Mark Driscoll and Paris Hilton and banned video rumors

Rumors are flying around the blogosphere at the moment regarding what happened at the 2007 National New Church Conference and not all of them are true. Here is the skinny.

RUMOR 1: Mark Driscoll and Paris Hilton were seen together.

TRUE: Mark Driscoll and Paris Hilton were seen together on Technorati’s top search list. Mark Driscoll at an IMPRESSIVE number 7 upstaging Paris Hilton at number 8.

FALSE: Paris Hilton was NOT turned away from a leadership position in Acts 29 church planters network because she was a woman. In fact, Paris has not even heard of Acts 29.

Picture 9

RUMOR 2: Bill Hybels chastised and rebuked Mark Driscoll for his view of women in church leadership.

TRUE: At the NNCC, Bill Hybels said a sentence or two following Mark’s video about women having gifts and also being useful in the church.

FALSE: It was not considered a rebuke and it did not cause a big stink at the NNCC.

Hybels Driscoll Banner Bubble 3

This image found on Steve McCoy’s blog

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Actually, I was there at the conference, sitting in the sanctuary and liveblogging the experience, and it really wasnt a big deal. It certainly was not a theological dispute. Bill felt something needed to be said for the sake of the female members of the audience and when he said it, there was applause. Having said it, he launched into his message.

Was the video “well received” as suggested on Mark’s blog? Well, we can only guess. Everyone was silent except for Bill Hybels who responded. My best guess is that MOST were uncomfortable with it, as expressed by the applause and yelling in response to Bill Hybel’s introductory words. And there were probably many of the Acts 29 guys and others who were quite happy with it but did not get to express it.

Chris Elrod was also there and his comments on this blog sum up what happened

“I was there…I didn’t think Hybels “ripped” into the video. He made one simple comment about women being important to church planting..that was pretty much it.

I really don’t understand the controversy over the whole thing. The video is just classic Driscoll. Hybels’ statements were just classic Hybels. Both are totally different…and needed in the Kingdom of God.

I think I’m most amazed because it was the final main session of the NNCC and the least attended. There didn’t seem to be much buzz about the video or Bill’s statements after the session…most folks just wanted to hit Disney World, lunch or the hotel pool. :-)”

Chris says this on his blog:

“Mark Driscoll and Bill Hybels are both men of God that have followed their calling and have reached a BUNCH of people for Christ. In my book…they have BOTH earned the right to say whatever they want to say. I was just thrilled to hear them both speak at a really good conference. Move on…”

RUMOR 3: 1800 copies of this video were banned from the conference

TRUE: Participants of NNCC conference never got a copy of the video.

FALSE: Acts 29 volunteers were not forbidden to hand them out.

I didn’t even realize there were videos until i left the conference and read about it on the web. Henry Judy, one of the key people behind the bloggers roundtable at NNCC and a volunteer coordinator, has the skinny in this comment on the blog of Leadership Network’s Todd Rhoades (one of the organizers):

“Let me set the record straight about this once and for all. I was a volunteer at the conference and worked with Scott from Acts 29 all week on the logistics of handling the video out. We also had 1800 Acts 29 brochures that did not arrive in time to be put in the bags at the beginning of the conference. As the conference was winding down we made a decision to hand the videos and brochures out via tables and volunteers at the 3 main doors and not each door to the sanctuary. We just did not have the people to do this nor was it feasible due to exit strategy. In no way, and I know first hand as I was in on the conversation, was their EVER any discussion by anyone associated with the conference that I know of NOT to hand out the video due to Bill Hybels remarks. What was quoted above IS THE QUOTE he said. You will be able to see for yourself when the main session videos are available on the conference website.”

These rumors about the video being pulled from being given out are just NOT true. I know first hand what happened and now the record should be straight.”

As for other rumors, I can tell you that Mark did not cleverly disguise anything but clearly set forth what he believes. Yes, he is called the “cussing pastor” but in fact, many offensive to my mother are are not offensive to his audience in Seattle, and vice versa – i will post on the issue of cussing soon to help clear this up.

Regarding Acts 29, I really dont think it is a woman hating church planters movement. I was present at the first (maybe two) meetings held in Florida in the late 90’s when David Nicolas and Mark Driscoll were starting the network off. The leading speaker for the conference was my friend Sally Morgenthaler. I dont know whether Acts 29 has shifted in their policy on women teaching or leading men or not but it is known to be a network committed to a “complementarian” view. ACTS 29 is not one of the movements supported by the Boaz Project but it is an honorable network and is helping to start new churches. If your theology squares with that, and a 5 point Calvinism, then Acts 29 might work for you. If not, find a network that honors what you believe the Scriptures teach on this issue. And lets all move ahead together, cutting each other some slack and not trying to proselytize on secondary matters.

Here is Mark Driscoll’s video. Its called “A Good Soldier”

And here is a video doing the rounds on blogs in response to Mark’s video. [edit: It was made a while ago.] its called “Women in Christianity” and it was made by Jen at My True Self. HT: Laura at Sanctus

[related: Is the blogosphere ready for Mark Driscoll? Mark Driscoll: The Skinny


Andrew Jones launched his first internet space in 1997 and has been teaching on related issues for the past 20 years. He travels all the time but lives between Wellington, San Francisco and a hobbit home in Prague.


  • I struggled with Mark’s thing, but was disturbed that the second video did not contain any images of Christian women of an ethnicity other than white American. As an immediate response to his video, I think it’s useful but if it was meant to deal with the invisibility of women, then we need to make visible all women, not just one ethnic or social group.

  • I’m really appreciating Chris Elrods words on it…
    “The video is just classic Driscoll. Hybels’ statements were just classic Hybels. Both are totally different…and needed in the Kingdom of God…”

  • Any comment on the fact that the source of the rumors is Mark’s blog post on the Resurgence blog?
    I wonder if we can expect an apology and a retraction. Some fairly nasty and unwarranted things have been said about Bill due to Mark’s distortion of the facts.
    Like most of us, he wasn’t there! It’s good to see the facts coming out from those who were in attendance.

  • Thanks for the link. 🙂
    Just for clarity, my video (the second one) wasnt made in response to Mark’s video. It does have a quote from Mark in it (as well as quotes from a few other contemporary people) just to show that the old line of thinking is still with us. But, my video was made before I knew about Mark’s latest thing.

  • It amazes me the amount of people wanting to bash Driscoll cause of this. It’s as if he can’t sneeze or fart without the blog world going into bezerk mode.

  • I would have to agree with you Layguy. I like both videos. But it seems everything Driscoll does gets turned into something it is not. No where in the thing does he comment let alone degrade women. THE VIDEO IS ABOUT CHURCH PLANTING!! Lets not read things into it that are not there. I mean for all those throwing rocks give him some grace.

  • Where were the Scripture quotes in the Women in Christianity video?
    It’s not really a valid argument to quote sinful men to plead your case, in my opinion anyway.

  • Andrew thanks for drawing these various things together.
    I love the Women in Christianity video.
    I posted it on the blog I host today together with some things I found in your blog entry.
    After learning about the Driscoll/Hybels thing yesterday and reading Mark’s entry, I realized – hey, if the conference organizers decided to pull his video, he should be blaming them, not Bill Hybels.
    Evidently what failed was the handing out strategy.
    We will probably never know the full story. Maybe some strange unprecedented synchronicity of events happened, like, all the volunteers who weren’t real men suddenly had to go to the bathroom when it was time to hand out videos. Since they weren’t real men, they couldn’t wait. We all know how long the lines are at women’s bathrooms, so, by the time many of the not-real-men were back, it was too late; many of the people who were supposed to get videos were gone.
    Maybe that’s not how it happened but hey, if Mark can speculate, so can the rest of us…

  • So, someone please tell me the number of men that ask you “how to have sex with your wife at least once a day”.
    Also, if anyone anywhere wants to make a video about church planting, please have the respect for families not to do it in a cemetery. Really, I don’t care what you are saying, your actions are just saying
    ‘I’m a self obsessed, self righteous idiot who does not mind using the grief of others as a backdrop for my pathetic attempt to communicate something.”

  • Thank you for clarifying what happened Andrew. What is instructive to me is that you were there. Almost everyone who was offended (it seems) wasn’t even at the conference and didn’t hear anything in context.
    It seems to me that many have taken up another’s offense. And there was no offense. Are we not the culture of offense? We get offended over anything. There’s someone offended that other ethnicities were left out of the second video. Please stop being offended by everything!!!
    What about, “Love is patient and kind?” or, “It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged?”
    Those who have a problem with Mark Driscoll should go him and point out what you believe is his fault instead of dishing unproductive dirt. Sheesh!

  • So the original post still says this:
    The Banned Church Planting Video
    This is where it all started. Is it a misunderstanding or a lie then? And if it is a misunderstanding, why would a mature adult choose to solve it in a blog post?

  • Jennifer – thanks for the clarification. I realized you made it a while ago but i was suggesting that it is doing the rounds in service of a response to Mark’s video, not that it was created for that reason.
    i was not clear on that – thanks.
    i am in between flights right now and only have a few minutes to read these.
    and yes, emma, i like what Chris said also

  • I had no idea that not instructing men “how to have sex with their wives, at least once a day” was hindering church plants! Heh. But running this through some Driscoll processing filters, he may be on to something: sex is a big deal, and churches generally avoid the topic altogether. I would like to see this promoted more, but I’m not sure that this kind of phrasing helps.

