner man. (Prov31:8) A good woman who can find her husband can safely trust his heart to her. Good women have a God given desire to protect their husbands hearts. The problem is a lot of men are afraid to open their hearts to a woman because women sometimes misuse their inner strength to wound.

Posted By: Tom | January 8, 2008 6:02 PM

I agree with many of the comments here - it's not wrong to want to learn about "homemaking." Though an educated, single professional woman, I would love to take that SBTS course. Why? Growing up, I thought, among other things, that soup came from a can. Period. The first time a few years ago I made homemade soup from scratch I was astonished. It tasted so much better. In line with the culture of the 70s and 80s, no one taught me about these things.

I do disagree with the SBTS limiting the homemaking classes to just women. Many Christian man has found himself "in the kitchen" to help keep the family together - whether because of his unemployment, a illness, a wife's death, divorce, etc. Why shouldn't the men be given the opportunity to learn as well?

Also, I was sadden by Judy's comments for a different reason. Too busy for secular friends? How sad. How are we to be a light to the world if we are covered by a basket of busyness (whether it be homemaking, church, jobs, etc.)?

Posted By: cro | January 9, 2008 10:38 AM

I've been thinking about this post for a few days, and I've got four thoughts:

1. There's nothing wrong at all with home making, and I don't think anyone on this blog is saying that there is. There is, though, something wrong with forcing people into it if their gifts don't lie in that direction.

2. Christ said nothing about gender roles. He actually went against the culture of the day by tellling Martha that Mary was choosing the better path by listening to him and by choosing Mary Magdalene to tell of his resurrection in a time when women couldn't even testify in court.

3. I didn't know much about this Mark Driscoll person, so I looked him up on the Internet. He's apparently at the far extremes of Calvinism, so has some false teachings there. He also has said that women still need to go to their husbands for religious information - even in this day and age of educated women. Despite what he says, I think Driscoll worships, well, himself. He also has some psychological problems with women. I think it's time for valid Christian leaders to call him on the carpet for his teachings.

4. Now, to deal with the F word. Yes, feminism. There is much wrong with the feminist movement, but - there's always a but - we're being hypocritical if we put down feminism yet take advantage of the gains that the feminist movement has made for women, gains such as women being able to own property without having a male co-signer and just even the positive changes in society's perception of women.

5. I know I said I have four points, but I thought of a fifth. Tom has hit the nail on the head with his remarks about the strong inner woman protecting the soft inner man. That's just a fact of life. Nothing wrong with it. The current trend in Christian publishing is for the husbands to be the only strength in the family, even to the point of their wives being glorified children. This trend goes against the need of the man to be nurtured by the woman.

The topic of gender is very important and if handled incorrectly can harm the spreading of the Gospel (reference the latest Gallop poll where a large number of people have negative views of Christians - we do deserve a lot of this condemnation). But, we can't let this topic take over all of our attention. As women leaders, we must keep our focus on spreading Christ's teachings. God will take care of the rest.

Posted By: Patricia | January 9, 2008 12:30 PM

Thanks Sally, And I will read your blog :-)

Posted By: Chan | January 9, 2008 11:52 PM

It's curious to me that people are continuing to respond to this article that mentions Mars Hill as if they really believe what the article by Sally said about Mars Hill. If you follow the link in the first response post, I think you would read what they really believe.
This is a great discussion on this topic-thank you Sally-but it's not fair to put Mars Hill in the middle of it if what they actually said was "cherry picked" to make the article controversial.

Posted By: Bekah | January 11, 2008 9:44 AM

This has been a helpful conversation in so many ways, and I especially liked Patricia's first four points. On her fifth point, and Tom's comments, however--I think we have to be very careful when we make these kinds of sweeping generalizations. MOST women are weaker than MOST men and MOST men probably do fit Tom's "strong on the outside but soft on the inside" description and his feminine corollary. However, God made a range of personalities, so that there ARE men who love to cook and sew and work with children (chefs and tailors and elementary school teachers), just as there ARE women who love working with wood, farming, etc. Many women ARE gifted with leadership skills that God gives them to use in business, medicine, finance, etc.

Yes, the Bible does include some clear guidelines on some roles assigned separately to men and women, but the settings where they are to be applied are really quite limited. Those who stretch the Biblical teachings to their own opinions--both on the left and the right--do disservice to the clear message of the Gospel that reaches out to men and women alike.

Posted By: hl | January 11, 2008 10:35 AM

I do not know whether Sally has misrepresented the views of Mars Hill. If so, that is regrettable.

However, the thrust of her article (indicated by her title and the last two paragrphs) is that, despite the many opportunities available to women today, the discussion of what is appropriate for women to do with their lives is far from over.

The posts in this blog validate her point.

