http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/you-think-youre-a-man.php

Halden, the world wants to know, “Does Mark Driscoll wear khakis?”

I’m confident Driscoll restated his views on women as not suitable for being elders in Vintage Church, published in 2008. That is why there’s no reason to be dumbfounded that Halden and others still find that view as objectionable now as when Driscoll articulated his position as he did 5 years ago. Changing the style of expression doesn’t change the substance and the substance is what folks disagree with.

As for the link to a link to a Driscoll sermon talking about how Piper and Mahaney took him (Driscoll) to task for failing to adequately teach about the love of Christ for His people … you don’t seriously think that constitutes a rebuttal to those who consider Driscoll a misogynist, do you? You might hope you’re putting out a fire but this link to a link comes off more like unintentionally dumping three gallons of gasoline on to the fire. And in case you didn’t notice that “Why John Piper is dangerous” entry, saying that Driscoll is okay because Piper is speaking into his life might not be convincing to a lot of people who read this blog. :)

But when we’re seeking the *significance* of a text, or its *application* to our own context, when we’re doing sys theo or ethics, we have to be able to recognize the distance between ourselves and Paul’s audience, right?

I don’t mean to quibble here with the idea that Paul is telling his original audience that he doesn’t allow women to teach. Nor do I quibble with the idea that Moses is telling his audience in the narrative to cease from all labor on the seventh day of the week. I’m quibbling over what each of those commands means for us.

And so getting outside the heads of the NT writers & original first century audiences is necessary.

It’s also worth noting that (pseudo?) Paul’s epistles are not the only NT documents to use the creation narrative as a kind of “meta-Law”. Jesus’ teachings on divorce in Matthew and Mark explicitly use the Genesis 1 creation account to justify a hardline position on divorce, for example. Dismissing the appeal to the creation narratives places one outside the logic of the NT writers.

Anyone interested in hearing Pastor Mark talk about the counsel he’s received from other godly men, please listen to this

http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/driscoll-piper-mahaney.php

That being said, Driscoll worships a strange perverted god who works oppression and not liberation. That’s a weird understanding for people who take the Bible so seriously. Maybe we should focus on all the stories about God working to liberate the oppressed, set the captive free, etc…you know that Kingdom of God, Jesus stuff.

btw really enjoy your blog

I take 1 Timothy as canonical and Pauline, but I don’t accept the view that Paul (or God) intends to deny women spiritual authority based on their being created female. You might find this article by Professor Kroeger of interest ANCIENT HERESIES AND A STRANGE GREEK VERB Here is a clip from the article:

But what can the term authentein imply in 1 Timothy 2:12? In his Commentary on I Timothy 5.6, St. John? Chrysostom uses autheritia to denote “sexual license.” If the word in this context refers to sexual behavior, it puts a quite different interpretation on the entire passage. For instance, if we were to translate the passage, “I forbid a woman to teach or discuss higher algebra with a man,” we would understand the prohibition to be directed against instruction in mathematics. Suppose it read, “I forbid a woman to teach or talk Japanese with a man.” Then we infer that the injunction applies to the teaching of language. “I forbid a woman to teach or dangle a man from a high wire” would presuppose that the instructor was an aerialist. “I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man” would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behavior as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed “teach to fornicate” in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.). Too often we underestimate the seriousness of this problem for the New Testament church. A passage in 2 Peter expresses concern not only for those drawn into this error but also for the illegitimate children which it produced…

It is evident that a similar heresy is current at Ephesus, where these false teachers “led captive silly women laden with sins” (2 Tim. 3:6f.).

Licentious doctrines continued to vex the church for several centuries, to the dismay of the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria wrote a detailed refutation of the various groups who endorsed fornication as accepted Christian behavior. He complained of those who had turned love-feasts into sex orgies, of those who taught women to “give to every man that asketh of thee,” and of those who found in physical intercourse a “mystical communion.” He branded one such lewd group authentai (the plural of authentes).