  • I have read numerous posts through out the carpal-tunnel typepad community about last week’s Imus-esque ordeal. I am not going to comment on the participants, but I do want to leave my thoughts about those who have chosen the combo moves of a rabbit-punch-into-a-pile-driver on Driscoll and Hybels.
    First, let me say walking out and loss of respect for someone is a sign of insecurity and false measurement in one’s leadership. I hope in the future of church planting this is not how we choose to handle aggravating situations or circumstances. Furthermore, we live, learn and love a guy who gave away his love, respect and trust freely. So, ask yourself – or selves for that matter – what we are teaching when we say we have “lost respect for someone, due to their actions.” Honestly, it’s really not for us to have any say who gets or merits respect, when we submit to the value giver – Jesus. Lastly, and more importantly, these Don Imus-esque issues and the negative statements about Driscoll and Hybels are partial reasons why the disconnected actively have to work to see the difference and love we share for one another.
    Thank you for allowing me to have a Driscoll moment.

  • Thank the Lord for Helen!
    I can’t believe the controversy over this video is about Mr Driscoll’s exclusive reference to men as leaders (which is at least a widely held theological position, albeit one with which I vehemently disagree) when the setting in a military cemetery is an absolute insult to those whose lives were ripped from them by war and their grieving families, not to mention actual Christian martyrs.
    In this day and age, does anyone still believe military metaphors are the best way to express what our faith is all about?

  • Thanks Andrew for clearing things up. I watched both videos, and I just want to say that I know alot of women who would actually applaud and cheer for Mark Driscoll’s video. These are woomen in my church who have seen how men (sometimes their own husbands) have completely given up on church, take no responsibility and are completely disinterested in spiritual matters. In fact, in a recent meeting, I heard many say something to following effect: “Amen! We need more Godly men to step up! I would gladly follow them!”
    In the second video, the infamous Mark Driscoll quote concerning the Ted Haggard issue is used with several other quotes suggesting that Driscoll believes that women are inferior to men. I don’t know the context of the other quotes, but Driscoll’s quote NEEDS to read IN CONTEXT. I have read almost of all of Driscoll’s stuff, and I know that he ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR. A Completmentarian view does not require this. If you read Driscoll’s stuff or John Piper’s stuff, they are constantly negating this. That said, I agree with the second video’s intention and applaud the fact that women and their gifts need to be celebrated in the church, and that it is absolutely true that men have abused power over women and HAVE seen them as inferior, and this view needs to be rejected.
    If men truly understood passages like Ephesians 5, they would love and cherish women like Jesus love and cherished us. And if men really understood what leadership was about, they would get on their knees and serve. Could it be possible that we need to teach Men what it REALLY means to be a leader, and then women would not be abused and mistreated?
    To everyone, please listen to both the complementarian and egalitarian perspectives humbly, and let’s really try to hear each other honestly.

  • Ben,
    Regarding context…
    *None* of those quotes are placed in their full context. It wasn’t my intent to provide a full discourse on what each of those people believe about women. It was my intent to let other people have the emotional experience of the affect of those quotes.
    And…I know Driscoll says he does not believe women are inferior to men. He’s allowed to define that in any way he wants. But, the reality is that he is on record as saying woman can’t do _______ (be church planters, lead men, be senior pastors, etc etc). He is, in fact, saying that women would be *inferior* at those positions.

  • Driscoll’s views are old worn out ones. He should stop trying to beat a dead horse. God calls whosoever will to lead and He gives them the gifts to do it. Deborah is a classic example. My own 7 year trek of training and education for ministry, ordination and the pastoring of 2 churches were at God’s direction and affirmed many times over. Women, if God calls you to plant a church or pastor an already existing one, just go get the training & education you need then do it. Don’t be discouraged or sidetracked by the Mark Driscolls of the world, instead obey the ONLY One whose voice and opinion matters–God

  • No matter what Mark Driscoll says, for a long time to come his comments are going to be seen through the prism of the degrading comments he made about women after the Ted Haggard fiasco. It will be awhile before he can live that down and people forget about it. That is why we have to be SO careful about what we say – people will remember the negative longer than they do the positive.

  • Jennifer as an egalitarian, I want to say that what your wrote is exactly why gender conversations often go so bad.
    You must be informed on this stuff, and truly understand the opposite view before you communicate about it. Complementarians do not I repeat do not believe that women are “inferior” this is wrong and inaccurate for you to say.
    They do not believe a woman would be inferior in church planting, senior leadership, they simply believe it is an issue of God ordained office. To them it is not an issue of gifting or being inferior it is a matter of believing God has given the office or role to men. I know this is an emotionally charged issue but be fair.
    And yes putting Mark’s quote in there does communicate, even if it is implicit a low view of women which I do not believe he holds. I say all of this as someone who dislikes much of what comes out of the guys mouth but I am tired of people picking up rocks to throw at him. Where is the love, grace and charity?

  • I’d encourage you, Jennifer, to please consider how you slander people by not playing things in context. If you gun for equality, then treat others as you’d like to be treated; please love your neighbor as your self…you’d like to be quoted in context, do the same for Driscoll. If he is to be castigated, let it be on the basis of truth. You need to neither add nor detract from how he presents himself. Let HIM present himself. Emotions ARE important, but you can do a world of evil by relying solely on how you feel.
    Please also consider that the complementarian view is held by those who take a most literal translation of the bible. This is not “Driscoll’s view”, it is the most straightforward understanding of biblical texts found in the epistles. All who hold complementarian views finds ourselves in a hard place. Do we believe what we read at face value, or do we follow cultural procedures and interpretations that seem to have there sources in places we do not trust? There are plenty of women who’d do a fine job as elders. I’d, in fact, prefer to allow it if nothing else but for the sake of peace. You can view our interpretation as “out-dated,” and degrading to women. But how do I deal with the Bible? Do I take it seriously or not? Who will I stand before when the end comes? I have to go with my understanding and conscience on this one, even if it is difficult.
    Alison, have you read Driscoll’s full blog on Ted Haggard? If you have and still choose to see his wise advise to male pastors as degrading, I’d question either a) your understanding of male psychology or b) your motive in calling it degrading. He took the time, in light of a pastoral failure, to talk about the dangers to male pastors. Consider reading “for women only: a guide to the inner lives of men”. The writer, a woman, really knowns her stuff. She shows statistically that it IS important for a man to know that his wife cares of her body. It gives no grounds, in the case of her failure, for him to cheat on her. But if we are to love each other, maybe we should be interested in knowing how the other feels loved? Additionally, his comment was one amongst a stream of things that, if our cultural situations were reversed, men would consider “degrading” as it points our sinful and irrational fixation on sex and money.
    Carlene, consider that, in light of the ENTIRE bible, that Deborah was something of a red herring. God appointed her for a time and she performed admirably. However, how does that say that solid, caring, thoughtful, Godly male leadership is outdated? And where does Deborah’s example show that women leadership is the norm? Jesus, who cared not a whit about cultural norms, had 12 men as apostles. Does that mean anything?
    Where does this aggression towards male leadership come from? It saddens me that it mostly comes from abuses by male leadership, our fathers and pastors. And the two groups that are consistently mocked in both secular and church culture are stereotypically “masculine” men who love their wifes, provide for their children and have a sense of dignity and stereotypically “feminine” women who desire to raise a family and love/respect her husbands.
    Does no one see this for the attack it is?
    Just some thoughts…

  • Tim, I want to thank you for gracious comments. You say that you hold to the “egalitarian” view, and you are the type of person I would really like to sit down with and discuss this issue with. I am someone who leans towards the “complementarian” view, but I know that I need to really listen to the BEST representation of the “egalitarian” view, if I’m going to talk about it all. I plead with all of you to do likewise.

  • I respect Mark’s life work, and the following challenge is brought in an irenic spirit, from an honest response to his work on this video vignette.
    I’m a communicator and teacher, as well as an artist and pastoral leader, and while I appreciate artful expression as a teacher, I think Mark’s video is artful – and verging on tasteless.
    Just because a metaphor can be used, doesn’t mean it should be used. Soldier works, of course. Body Count does not.
    This isn’t about women. I’m sure that Marc is “for” women, but his language in the video was rightly challenged, if even for a moment, by Hybels. Alpha males need to take a break from their “man” language. Nuance in Mark’s speech would have told us he understood that women can fulfill the same role. I heard no nuance, by the way.
    Why do I think the video was tasteless? It has to do with the language of “body count” and creative graveyard imagery.
    To equate “body counts” with church planting failures is about audacity and misconstruction of creative communication. Somebody teaching either hasn’t lost a close friend to either war or murder, or has just gotten silly with their creative play.
    Personally, I wouldn’t be physically able to get the metaphor to fall off of my lips in the day and age we live in.
    I speak this as one who respects Mark’s work. I also speak as one who’s family member’s, on my wife’s side, were senselessly murdered. I also speak as one from an extended military family who both were part of body counts, and are still repulsed by them even given their experience of war.
    I may be over-sensitive tonight, so please allow me to be incorrect in my evaluation. I just think that “relevance and resurgence” can feel plastic and ill-postured when we miss social cues like this.
    Forgot the throwing of rocks – none are lifted for battle here. Simply, as one communicator who follows Jesus to another, I’d say “Mark, choose better next time, no matter how provocative and memorable an image might prove to be.”