There is still a core group of people (which exists even if Mars Hill is not really in that camp) who wish to continue to force women into traditional roles because they believe that is what the Bible dictates. Perhaps it does, I am not finished studying the issue and am not yet willing to take sides.

However, it appears there are enough shrill voices indicating a lack of resect on both sides. This is also regrettable.

I wish for a more irenic tone and the grace displayed by Jesus and Paul as they interacted with others in the pages of Scripture.

Posted By: Lynn | January 11, 2008 10:59 AM

I sometimes marvel at the foolishness and stupidity with which we read and teach the scriptures. We have taken something that is really so simple when simply and practically read and made it very difficult. Besides the fact that we have the Holy Spirit to gently guide us through our own difficulties we continue to miss the mark. Careful but simple study of scripture beginning at the book of Genesis reveals God’s plan for males and females and the human race in general. From scripture we know there was no “fit” helper for Adam because there were no other beings made in God’s image other than Adam or who were humans. Then God made Eve also in His image, not in Adam’s image but she was human like Adam. God gave both of them authority (Genesis 1:26 and 1:28.) God looked at what he had done and declared it was good. We have a hard time accepting that God saw what he had made and commanded as “good.” There are other cultures in the world where the roles of men and women are different from the United States and other cultures similar to our culture. In fact in some cultures the roles are almost reversed. As a member of leadership in a major denomination am I to suggest that we evangelize in these areas of the world and tell the people that they must change their culture because their gender roles are not scriptural? I think not. (And I am not speaking here of some of the horrible things that are done to females in the name of culture and tradition in some countries. Of course such horrible practices must stop.)

When read clearly scripture shows women in a variety of roles as well as men. We know that Jesus cooked. He cooked for the disciples. The disciples cooked. Jesus told them to prepare the Passover lamb. The disciples planned a dinner party and Jesus hosted it at the Last Supper. The Apostle Paul I believe has been given a bad wrap for his writings regarding women teaching because he so obviously had no problem with women teaching. He was clear and plain. For example, Priscilla and Aquilla moved from Italy to Corinth when Jews were made to leave Rome. Paul was in Corinth.
All three were tent makers and for a year and a half Paul worked with this husband and wife team. Paul also traveled with them in ministry. When Apollos came to Corinth spreading the gospel but not the full gospel, it was Priscilla and Aquilla who instructed Apollos in the better way. Paul was right there and he was not shy about giving correction when needed as can be seen in his confronting of Peter. Surely he would have corrected his friends Priscilla and Aquilla if they had been error. These examples are only a small portion of the simple and practical aspects offered to us by scripture.

I agree with Rev. Mark Driscoll that men need to step up to the spiritual and leadership plate. The statistics of 39% of men in church is enough to verify that fact. Where are the other 61%? I applaud his encouragement of men to become all that they can be and follow the example of Jesus Christ. Their families, and this world, desperately need them. I do believe that Rev. Driscoll needs to include all the simple truths found in scripture regarding men and women in his teaching and not just those that are approved. I read Rev. Driscoll’s response. The reply is an account of Mars Hill’s accomplishments as a ministry and does not address the gender issue. The implication it seems is that if Mars Hill is growing and accomplishing as it appears to be doing that God must be blessing their teaching and viewpoints. This is not necessarily so. There are many corporations that are well run and well funded that have nothing to do with the spreading of the gospel but they are prospering just the same. Our God has his own reasons for why he chooses to bless both the just and the unjust and show mercy withersoever He will. I also read their beliefs and values. Calling men to leadership is a good thing but that does not mean that women have to become less than who they are meant to be as well. The secret in all of this is seeking and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Jesus said to do. He will create the balance and take us on a great adventure.

I will close by thanking Sally for her article. Keep standing and keep writing, Sally. And by saying if I had a daughter attending Rev. Driscoll’s Mars Hill, I would tell her to “run.”

Posted By: Nancy | January 11, 2008 1:19 PM

having been involved in church planting for over 30 years I am still amazed by the amount of sexism in some churches. I also find that many young churches are the worst!
I am also very disappointed by the many 'silly' events organised for women.

I truly believe Christans should be leading the way in equality and demonstrating that marriages can work on such a premise - but that means cutting men/women jibes and showing respect to each other. I don't see this happening in many churches.

Posted By: Jan Clark | January 11, 2008 2:51 PM

I have to ask the author...what is the motivation for writing about this topic? It seems to me that it serves no Godly purpose. It appears that a lot of feathers have been ruffled... but no enlightenment or encouragement or teaching has taken place. I would encourage the author to stick to topics that are not meant to "rile" peoples intellects, but that strengthens their relationships with the Lord.

Posted By: Amanda | January 13, 2008 11:34 AM

Hi Sally,

I'm shocked that there are still such antiquated spiritual notions which, due to our tendencies toward legalism, we always take to an extreme.

