"I believe personal decisions like this are something between God, the husband and wife to mutually work out as partners."

But keep in mind that is NOT what your church

beleives and NOT what they are teaching

your husband. Some day, that conflict between

what you belief and what the church is telling

your husband to do will hit a brick wall.

I am Rev. Shawna Atteberry, and I am an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene--an evangelical denomination. The Nazarene church has ordained women since its beginning in 1903. We are part of the American Holiness Movement that ordained their first woman pastor in 1859. Another evangelical denomination, The Salvation Army, has ordained women since its beginning in the 1860s. In fact, Catherine Booth would not marry William until he "saw the light" that women could preach. Their daughter, Evangeline, was the third general of the Army (i. e. leader of the entire denomination). Coming from a tradition that has ordained women for 150 years, I find Mark Driscoll's view of women medieval to say the least.

Driscoll's view is not biblical either. The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 2:18 that is mistranslated at "helper" actually means "a power equal to." Woman was created to be a help or power equal to man--to be his eqaul in life, work, ministry, and marriage. There are several women leaders in the Bible: Deborah was a judge, prophet, and military leader (Judges 4--5); Miriam, the sister of Moses was a prophet (Exodus 15:20); and in the New Testament Priscilla and Aquila were co-pastors as well as made tents for a living together, and Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). In Romans 16:1 we find Paul sent the letter with Phoebe who was the pastor of the church in Cenchreae. Normally "pastor" is mistranslated as "helper," but this is the same word that Paul uses to describe Timothy and Titus in their pastoral ministries.

Driscoll's view of the roles of men and women are not biblical, and I believe harmful for both sexes. Biblically, both men and women are called to minister, work, and take care of their families together. Their highest priority is to obey God, and show Christlike love to each other and the world, not confine themselves into impossible gender roles.

Sincerely,

Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry

Actually, back when I was a Christian - the question of the denomination of my church was very important to me. My home church (the church that I became a member of after being saved) split right down the middle on the question of speaking in tongues.

The church I went to next had a big brouhaha about grace (is it given? is it earned? is it free? who gets it?). The one after that shattered when people became up in arms over the argument of when baptism counts (is it a multiple step process? what if you were raised Catholic? do you even need it as an adult?).

The question of acceptance in a lot of these capital-C Christian churches is determined by these answers. Entire denominations are formed and churches fall apart by these questions every year - same as it's always been. The devil is in the details. The cost of ignoring them is your soul. Forever. Lots of risk involved. You definitely don't want to be wrong on this.

The point is that -we- may not care about these distinctions, but the leaders of these congregations do. These details illuminate how people think about their souls, their loved ones, and the state of the world.

Where you get into problems is when people don't know what the church really stands for. When they throw out their amens without knowing what the church as a larger community influence is saying. When the leaders of the church don't explain what the church means when it talks about X, Y, and Z. I have fond memories of my aunt and me talking about religion (she is a self-professed devout Roman Catholic - spontaneously cries when she hears the Pope speak). I started talking about transubstantiation (the miracle that communion constitutes a miraculous conversion from bread and wine to body and blood - even though the senses cannot detect the change) - to which she replied, "It's a symbol. It's not real. No one's ever taught me that." Huh what? A fundamental teaching of Catholicism, and you don't believe it? Whatever.

It worries me that Mars Hill may not be being clear about their teachings. Using Snoop Dogg is okay - but does it really answer the specifics concerning your soul? Does it really encourage the faithful to read -entire- chapters rather than learn the Bible is media-friendly verse snippets? Do you know how many evangelical Christians I've met that think Mary Magdalene and Mary (of Mary and Martha) are the SAME PERSON? The ignorance is astonishing.

This is why religion and politics don't mix. Too many people are too lazy to sort through the details to make an informed opinion. They let others decide for them. Put both religion and politics together and the stupidity alone could cripple us.

I like to think the Gospel and Jesus reach hearts DESPITE people like Driscoll.

I agree. The Gospels, and clearly Jesus, would not approve of all of this. Jesus specifically hung out with women, people in "bad professions", and the people who were seen as wild. He specifically broke many rules from Deuteronomy and Leviticus (the hand washing, the unclean, the whole "whited sepchulure" speech, the emphasis on taking care of neighbor and not judging, etc).

If these people actually read the Gospels as a whole, instead of picking and chosing pieces to study, they would not be in this church. Jesus was a revolutionary. Driscoll is a Pharisee, and enemy of Jesus. he's even more dangerous because he uses the clock of Christianity to attack it's central precepts.

There is cultural Christian and Gospel Christian. Driscoll is cultural, but not Gospel.

In the Gospels, Jesus carefully {and repeatedly} spelled out the name of the enemy:POWER.Why is it that Xtians continually want to impose their views? Power...Have more babies so you can control the future? Jesus wept indeed