  • Paul,
    I hear you and you make some good points. I used to be a complementarian, so I know them well 🙂 And, I have a very good sense of what Mark has spoken on this subject.
    Here’s the thing though….
    When you say, “But how do I deal with the Bible? Do I take it seriously or not? Who will I stand before when the end comes? I have to go with my understanding and conscience on this one, even if it is difficult”, the implication is that those who do not go with your view are not taking the Bible seriously. It would help conversation if you could understand that people who disagree with you may be taking the Bible every bit as seriously as you are, they are just coming to a different conclusion. To question their earnestness doesn’t really move the conversation forward. I will give you the full benefit of the doubt that you take scripture 100% seriously, if you will do the same for me. 🙂
    And…I’ve said this already, but what I put together in that video wasn’t about cataloging the ideas of each person in their entirety. It was about sharing the experience of receiving those words

  • Ben thanks for the comment. Truth is the gender issue is just so emotionally charged in churches these days. I just wish we could all tone down the rhetoric and first and foremost see our selves as family. I am an egalitarian, but do find plenty of biblical warrant to those who hold a complementarian view. Some of my closest friends are, and I love that we can continue to talk about these things. To me this kind of stuff is not about Mark, but if we Christians can put down our stones and forgive and generously listen to each other, even when it bothers us and makes us uncomfortable.

  • “Where does this aggression towards male leadership come from? It saddens me that it mostly comes from abuses by male leadership, our fathers and pastors. And the two groups that are consistently mocked in both secular and church culture are stereotypically “masculine” men who love their wifes, provide for their children and have a sense of dignity and stereotypically “feminine” women who desire to raise a family and love/respect her husbands.
    Does no one see this for the attack it is?”
    I didn’t realize it was an attack. I thought it was self-defense.

  • The video is just classic Driscoll. Hybels’ statements were just classic Hybels. Both are totally different…and needed in the Kingdom of God.
    both sexism and equality are NEEDED in the Kingdom of God!!!???

  • Andrew —
    I wonder why you feel compelled to continually apologize and defend Mark passing off a truckload of cultural and personal baggage as the gospel. Mark, as we all know, uses his bad behaviour as a marketing gimic; he’s basically a pastoral shock-jock. At what point are you going to cut your losses and stop defending every crazy antic Mark throws up?
    I get your irenic spirit. But isn’t there a difference between seeking peace and actively defending the inexcusable?

  • Paul my question would be for you; when are you going to put your rocks down just because Mark disagrees with you? Or as Carlene said his views are “old and worn out” well Carlene, while I am not one of them, the majority of Christians find them to be accurate. Why can’t we be okay with Mark having a different conclusion? Why can’t we just be alright that both views seem to have biblical merit, as seen by biblical scholars coming down on both sides? C’mon people cut the guy some love and grace. Paul please call it quits on the rhetoric and name calling to. That is no way to treat a brother.

  • What I find most curious in Mark’s video is his statement that ‘people walking in tend to think the church planter is a pastor. He not yet a pastor, he’s trying to build a church so he can be a pastor…he has a different mission he has to be on to gather men”.
    That–more than the overt and covert sexism Mark preaches, more than his prohibition of women in ministry, more than his ‘Me Manly Man. Me pee on fire’ mentality–explains Mark’s view on ministry.
    I think many people would believe that people are pastors, and then they get a position in a church. The alternative is to posit that the *position* is more important than the gifting. Mark seems to view the role of church planter as primarily a sales job rather than a farmer, a cultivator of souls.
    Or to state it differently: the difference between the way of the sword or the way of the servant.

  • Hey everyone,
    I’d like consider the idea of equality and I don’t know how to put this without offending someone. This isn’t going to be complete, but I’m hoping it breeds good discussion.
    I’m a physicist…a very modern community in the midst of a postmodern society. So excuse my very modern approach to this. The are forces in the natural world that push and pull matter back and forth. Two such forces and gravity and electromagnetism. Both can exert with equality of force, given specific conditions. Yet they are in no way the same…they have different arenas of prominence where they exert their unique strengths.
    Isn’t this the correct view of equality? I guess I don’t see that my wife or sister or mother or daughter has to be able to list 200lbs for her to be equal in value to me. Nor do any of those same great women have to be able to be an Elder in the church to have a great, effective ministry and equal value before God.
    I guess I’m confused how equality has to be considered as similarity?
    And Helen, when I say that there is an attack, I wonder if in all this discussion that Satan hasn’t gotten us to take our eyes off of serving and lifting up Christ to a dying world. If, Helen, your self-defense is defense against men, then let me quote a friend for sake of discussion: “If a woman keeps taking punches in the jaw from men, the key isn’t to teach her to take or throw a punch, the key is to teach the man to no punch the woman.”
    This, predominantly, is at the core of Driscoll’s message from the bible. I feel there is a certain level of selective hearing amongst the people who think Driscoll is a misogynist…listen how much he is critical of men who fail in the duties they swore they’d uphold at jobs and in relationships. Listen how much he berates men who abuse, are lazy, and take advantage of women. He is rare in that he is unflinching in rebuking women as well as men in a culture that is only keen on ridiculing men.
    Thoughts on these ideas? Does anyone see this too?
    P.S. Jennifer, I can understand your desire to get people as passionate about justice for women as God is. My questions is, are you doing it in as honest a way as Jesus would have you? My fear is that many travesties and horrors have been done in the name of getting people passionate about a cause…as a leader, you need to uphold truth as well as well as justice. You will lose in the long run if you only seek to invoke passion without allowing people to see the truth. Again, just suggestions to use or lose.

  • Paul D and Tim,
    I’m afraid you are talking to a brick wall if you’re trying to get through to Paul. The following is taken from the website he created to bash Mark Driscoll. Helen and Jennifer too, (I think) were regular commentors on his site, although they seemed to be less maniacal about Driscoll than Paul.
    FAQ: Taking Action Against Fundamentalist Misogyny
    In my naivete, I thought “Hey, it is time we stand up against the people bashing women; let’s go protest to draw attention to the misogyny.” So, I talked with a few folk, created a site, and set a date. I guess it was kinda like lighting a match in So. Cal wilderness. The comments have been prolific and varied. I’ll try to answer as many of the issues raised in the comments as possible here. Just a note: I may ammend this post in the coming days based upon comments y’all have and after conversations with wiser folk than myself; if I do so, I’ll indicate that I’ve changed a Q/A.
    Is this just about Mark Driscoll? Why are you singling him out? (updated 13 Nov 2006)
    It is, and it isn’t just about Mark Driscoll. There is a form of Christianity termed “Fundamentalism” that men innately possess more authority than women, that holds that women are inferior to men, that women are here primarily to serve the needs of men. That Men are the Measure of All Things. Some people hold to those beliefs quietly and with gentleness. Others hold to them vociferously and publicly.
    Mark is of this later sort, promoting this teaching in a way that is particularly harmful to women. Mark frequently uses ‘feminine’ as an insult. His focus on the sexual needs/desires of men and the outward appearance of women demeans and objectifies women. Mark is, one could say, the Poster Boy for Fundamentalism. He is a public face of Christianity in the Seattle Times. He is the face of the Bible-believing Christian movement among the young, hip, urban set. He is viewed as a mover and a shaker in the Christian church. Mars Hill was #22 on a recent list of most influential churches in the U.S., just under Ted Haggard’s New Life Church. He is regularly featured in the Christianity Today family of publications, which are the magazines of record for Evangelical Christianity.
    So, we’re looking to do a little moving and shaking of our own.
    We want to raise awareness of his disrespect of women. It is so extreme that we believe even those who largely agree with him would distance themselves if they were more aware of the extent of it.
    Is this about Mark and his teachings/attitudes or part of a wider campaign against fundamentalism? (New 13 Nov 2006)
    Fundamentalism in all faiths is a Bad Thing. This site represents a new group; we’re starting small with Christian Fundamentalism (the variant most widely experienced here in the U.S.A). And since those of us starting this are in Seattle, we’re beginning with the biggest name in Christian Fundamentalism in Seattle.

  • Paul D.
    I think you’re trying to be straight-forward, and I appreciate that.
    But, implicit in your question to me is the idea that I might not have honesty as the highest value in doing this. Am I hearing you right?
    Just to be clear…I made this video for myself. I’m taking a class on the history of women in Christianity and this video is a response to what we’ve been doing in class. I emailed it to a few friends and put it on my blog. I would have been very excited if 100 people saw it. Well, a whole lot more people have seen it, and I’m okay with that BECAUSE I know I made it as an *honest* response to what I’ve been learning. I was as careful as I could be with the sources. I even left out some “really juicy” quotes whose origin is questionable (like the Church Council that voted on the question if women had souls or not – and women’s souls one by one vote). As far as I know, I don’t have any of those quotes academically wrong (they are not misquoted, or attributed to the wrong person, etc.), but my point was not to have air-tight quotes with perfect footnotes. My point was to say : I want you to know what it feels like for me to have the experience of processing the sadness and reality of living in a faith these kind of quotes have shaped. To me, that’s an honesty that is just as important as academic honesty (which I also tried to honor).
    So, I appreciate the question about honesty. But believe me when I tell you that this was done in honesty.