I am a senior pastor, alongside my husband. We work together to serve the Lord. I have more of a teaching role, he is more practical; together we have planted 12 churches and several other ministries. Our relationship is loving and mutually respecting.

If it is true that the things that have been said by Mark Driscoll and his church members have been cherry picked, nevertheless those things have been said. No one has said they weren't said, just that more was said, but the kernel is that Mark Driscoll, in his attempts to cause men to stand up, is overbalancing in a way that causes women to be pushed down. He may not personally be wanting to subjugate them but given time and enough insecure and legalistic congregation members, and we will be back to the stage where women are suffering abuse to an extreme in the name of submission. He may not intend that; I'm sure he doesn't, but that's the way people are. We always tend to take the views of those who teach us to an extreme.

In times of revival women have always been up front with the men, working together to see the kingdom established. As revival dies down, the Church becomes more respectable and respectability equates with women being put in a place where they are rendered impotent.

It's not wrong for women to enjoy home making and Sally isn't saying that. What she is saying is that that's not the entirety of it.

YOU DON'T MAKE WEAK MEN STRONG BY MAKING STRONG WOMEN WEAK!

Posted By: Bev | January 14, 2008 4:37 AM

Unfortunately white men do not know what it is like to be slaves. I wanted a career because I love to learn but I gave it up to be a wife and mother. I never expected how difficult doing the same mundane things would be. I wanted to serve my family but because I was not in God's will for my life it was torment. People kept saying get a housekeeper and I kept trying to do it all myself. Finally God spoke through my atheist husband who asked if I was doing what God wanted for my life. That was a surprise. I am now attending seminary and it is much easier to clean the house and fix dinner.

Posted By: Alanna Stanton | January 14, 2008 7:32 AM

Complimentarians are changing the doctrine of the Trinity.

In order to support their view that women are ontologically equal to men but functionally subordinate, they argue that the second person of the Trinity is ontologically equal to the first person but functionally subordinate.

I'm not sure whether their view of women or their view of Christ upsets me more.

By the way, I don't think this blog post is new 'news'. Complimentarianism is growing quickly; it's just male headship dressed up for the 21st century.

Posted By: PamBG | January 14, 2008 1:40 PM

Bottom line here is the ability to choose and that our choices result from obedience to God and God's calling. God calls some to be married, some to be single, some to become parents and others no. Some to homemaking some to ministry and still others to make an impact for Christ in the secular workplace. It is sad that we cannot recognize, celebrate, and support each role and each choice as God honoring.

Posted By: Laura De Vries | January 14, 2008 4:29 PM

Perhaps, Ronna, there's more in common between Mars Hill Church and MHGS than just the name and location...
"Mars Hill Graduate School to pay $300,000 judgment"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347460_marshill16.html

Posted By: GP | January 17, 2008 8:24 AM

I love this..."When your purpose in life is reduced to childbirth and childrearing, you are nothing more than a piece of livestock.” If we believe that God is the giver of gifts by the Holy Spirit for His Purposes, then how can this issue of serving and leading for the Kingdom be reduced to gender? We talk alot about this in our website: www.wlivineyardmidwest.com

Posted By: Ellen | January 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Sally, the title, "The Rise of Gender Fundamentalism" hooked me. You have written a delicious and thought provoking article. Women are free to be all God has called them to be. But it might take a little bit of being willing to walk in somebody else's shadow, serve in humility without benefit of a title, and be more than twice as prepared and twice as competent as a man would have to be to get to the same place.

I am studying Muslim women. I thought that those head coverings and body covering clothes were representative of the repression they experienced from men. I was shocked to discover that many Muslim women take up the veil to prove their equality with men. Their modest covering is intended to convey that sex in not on the agenda and they expect to be taken seriously in business, education, religion, etc. I have met with Muslim women who think Christian women are repressed.

It is time for us to reframe what we are doing. If you are called to homemaking, then do it with all your heart to the glory of God. If you are called to public life, or to marriage, or to celibacy, or to the ministry, then do it with all your heart. Do the work to prepare yourself so that God can use you. Search the scriptures, search your heart, seek feedback from trusted friends and mentors and discover what God has called you to. You will find that call is first into relationship with God. Secondly, you will discover how your God-given talents, passions, personality, and experiences combine to make you uniquely suited for a kingdom assignment. Do not worry about being discriminated against by the church because of your gender. Prepare. Be excellent at what you do. Your excellence will make a place for you. When there are enough of us who are consistently prepared to be excellent as we respond to our calling, doors will open.

After 40 years of ministry I was just licensed as a minister of the gospel at a Southern Baptist Church. There is hope.

Posted By: Debby Kerner Rettino | January 30, 2009 10:49 PM

Post a comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Just Lead!

A Royal Response to Tragedy

Partnering with God

Be Still, Ailing Minister, Part 3