  • More from Paul’s site under FAQ’s:
    Why disrupt a worship service?
    We have no intention of disrupting the service. We’ll be outside the church, not inside. We will not block anyone from going in, nor harass anyone attending the service; we aren’t conducting an Operation Rescue, after all! The Mars Hill service will be able to go on as it normally does within the building.
    While the event is still being planned, I am hoping for a plethora of activity fitting to how each person wants to combat Fundamentalist Misogyny, whether a protest or some other more gentle method. If you’d like to help shape the activism, please join up!
    Have you personally talked with Mark in private? If not, why not?
    No I have not. However, being fairly connected in the Seattle church scene, I know that there have been a number people who have approached Mark about his attitude towards women, to no avail. In addition, I know women who have directly confronted Mark about his abusive attitude. Mark as a committed fundamentalist has not been interested in listening to rationality. He is confirmed in his beliefs.
    That said, our aim here is to change public opinion on the misogyny Mark spouts. Mark’s views are publicly disseminated, and our response is thus equally public. We seek to bring dishonor in our community to those who oppress women, and thus marginalize these beliefs and these actions and the people who hold to them.
    Just to be clear, let me unpack that: the overarching goal is to say “Enough” and to marginalize these misogynistic views. I want to see misogynists lose church members, lose book deals, lose newspaper columns, lose speaking engagements because the rest of the community is not interested in being associated with such poisonous views.
    Would you be willing to have a private meeting with Mark and his elders in lieu of a protest?
    As noted above, this has been tried without success. If Mark were to publicly denounce his prior actions, publicly beg forgiveness of all the women he has abused over the years (personally and corporately through his writings, sermons, etc), and outline the steps he was taking to change his ways, and then actually live out those steps, then I’d consider it.
    Again, Mark preaches his misogyny publicly and any confession should be public.
    Why are you using such strong terms, like “Misogynist” or “Pharisee”?
    Well, because they are accurate and true. And they have a nice ring to them…
    Seriously, to counteract powerful men abusing their power, one needs to use powerful words to strip away that power.
    Aren’t Both you and Mark Christians, on the same team? Shouldn’t Christians seek a different way?
    Well, maybe. Ostensibly there were Christians on both sides of the American Slavery issue, and on the Civil Rights issue. Yet just talking in private did not resolve the injustice. It took physical conflict and civil disobedience to bring some measure of justice (not that I desire either of those methods!). Similarly, since we are on opposite sides of justice, I am not able to mince words after years of oppression. And again, when a leader in the Christian Church very publicly oppresses women, that oppression must be publicly denounced.

  • Jennifer,
    I can appreciate your desire to honestly show your response to injustice. Personally, I’ve been sickened myself with the gross abuses of women in the past…I just really am wary of the great pendulum of social change: social change will reverse the wrong, where the victim because the violator, if only to a less degree. I want Christ’s kingdom to reign and His name to not be defamed amongst those who do not know him. That’s all I care about.
    To address your legitimate defense of your honesty…my question of honesty is whether you’ve fairly portrayed Driscoll’s quote in the spirit it was intended. I don’t mean to say that the quote was not correctly quoted. Yet, Mark does not hold the views of the previous men quoted…I don’t remember any time he has never stated that women are inherently more sinful than men or intellectually inferior. I’ve heard him say that there are TONS of women in his church that are masters and doctorates and he loves and appreciates them. I just seems inconsiderate and perhaps abuse ton portray Driscoll as something he is not in the name of honestly portraying your feelings on the subject.
    The hard part for me is that his blog to pastors, in response to Haggard’s fall, was very meaningful to me. It was practical steps that I will have to take as a man who has had a problem with lust in the past. He helped me protect myself from failing as a husband and as a leader, by his helpful words. I don’t expect many woman to understand the depth of this struggle since most women don’t deal with this…but men do. Frankly, how my wife looks isn’t meaningful in and of itself…it is meaningful because she does it for me. Many men I know feel the same. There are certainly actions I take so that my wife can feel loved that I find utterly meaningless by themselves…but find totally meaningful in light of my love and respect for her.
    I don’t think you were malicious…I do feel that you were careless. I don’t mean to be condescending, but that’s what I feel.
    I do have a sincere question about biblical authority and women’s equality issues…how male leadership in marriage treated? How is Ephesians 5 dealt with? I guess I’ve only heard the “submit to one another” part used without regard to the “submit to your husband as the church submits to Christ” part, which is very real point in the passage.
    My search for answers in this one is very practical one. Though my experience is certainly not exhaustive, I’ve only really seen that women who came from homes with loving and leading fathers were okay with and ever desirous that their husband would lead them into greater intimacy and safety. Isn’t this what God, through the bible, was shooting for?
    Frankly, this division saddens me as much as it confuses me. I’ve been in prayer for the blogsphere ever since this latest Driscoll debate came out. This is not the way to show that we are Christ’s disciples…this is not the way to love one another.
    For the record, I AM sorry I’m so long-winded…just can’t seem to get it out more quickly…

  • Paul D,
    No need to apologize for being long winded. Words are good and you need to say what you need to say. 🙂
    I hear you saying that you feel I am quoting Mark out of context because he doesn’t believe women are inferior.
    My experience with Mark shows me that he says he values women as equals, but in practice he says they are not qualified to ___________ (lead, plant churches, pastor, etc). That IS saying women are inferior. He can put whatever language he wants around that, but its saying women are inferior. One quote I did not use was one you may have heard from a church father about women being misbegotten men – that is essentially what Mark says at times. He acknowledges that some women seem to have the gifts required to lead, and if they were men, he would encourage them to pastor, but they’re not, so he doesn’t. That sounds an awful lot like “misbegotten men” to me. Mark cant say with one side of his mouth that women are not inferior, and then with the other side say that they are not qualified for certain positions because they would be inferior at them.

  • Jennifer,
    My hope for you would be that you’d let Driscoll’s “sexist” comments speak for themselves rather than taking one out of the full context. We both know that the quote you used had nothing to do with church eldership and everything to do with helping male pastors above water morally and very much in love with Jesus. You also could easily have proved the point of your video without the dubious quote from Driscoll, so it seems (and I hope it isn’t true) that you have some reason to untruthfully slander his name. I don’t mean to be condescending, but it seems you are excusing poor behavior on your part because of perceived poor behavior on Driscoll’s.
    As for women in Mars Hill…women have every possible role within Mars Hill other than Elder. The elders of Mars Hill have used the most liberal interpretation of scriptures short of allowing women eldership. They allow women deacons, worship leaders, small group leaders…many churches less under fire than Driscoll’s have a much stricter interpretation. He gets himself in trouble with many people because of his vitriolic humor, for sure. But it seems that Driscoll spares no one his humor…it’s just that effeminate men and women are in vogue right now culturally…honestly, it feels most days, that from the media to the church, any rebuke of women is seen as sexism. Jennifer, how can we help this? How can we shepherd men and women both equally in areas that are both close to their hearts as well as necessary for their holy living? How can a male pastor lead the women in the church if he can’t help point out real sin?
    I have no doubt there is sexism in the church today. To be honest, I have to honor those sects that take 1 Corinth 11 so seriously that they wear head coverings…I would hesitate to use their hermeneutic, but at least they take the bible VERY seriously. Our greatest sins, mine in lust (which is my hardest struggle), is because we take God too lightly. I’m glad that Driscoll seems to take the bible’s interpretation as seriously as he does; for even if you disagree with the interpretation, it is hard to negate it as a rationally improper one. It may/may not be wrong, but you can’t doubt his courage. He treats his wife and daughters well without being a total ogre. Frankly, most of us men can only aspire to that mostly. I’m glad for his example as a father with our society being mostly fatherless. I’m convicted by his passion for his wife…he’s never said ANYthing, that I can remember, negative about her. How many men have you seen do that? I’m glad for his example in fighting for the lives of our neighbors rather than merely doing “church”. How many men are really concerned with their city rather than their hobby or portfolio? I’m thankful he preaches against the rat race I find myself in so often and calls men and women to slow down so that they can enjoy each other, care for their relationship, and dote upon their children. I’m glad he takes these things SO seriously because it is where the church is dying…it is where I would be dying. For right or wrong, his view of women eldership disagrees with yours…but it isn’t repression of women, and he loves his people as an older brother loves his younger siblings…you can hear that in his sermons.
    I don’t know…in the end, Driscoll’s “rambo” theology and “sexism” somehow has helped me love my wife and love this crazy bride, that we call the church, more. All this, and I live on the other side of the country from Seattle and have never met the man. He’s not perfect, but he isn’t evil. I’m afraid, in your search for equality, that you’ve done him injustice in search for women’s justice. That is not what you desired, I’m sure. It just saddens me greatly.

  • “I have to honor those sects that take 1 Corinth 11 so seriously that they wear head coverings…I would hesitate to use their hermeneutic, but at least they take the bible VERY seriously. Our greatest sins, mine in lust (which is my hardest struggle), is because we take God too lightly.”
    Paul, egalitarians take God very seriously too.
    The Bible is a book – it is not exactly the same as God. And systematic theology is a system which is not exactly the same as the Bible or God. I wrote about foundationalism vs. nonfoundationalism (mostly I was quoting someone else who explains this very well) here
    “I don’t know…in the end, Driscoll’s “rambo” theology and “sexism” somehow has helped me love my wife and love this crazy bride, that we call the church, more. All this, and I live on the other side of the country from Seattle and have never met the man. He’s not perfect, but he isn’t evil.”
    I’m happy for you that he’s helped you.
    Suppose I told you about someone who had helped me. Would you then say “Oh, in that case, whatever he believes is fine – I won’t say a word against him, even if he is on a crusade to undermine belief in the Bible and God.” I don’t think you would say that – I think you would still speak out against that person’s teaching if you believed it was hurting the church.
    We will continue to speak out against anyone – no matter who he or she has helped – who teaches the inequality of women.
    A church planting video called “the man, the message and the mission” which mentions women only as the girlfriends who are banged and the wives husbands want to have sex with at least once a day – that does not promote equality.
    “There are certainly actions I take so that my wife can feel loved that I find utterly meaningless by themselves…but find totally meaningful in light of my love and respect for her.”
    I’m sorry you find those things meaningless by themselves. On the other hand it speaks well of you that you do things solely because they matter to your wife. And maybe this is just semantics; perhaps you would also say Jesus annoying religious leaders until he got himself crucified was meaningless by itself – after all, getting oneself killed isn’t the most obvious way to make a difference in the world.

  • Paul at 3:34 AM mentioned the planter/pastor issue. I wanted to follow-up on this. This is a false dichotomy. Picture a farmer (church-planter) who plants his field, and starts to see it grow. He then puts up nice tall fences (church and denominational walls) to “protect” his young shoots. Can’t let any other types of grain blow into the field. No GMO’s! (I am against Genetically-modified organisms, btw). The church-planter does, however, let in HSMOs (Holy-Spirit-Modified). Preferably pre-modified (transfer growth). Then, he can proceed with the job of pastor. Whaaaat? A church that does not maintain a “church-planting ethos”, even if it is in the hundreds or thousands of attendees, ends up being inward-focussed, not outward-focussed, as it should be.
    Anyway, here is my prescription to end this silly debate…let’s send Bill and Mark to a town somewhere far way, with no Christian witness, and require that they plant a church together, as co-planters. Have them fuse their respective strengths together, and end up with a healthier hybrid.
    Here is a final image: Last Sunday, a small church plant I visited ended up gathering at the front, praying the closing prayer, with two rows, back to back and holding hands. This symbolized the fact that we were complementing each other, protecting each other’s weaknesses (our backs), but going forward together. Nice. And the idea came from another pastor who was visiting that Sunday. Also nice.
    Shalom, everyone!
    Michel in Canada

  • Paul D,
    >We both know that the quote you used had nothing to do with church eldership
    Ah…this is where we are disconnecting. I never claimed, “here are quotes from people regarding women in leadership.” This as a collection of quotes about women in Christianity. Mark said that about Christian women. He’s thinking is HIGHLY influenced by Calvin and Luther who made all kinds of these comments. He makes these kind of comments too. So, he’s in the video. End of story.
    > To be honest, I have to honor those sects that take 1 Corinth 11 so seriously that they wear head coverings…I would hesitate to use their hermeneutic, but at least they take the bible VERY seriously.
    Yet another point of disconnection. You need to give others the benefit of the doubt that they ARE taking the Bible seriously, even when they come to “more liberal” believes than you do. I go to a church that allows women pastors, and we take the Bible as seriously as those who require head-coverings. It is our reading of scripture that REQUIRES that we allow for women pastors. It’s a little insulting when you suggest otherwise.
    >I don’t know…in the end, Driscoll’s “rambo” theology and “sexism” somehow has helped me love my wife and love this crazy bride, that we call the church, more. All this, and I live on the other side of the country from Seattle and have never met the man.
    I am very happy you have been helped.

  • Wow! And I thought we Boomers had issues!
    I’ve read so much about our negatives and about denominations not being able to get along, and that is true. Now it appears that even networks can’t get along.
    Maybe too many of us humans are just carrying around too much crap (‘flesh’ if you prefer biblical language) and are too damned proud to admit that none of us are candidates to be the fourth person of the Trinity.
    I wish Mark Driscoll didn’t express himself as he often does. I’m not an admirer. But I recognize that God is using him, so I pray Ephesians 1:17 for him (and myself).
    Hey Andrew – did I get that right? “Crap” and “Damned”? 🙂

  • I’ve just now watched Jennifer’s video. To see that and not pause to consider your support for degredation of women is astounding.
    The men here who are defending the Driscoll view of women are strangling themselves with the long cord that runs from ancient female oppression in all cultures through to the burqa today.
    I pity you all for the trajectory of history is not on your side.

  • To Paul D, Yes, I did read it. And if you were a woman, you would know why I said it was degrading.

  • >I’ve just now watched Jennifer’s video.
    Really, Paul? It’s been posted on your wife’s website for a few days now. Please stop trying to come off as an ‘innocent’ defender of “oppressed Christian women” with comments like this. You’ve been gunning for Driscoll for how long now?

  • Alison,
    If you were a man, you’d know why it was really helpful.
    And for the record, the women I know, strong women all, did not find it degrading. So, if not the majority position, your view of Driscoll’s Haggard blog certainly isn’t the singular women’s position.
    Now I’m going to tell a short story. I met a young man recently that engaged me in a debate on the merits of marriage. He was a bible student and, though dating a girl for 2.5 years, was “wrestling” with 1 Cor 7 and whether or not marriage was “good” and whether anyone should be married, if they truly love Jesus. After much debate, I asked how his relationship with his girlfriend was. It turns out, it was very rocky. He didn’t know if he wanted to marry her. People had “visions and prophesies” that he should marry her, yet he did not. Why? Because he was scared and feared being “ineffective” for the kingdom.
    How does this apply? This man used his current fears and passions too inform his view of a bit of scripture. Instead of facing the real difficulty (his fear of marriage and commitment) he decided to change a portion of scripture to fit his desired view…the view that would justify his faithlessness. The scripture was a big deal to him, but his emotions colored his interpretation.
    I’ve been on several blogs over the last few days dealing with this issue. Many have Jennifer’s video on them. As I’ve looked at the blogs of many who have been vehemently egalitarian and anti-Driscoll (not necessarily linked), I find that many of you have been abused sexually or prejudiced against as women by men in leadership or you have seen the abuse of men in leadership. Those abuses and prejudices should NEVER have happened…it saddens me that reckless boys in men’s bodies should be able to do so much harm. Yet, isn’t it interesting that within my family and groups of friends, those who are egalitarian very often (though not always) come from broken or abusive homes? Interesting to me, also, is that most of my friends/family who came from solid homes and complementarian churches that took the scriptures at face value rather than using them as a point to claim women’s inferiority also don’t have a strong feminist bent.
    I know I’m going to get fried for this, but I have to ask the question and I’d ask all my brothers and sisters here to really pray about this: are you interpreting out of your own pains? Do you filter these things through your abuses and neglects in the hopes that others won’t feel the same hopelessness and pain you did? If so, are you going too far? “There is a way that seems right to a man but only leads to death” (Proverbs) Many of you feel that you have rights to blast Driscoll and rights to be in eldership as women….is this the way that “seems” right to you but leads to death?
    I’m praying for you and your families.

  • Paul D
    >most of my friends/family who came from solid homes and complementarian churches that took the scriptures at face value rather than using them as a point to claim women’s inferiority also don’t have a strong feminist bent.
    Do you see how this is a problem for conversation, Paul? You are saying that people who have a different opinion than you do not take the scripture at face value.
    I dont understand how you can have a conversation on this subject if there is not a base-level trust that each side is taking the scripture seriously.
    This isnt about who is more a more serious Bible student, or who has had trama in their past. It will help the conversation if you stay off those rabbit trails.

  • >You are saying that people who have a different opinion than you do not take the scripture at face value.
    Jennifer, do you believe that Driscoll takes Scripure at face value?
    What do you think of 2 Cor 10:5?
    What would your example be of pretensions that set themselves up against the knowledge of God?
    Please refrain from using the complementarian view as a “pretension”, because this view is supported by many actual verses.

  • I am not a complimentarian. I have just never been good at complimenting people. Sorry. But Mark has convinced me. Men, Mission, Message. He’s right, they all start with Ms. Women. W. Sorry girls, it doesn’t work does it?
    We have to seriously consider how to love and honor one-another or we are finished. Women must be esteemed. If men are so superiour you would think that they could do this.

  • “I’ve been on several blogs over the last few days dealing with this issue. Many have Jennifer’s video on them. As I’ve looked at the blogs of many who have been vehemently egalitarian and anti-Driscoll (not necessarily linked), I find that many of you have been abused sexually or prejudiced against as women by men in leadership or you have seen the abuse of men in leadership. Those abuses and prejudices should NEVER have happened…it saddens me that reckless boys in men’s bodies should be able to do so much harm. Yet, isn’t it interesting that within my family and groups of friends, those who are egalitarian very often (though not always) come from broken or abusive homes? Interesting to me, also, is that most of my friends/family who came from solid homes and complementarian churches that took the scriptures at face value rather than using them as a point to claim women’s inferiority also don’t have a strong feminist bent.”
    Paul, I’m sure you’re a decent guy (I can tell from what you said about you and your wife) – but don’t you realize that you’re undermining the authority of the Bible here by implying that what[you believe] it teaches needs supporting by anecdotal evidence.
    You’re not allowed to do that – only liberal Christians may do that 😉
    And besides, if anecdotal evidence counts, just watch as all your arguments and interpretations get washed away in a flood of evidence that the right women are absolutely totally as capable as the right men of being leaders.
    Either stand on the solid rock of God’s Word or don’t. But don’t say that you are and then in your next comment start using anecdotal evidence to try to back up Scripture.

  • Jennifer,
    How do you deal with Col 4 at face value? Eph 5? 1 Tim 2? These are explained away amongst a myriad of reasons, all that have nothing to do with face value, in feminist theology.
    Jennifer, maybe this is a sin in my life…I’m really not as interested in “conversation” as much as growth and learning. I’d rather find out the truth of something so that I can teach my children and love my wife better. So connection and conversation is not my highest goal here…I’ll have to pray about…really I will.
    But I’d seriously ask you to pray through this…not merely continue to battle on the blog. How do you account for the link between abuse and the feminist view? Nobody seems surprised when we see that the rich favor prosperity theology or when the poor favor poverty theology. Few are surprised when homosexuals favor a theology that says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of a lack of hospitality. Jennifer, don’t you see a link between abuses towards women and an overboard feminist theology?
    Again, just thoughts that I pray God finds somewhat pleasing. I don’t hate you Jennifer…I love those believers that feel so strongly that they DO something. I’d just hope that we all can sit before the throne of God one day and find that our deeds were not done in vain…that is why I try to learn, why I debate, and why I need to continually be in repentance.

  • PRU,
    You know, I think Mark is doing the same thing all good Christians do – he is trying to understand scripture. I have no doubt about his faith or his earnestness. I have deep disagreement with his position (I didn’t always…), but I believe he love the Lord and is trying to make sense of the Bible.
    If you’re going to have good discussion between Christians, that is a base-level understanding that needs to be there. When people start throwing out “well, you don’t take scripture as seriously as I do”, then there is no room for conversation.
    I’m not going to address your 2 Cor 10:5 question because I think implicit in it is the idea that those who disagree with the complementarian view are “setting theirselves up against the knowledge of God.” If you’re starting out believing that those with a different point of view are setting themselves up against the knowledge of God, its going to be a rocky conversation. A better starting place is something like, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” Col 3:15 – 16
    He’s talking about peace in the midst of admonishment. That can only happen when both people respect the other, and in this case that would mean both people respecting the other’s love for God and Scripture.

  • Paul D,
    I appreciate your thoughts.
    One interesting connection you might not have made because you are on the other side of the country is that Mars Hill church has one of the largest ministires to abused women that I know of. They flock to that church. Now, I admire that ministry they have to those women, and I know its helpful. But there is something deep in that system that draws them. There is a lot in the psychology of abused women that would easily explain that. So, Im not quite so sure what your point is. The opposite seems to be just as true.

  • >I’m not going to address your 2 Cor 10:5 question because I think implicit in it is the idea that those who disagree with the complementarian view are “setting theirselves up against the knowledge of God.” If you’re starting out believing that those with a different point of view are setting themselves up against the knowledge of God, its going to be a rocky conversation.
    Fair enough. Please accept my apology for being argumentative.
    Honestly, I’m new to the egalitarian vs complementarian discussion. The latter is the only doctrine I’ve ever been exposed to. I am truly interested to know what verses you believe point to the egalitarian position as being correct. Again, I’m not trying to bait you, just trying to get a better understanding.

  • Jennifer,
    Thanks a lot for the discussion…I really SHOULD do my regular work one of these days!
    As for your comment about the abused women flocking to the church…I did know about that. But it is good of you to tell me nonetheless. Just thinking about it, it seems there are a couple of possible reasons. It seems that abused people either 1) go where it is safe or 2) learn how to fight. I’d hazard that Mars Hill is option 1.
    Anyways, Jennifer, I don’t mean to be combative. And your Col 3 reference is well taken…but we also have to deal with Titus 1:9 where we are to “encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it”. And we have to look at 2 Tim 4 where iut is said to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” And “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
    So, you see, we are to maintain the peace…but for those who would seek divisions, according to Romans 16, we are to avoid them.
    How are we supposed to balance peace and truth?
    And, Jennifer, could you please address my question about taking Eph 5, Col 4, 1 Tim 2, and 1 Cor 11 at face value?

  • Paul D,
    >And, Jennifer, could you please address my question about taking Eph 5, Col 4, 1 Tim 2, and 1 Cor 11 at face value?
    You might find this interesting. I go to to a church that fully supports women in ministry – and our text on Sunday was Col 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” Our pastor did an amazing job of fitting this into the entire story of scripture, not just yanking it out and letting it stand alone.
    When you take these problem passages in context of the whole trajectory of the Bible, they are not nearly as troubling. It’s way too much to go into in a blog post. I suggest “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” by William J. Webb as a very good treatment on this issue.

  • PRU,
    Thank you for your comment. I used to beleive that women should not pastor. I actually was a member of Mars Hill church for a time. After a series of events, and doing my own study and research, I moved. I wrote a little bit about it here, if you’re interested.
    I also highly recommend Webb’s book, “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” for you. You’re good thinker and I dont think this would be over your head.

  • Paul D and PRU,
    Scot McKnight at has done a very nice review of parts of that book. It might get your feet wet in it, but I strongly suggest readign the whole thing yourself, as there is just only so much you can do on a blog.

  • Jennifer,
    With all due respect, I was hoping to hear from you some Scripture that supports the egalitarian position, rather than a book recommendation.
    I will check out that blog that you suggested. To be fair, will you also answer with the verses that you believe God has spoken in regard to this position?

  • Thank you Helen.
    I noticed that it’s 368 pages, which forgive me for assuming, seems similar to another “book recommendation”. I’m currently in the middle of a Bible study, a theology class, and a training session that requires book reading & homework assignments. I truly do not have the time to delve into something so lengthy.
    Let’s assume that you and I (or Jennifer & I – if she wants to jump in) meet outside of your church one day for the first time. If I were to ask you in a brief (like 5 minute) conversation to tell me what God says about the egalitarian position, what verses would you give me?

  • Helen,
    Overall, thought the link was great.
    The argument for women leaders is obvious…and I agree. I don’t see a strong argument for women elders. The argument for Junias isn’t so clear cut…check out wikipedia on it. The rest are obscure historical records that unless you are Catholic, we don’t hold as canonical.
    But again, a great resources…I’m really glad to have it!

  • PRU, it’s been ages since I was in th details of this debate.
    Let’s see – probably the Galatians 3 verse – in Christ there is no male or female; and also Gen 1 God made both male and female in his image.
    It’s not really fair though, is it, to only give someone 5 mins to explain their position?
    If you really want to understand the egalitarian position it takes time to read through why egalitarians believe what they believe. They have put time into explaining it – like the author of the 368 page article.
    If you’re busy then fine but let’s just agree it’s low on your priority list compared to a bunch of other stuff, else you’d find time to listen to the details of why egalitarians believe what they believe. Again, I don’t think it’s fair to be sure “I don’t agree with you” if you haven’t taken time to see what they say.
    Anyway that’s my opinion.

  • Hi Helen,
    In regard to Gal 3, I’m fairly certain that Paul is explaining that both male & female are free to receive salvation through Christ:
    For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
    Gal 3:27-29
    And Gen 1, holds true to what complementarians believe too – that we are all made in the image and likeness of God.
    Anyway, thank you for offering verses for me to meditate on. I will look more into the resources that you & Jennifer suggested as time permits.

  • Thanks Paul. The author used to be a complementarian then he studied the issue for himself and changed his mind. He’s a great guy; I’ve never met him but we’ve exchanged occasional e-mails.
    I understand why people aren’t willing to go against what they think the Bible teaches.
    I do think many egalitarians take the Bible as seriously as many complementarians. (The author of that link, for example)

  • Helen,
    One other thing…I guess I don’t understand your involvement in this blog if you no longer are a Christian. I’m really not intending to be rude…I just don’t understand your interest. Maybe the info on your blog is not updated and you now love Jesus?
    A part from Helen…I’m more convinced, upon entering the blogsphere, that really “we like sheep have gone astray, we have all turned to our own way…” (Isaiah 53). And I really do mean WE like sheep…boy do we all suck and living…

  • Paul and PRU,
    I appreciate your desire to learn.
    And I appreciate the demands of a busy schedule.
    But if you want a five min answer, all you’re going to get is the easy “women shouldn’t speak” verses. Instead of going down that route I suggest you wait until you do have time to devote to this issue, do some reading, sit down and have an actual cup of coffee with someone who believes women should be allowed to lead/pastor and be a learner.
    I dont think either one of you want to be 5-Minute Theologians who can only care about proof texts and surface understanding. Thats beneath both of you. Take on the subject when you have time, until then just assume that your brothers and sisters who disagree are doing so out of their own obedience to taking the Bible very seriously.

  • Jennifer,
    I’m sorry if you think I’ve only devoted 5-minutes to this. That’s not the case…I’ve devoted some work to this in the past and in the present. It is a poor assumption that I haven’t. I hope you’ve not assumed that people like Driscoll haven’t.
    This is going to sound rude: feel free to dismiss us because you believe we are less informed or less intelligent. That is between you and God. In the mean time, I intend to continue to model godly, biblical complementarianism and let my family speak for itself.

  • Paul,
    As I have tried to say, several times now, I dont think you are less informed. I think you are reading the Bible and struggling to understand it, just like we all are.
    All I ask is that you give the same benefit of the doubt to others that you give to yourself. Those who disagree with you are studying the scriputres and coming to different conclusions. But they take it as serious as you do.
    You are totally free to be a complementarian. I was for a long time. But you are not free to say that its the position of everyone who takes the Bibel seriously without having a protest arise over that 🙂
    I wish you peace and the Light of the Lord.

  • >I’m sorry if you think I’ve only devoted 5-minutes to this.
    Hi Paul D,
    I’m sure she’s referring to me because of my hypothetical situation above.
    Jennifer & Helen, I’m just trying to point out that many people are looking for some brief Scriptural examples to spur them on to examine the issue more deeply and at length. That was all I was asking for with my 5 minute senario.
    It doesn’t sound like that’s an option, so I won’t persist.

  • Jennifer,
    I’m thankful with and impressed by your calm and persistence in this conversation.
    I can see why you feel that I’m not giving you room for your interpretation. At my core, I am just very weary of interpretations that seem so personally driven by past experiences and pain. I know we all have experiences that inform our views.
    I don’t want to keep going back and forth…at some point we just have to move along and concern ourselves with out actual lives and the lives of the lost around us. So I’ll just summarize my last points and leave you your last points and we’ll move on.
    So to summarize, I’m amazed by the hoops people have to jump through to get around certain scriptures that don’t agree with their view. I’ve further observed that the people most willing to jump through those hoops are people personally used and abused. I’m not at all threatened by women in ministry, I just want to do it in a way that I see as God’s spoken desire, which would exclude women solely from eldership. I still believe that your quotation about Driscoll wasn’t motivated by truth but rather an emotional desire to prove your point.
    So with that, I withdraw from this conversation. Helen or Jennifer, feel free to have the last words. Again, thank you Helen for the great resource.
    Thanks all.

  • As a woman, I did NOT find the Driscoll video offensive in the least. I have nothing but respect and admiration for a man who defends what the word of God says plainly and tackles subjects that need addressing. He askes a question we all need to ask: WHERE ARE THE YOUNG MEN IN TODAY’S CHURCHES? Men like Jesus, Paul, John and Peter who where zealous and passionate for the gospel, men who risked life and limb for a message that was bigger than life?
    The second video WAS offensive. As a woman who values my role as wife and mother it is disturbing to know of how many other women out there are fighting against what I hold dear. To suggest that my role in the home is made inferior because I am limited in my roles at church is offensive. To suggest that somehow devotion to one’s own children, to make a career per say out of motherhood is degrading is a degrading suggestion in itself. To suggest that my gifts are going to be wasted because they are limited in a public church setting suggests that the power I yeild in the privacy of my home to influence the next generation of leaders and thinkers in society is of little consequence and devalues the lives and personhood of children.
    Role and function does not define equality. If that were the case than Jesus is inferior to the Father as He took a subordinate role to the Father’s. And most inferior of all whould be the Holy Spirit who served Jesus. No I am not inferior because I too have a subordiante role in home and church. I am equal in all ways because I too am an image bearer of God and function in roles that reflect the divine character in ways that men cannot.
    Driscoll is right, it is time for men to stand up and fight like men! And it is time for women to stop trying to be men and fearlessly follow in the footsteps of Sarah (see 1 Pet 3)and be the WOMEN they are called to be.

  • Hi Mealnie,
    Well, that’s an interesting question…and, if you want to ask it, it’s a very old question. The Church has never known a time, since the 1st century, when more men were involved than women. It’s not a modern/culture issue. It’s the nature of how the church has been.
    Next…the video I made was never intended to slam women who are mothers and stay home. The intent there was to show the emotional affect of seeing how those words affect us today. I should have put a little preface that said, “come and share with me in the experience of what its like to be affected by these quotes…” But I never knew it would be watched by so many people. I totally support your choice to be a stay at home mom, just like I would totally support another woman’s choice to follow where she believes God is calling her (into ministry or work or school or whatever).

  • Best wishes, Paul. Thanks for being civil – I really appreciate it.
    Sorry if I crossed the line on my ‘anecdotal evidence’ comment.

  • Jennifer your church history is a little off. Actually through a most of church history men have made up the majority of church leadership and influence. This is the question that Driscoll is asking and wanting us to consider; where has the influence and leadership of men in the church gone?

  • Pru @ May 2, 2007 5:59:07 PM
    Would you believe me if I said I don’t read my wife’s blog every single day and that I really & truly only watched the video this morning?
    Or am I just a diabolical character assassin in your mind?

  • Paul D made an interesting comment that is worth exploring:
    “Nobody seems surprised when we see that the rich favor prosperity theology or when the poor favor poverty theology. … Jennifer, don’t you see a link between abuses towards women and an overboard feminist theology?”
    Are we suprised when men in power favor a theology that persists that power?
    Is this *really* about Scripture? Or is this about Power? And Marketing?
    If Jennifer can be fairly accused of reading scripture through her cultural/historical context, why the heck can’t we accuse Mark, and Paul D, and Pru, and Tim, and everyone else of doing the same?
    Or are only the male chauvinists a priori correct?

  • Melanie, I didn’t see anything in Women in Christianity which devalued the role of stay at home mother.
    If you want to stay home and can afford to, great.
    What I have a problem with is when yours (and mine) is the ONLY role which is considered appropriate.

  • I am to Jennifer. Look at “Church History in Plain Language” by Dr. Shelley you will see that churches have been filled with just as many men throughout many parts of church history as women.
    Plus Driscoll’s point and the point being made previously is that the leadership and influence of men is at an all-time low in our culture and time. That young guys find church to be boring, a waste of time and something not worth their lives. They instead give themselves to business and building wealth.

  • Paul I also want to correct you and say that I am personally an egalitarian as I stated earlier. But I just believe in fairness. The truth is we must always be kind to those we disagree with and really understand their theology and views. My complementarian friends do not embrace this view because it propagates male domination and power, but because they believe it means a man leads in service and humility giving him self up. They say it does not give them a position of domination, but that they are the one’s to lead in sacrifice and service. I admire them for this. Personally I do not see how it carries over to the church, but I do understand where they are coming from. Please Paul be careful in always making things out to be a “power/authority” issue. It really is not for many.

  • Okay folks, here’s a comment from a woman church planter who was at the National New Church Conference. (Yes, I’m a Bible believing evangelical. Yes, I believe that God has clearly called me and to ignore that call is to obey man rather than God).
    How can I explain what it’s like to sit in an auditorium, feeling more and more the call of God, and then have that video come on the screen? “Soldiers” is a good picture… because I felt like I was being shot in the back by my comrade in arms. I thanked God that Bill Hybels was the next one up and said what he did. It got my focus back to where it belonged… what is GOD calling me to do.
    Can I ask a question? If someone had said: “Only white people should plant churches” would we have the same response? And yes, in past history, people WOULD have said that and quoted “slaves obey your masters” or the passage about the tower of Babel.
    Can we really expect to plant churches that reach out to the non-church world at the same time we alienate women in this kind of way??

  • Dear people
    It’s a discussion that needs to be had and Pastor Pam makes a great deal of sense. But who else is alienated by this video?
    Does anybody even think a woman or man anywhere in the Middle East is going to be even one iota more open to the empowering message of Christ having found this video on the internet…
    or are they simply going to be confirmed in their stereotype of Christianity as a Western religion that’s the hand inside the iron glove of the armies of Bush and Blair?
    I always thought the internet was a contracted form of International Network – was I wrong?

  • sometimes its quite local so that it can address issue specific to a particular (and peculiar) group – like in this occasion.
    I hope there are things to learn from this that will be applicable to other cultures who end up reading it.

  • Pam wrote: “How can I explain what it’s like to sit in an auditorium, feeling more and more the call of God, and then have that video come on the screen?”
    It’s all about the Bible. I think the only way is to improve the translation of verses which say such things as “Love your neighbor unless she is a woman presuming to be called by God to senior leadership/church planting”.
    Either that or move to a place with friendlier neighbors.

  • Tim — I’d love for you to have a conversation with Mark about toning down his stone throwing. In one simple sentence he has smeared a fellow church leader, inciting major anger against Hybels across the Driscoll Contingent on the internet. Were it not for this blog, people may not know the truth of what happened.
    Last time Mark shot off his mouth, he was defended by lots of people, and it took me organizing a protest at his church to gain an audience with him and gather a group of local pastors to speak truth to power. So good luck trying to convince Mark to change his ways and stop slandering his fellow pastors.
    If Mark’s friends–like his elders and Andrew here–aren’t going to reign him in, and if the ambivalent–like you–are going to defend him, then can we really expect him to stop throwing rocks at the other boys?
    Pam and Jeremy are right on. Mark’s gospel is full of cultural baggage. Remember: Jesus only got pissed off (as far as we can tell from the Gospels) at religious leaders who shackled their followers with cultural baggage.

  • Well that about does it for me. This has rapidly become just a place to whine, be overly sensitive (I mean come on, is Driscoll literally preventing you from being in leadership?), put words in people’s mouths, and show an increasing lack of grace to one another and to the people who made both videos.
    Honestly, as I read through several of these posts, (combined with all the other crap that has been said on the internet every time this guy opens his mouth), it’s no wonder that the Bible gives the qualifications it does for eldership. And before your head explodes from that last comment – I’m female, ok? Please don’t start accusing me of being a male chauvanist.

  • paul, i appreciate the comments and thoughts.
    i hope that if anyone has to be reigned in, including myself, then it will not start on a blog but will be personal and private to begin with.
    we all need elders and people who can tell us when we are going off track.
    Maybe being accountable is more important than being right because at least the journey to rightness can be reattempted.

  • Andrew — I generally agree with you. There are people who have personal and private access to Mark (and others like him). The rest of us would simply love for that accountability to be evident.
    At the same time, when mis-truths are promulgated in a public forum and damaging attitudes publicly demonstrated, should we not publicly counter them?

  • Jennfer, I agree with an early comment here that it would have been worthwhile to have had photos of women of color. Though I wanted to share your strong video with some friends, I could not do so due to the choice of only white women portrayed. How could I show it to my sisters of color, a video of the pain women have suffered over some of these teachings, when, yet again, THEY were not included?
    As I watched, I could not escape this. Since you said that other than Rachelle, the photos were not of people you know, then could you not just as easily have included women of color?
    Perhaps these are your own blinkers.
    Just askin’

  • Andrew:
    Thanks, as always, for providing humor in such a situation. I am just now reading this post – that’ll teach me to follow up on my bloglines more closely! I have not read all the comments here, but wanted to send a long a word of encouragement to you.
    Thanks for blogging.

  • Lissa, that’s a great point and not something I’d noticed.
    I would never deliberately exclude women of color from anything about women.
    Hopefully the same is true of Jennifer.
    FWIW, Mark very deliberately excludes women when he talks about roles he believes God does not want women to have.
    That’s very different from someone accidentally excluding a group.

  • Lissa,
    Yep, it was too white, and too middle class. I hear you. But, its not because I wanted to exclude them. It was because I was reflecting my own experience (which is white and middle class). I made this video as a response to a class I am taking and it was very much about my own reation to living in a system where those quotes still impact us. I made it for my class and for a handful of friends to see. If I ever would have thought it would have been seen by 1000’s of people, I would have been more enclusive.
    It was a very personal thing – it was simply me inviting others to share my greif. And so I made it to reflect my life.

  • did you exclude New Zealanders and tall people with receding hairlines on purpose or is there a deep seated prejudice . . . nah . . just kiddin’
    hey . . much thanks for the video. i showed my wife [who never reads my blog] yesterday and she really liked it.

  • Andrew,
    My husband only reads my blog because it’s less awkward than asking, “Honey, how much trouble did you get into on the internet today?”
    🙂 🙂

  • I’m almost afraid to enter into this conversation. But, I have to say how the 2 videos made me feel. I wasn’t necessarily offended by Mark Driscoll’s video- i was just embaressed for the entire church. I felt his language was innappropriate, and he stereotyped men. What about men who don’t want to have “sex everyday with their wives?” I use this as an example of his inflammatory language and am glad that I don’t have to have that kind of pressure on me- men that aren’t Macho and tough must feel inadequate. The second video was very moving to me as the quotes reflect the way I grew up. In my church and home there was women’s work and men’s work and the former was often degrading like washing toilets, doing laundry, or being in the kitchen. The men were to be the leaders and make all the decisions, and to laze around after churh dinners and visit while the women cleaned up. As a result of this, I’ve always felt inadequate, and that the Lord could never really care for me. recently, however I have been confronting these lies and asking myself why I believe this way. The video made me weep and begin to understand that the church has been very wrong in telling us this. If we don’t change the message that we are sending to people there won’t be a church. There will only be thousands of wounded Christians.

  • “That young guys find church to be boring, a waste of time and something not worth their lives. They instead give themselves to business and building wealth.”
    Why is this? What is the cause of this? And is this really something that is new to the church? Hasn’t it always been where men (as in “humankind”) would rather pursue their own interests than follow Christ?
    Church is boring and a waste of time? Well, I don’t think Church has ever been as ‘fun’ as it is in this day and age. I think church used to be a LOT more “boring” in days past. 🙂 Maybe we should go back to the way they did church a few hundred years ago. Where there was no musical instruments, church lasted for hours and ushers would hit you with a cane if you fell asleep. Also, there was no entertainment, no edgy, hip, trendy, and cool lingo and sermons. It was just the plain, ol’ boring truth of God’s word.
    I am a stay at home mother of 10. I homeschool. I am also a “complementarian” who believes that elder positions in the church should be held by men. I also believe in a husband’s headship and a wife’s submission. I was not at all offended by Jennifer’s video. I didn’t see at all where she was cutting down stay at home moms. I do see where she was highlighting the thoroughly unbiblical thinking that has permeated the church since Christ’s death. Those were actual quotes about women. I find THEM offensive as a stay at home wife and mother. I don’t understand why you are offended at Jennifer and not at the quotes? These were deeply held beliefs by many religious leaders in the Church!
    Paul D,
    What you are forgetting is that Mark’s statement about pastor’s wives letting themselves go was not advice to women but it was a blanket statement made to the men. I don’t know how that helped you protect yourself as a man?
    Also, it is subjective. What does Mark mean by “letting one’s self go”? In fact, he once preached that he made his wife go shopping because she was “looking too much like a mom”. Well, she IS a mother of 4 children. If anything is offensive to a woman who is a mother, it is that kind of talk. And believe me, I am no “slouch” as far as my appearance goes. What is wrong with looking like a mom? And what do we leave with that statement of his? That moms are to look like???? If he is going to make blanket statements about “most pastor’s wives” then he had better tell those pastor’s wives exactly what he means by “letting themselves go” because his other messages make it seem like women need to look like sex symbols in order to make their husbands happy and keep them from straying.
    It was also insensitive. There is a time for that kind of thing but that was not the time nor the post. If he wants to give advice to pastors, that is fine. If he wants to make blanket statements (however untrue and unfounded they are) that is fine (not really, he really should make sure what he is saying is true). But, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that they are the same thing. That was no bit of advice for you as a pastor. That was a direct condmenation of “most” pastor’s wives. It was a backhanded way of telling the pastor’s wives that they need to shape up.
    After reading through this whole conversation, I really see that people are confusing the issues and lumping them altogether.
    Absent from Mark’s advice was real advice to you pastors about keeping up your appearance so that your wives will desire you and *want* to be intimate with you. There are a lot of overweight pastors out there and Mark conveniently forgot that fact while dispensing out his “advice” to you guys.
    And let us not forget the comments about “being available to husbands in the way that Song of Solomon talks about”. Whatever that means. It is ironic to me that he is so blunt about everything else (ie., “banging their girlfriend” and “retarded cars”) but he can’t spell out what he means by some of these cryptic things he said after the whole Ted fiasco.

  • ” but it was a blanket statement made to the men. ”
    That should have read “but it was a blanket statement made to the men about their wives.”

  • hey – this conversation about pastor’s wives happened months ago and there is plenty of material in comments if people want to read them.
    i would rather not rehash it here.
    as for the idea that church is a hangout for sissy men, there is probably an element of truth to this. The Australians argue that their men do not like to go to church and sing “sissy songs” but would rather embrace a challenging spiritual quest or join a “communitas” kind of team of people on mission.
    it seems we need to be balanced – in recognizing the church’s propensity towards patriarchalism and abuse towards women and a NUMBER of other excluded groups,
    and learn how to be an embracing, understanding, caring, learning, Christlike community
    at the same time
    not fall into the trap of dumbing down the challenge for all men everywhere to pick up their cross and follow Jesus into their manly quest to fulfil their destiny and finish their race with every good thing given to them to help them give away their gift to family and humankind
    [longwinded rant . . sorry]
    just as we hope we, as the church, are enabling women to fulfil their destiny and complete their mission with every good thing in
    submitting to each other.
    about time to close these comments, which i will do later today, unless there is something unsaid.

  • Maybe it comes down to this:
    Women need church communities which encourage and affirm them in being the women God created them to be, whatever that looks like;
    and men need church communities which encourage and affirm them in being the men God created them to be, whatever that looks like;
    clearly some men react very favorably to John Eldredge, Dave Murro, Mark Driscoll and others; I think it’s because those authors/speakers give them permission they didn’t previously feel they had, to be the men God created them to be;
    the challenge is, can we give the previously excluded people that permission without at the same time invalidating the people who didn’t have a problem, for whom the existing assumptions about men and women worked; who like the traditional way church is ‘done’?
    At least, that’s what I think the challenge is.

  • I found Mark Driscoll’s video offensive. I like the pastors who don’t tell the lady with the tambourine to “park it”, and who don’t get tough with the man who is pushing a certain theology. I also like pastors who don’t call people “nutjobs.” Or say that we need to kick young men. Pastor Driscoll may have a negative view of these type of pastors, but I have a positive view of them. I believe their behavior is Christ like, and that it emulates Christ.

  • Although complementarians say they don’t believe women are inferior, they convey in their attitude towards women that they are inferior.
    They assign adult women a child like position in both the church and the family and then say they consider women equal. It’s hard to consider the complementarian position one of equality for women when women are not allowed to be fully functioning adults.
    When complementarians tell me they believe women are equal it means nothing to me. I will believe it when I see them allowing women to take on adult roles just as they allow men to.

  • And further if complementarian men really want women to believe they think women are equal to them, they need to be willing to submit to women as Esphesians 5:21 asks, instead of only expecting women to submit to them.
    Don’t tell me you think women are equal if you believe you as a nan have power and authority over them. That is not equality.

Leave a Reply