Slave No More:

I'll spare you the historical / evidential arguments for the objective truth of Christianity, which I presume you've already heard and rejected.

I acknowledge that, as portrayed here, there are some things about Mars Hill which sound extremist, even cultic. My real issue is that I don't trust the portrayal. Only the most naive Christian would pass negative judgment on a church or its members based entirely on the testimony of a writer who not only disbelieves Christianity, but considers it a sociopolitical threat. Check out the Amazon reviews of the book from which this chapter is excerpted. Sandler did not visit Mars Hill as a neutral observer (if there is such a thing); she went there to do opposition research on the Christian Menace. I tend to believe the members of Mars Hill who have written that they don't recognize themselves or their community as depicted here.

Re Mars Hill's perceived subjugation of women: Sandler herself quotes a Seattle academic who points out that women hold a wide variety of leadership positions at Mars Hill, many of them in paid staff positions. If the Church was opposed to women working outside the home, why would it put them on the payroll? This seems to contradict the "barefoot and pregnant" meme which keeps appearing in this thread. And in Mark Driscoll's blogged response to this article (which links to this story; not exactly typical cult leader behavior) he points out that several of the women who Sandler interviewed at depth are, in fact, deacons at Mars Hill, a position of spiritual leadership. In other words, some of the women who are cruelly caricatured in this thread as Stepford Wives in fact hold positions of authority within the congregation. Anyone who is offended because Mars Hill does not appoint women to the ordained pastorate is free to vote with their feet and seek out one of the many congregations that do.

I have never set foot in Mars Hill (or in Seattle) and I belong to a denominational church which is very different from Mars Hill both in culture and church government. But I suspect that Mars Hill is beginning to attract heat not because of what it does wrong, but because of what it does right; teaching the things Christians have always believed, without apology.

Here's an article from the Seattle Times, which feature's the work of Mars Hill member, Ellefson (a married woman, no less).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003268582_malath21m.html

I grew up with a feminist mother who tried to have and do it all. Like many women of my generation, I was told that I too could have it all. But after watching my mom struggle to hold together a broken marriage, balance the demands of raising a few kids, and pursue her (unsatisfying) career, it was clear to me that as wonderful as she is, I don't want that life.

I think feminism is messed up because it basically is asking women to be just like men. I'm married to a man whom I love deeply, but I don't want to be just like him. I don't want him to treat me like one of his friends. And I know that he doesn't want me to treat him like my best girlfriend (shoe shopping, anyone?).

Am I less of a woman if I embrace that I have a womb and I'd like to have children? That I'd like to love and nurture my family? Am I less of a woman if I want to support and encourage my husband to be successful? If I like to put on a dress and lipstick and have my husband take me out on a lovely date?

I am a member at MH and I am a mom and wife. And I love it. I'm not saying it isn't hard, but it is deeply rewarding. And contrary to the author's misguided opinion that women at MH are repressed, at MH I have felt tremendous freedom to become more fully who I am. I know that my identity is not in my job or my accomplishments - it is in Jesus - so I don't have to waste time trying to impress people. Because my husband works hard to provide for our family, I have the freedom and the time to pursue things I am passionate about. I've been respected, honored, and more truly loved and cared for - primarily by my husband but also by our church family. So yes, I used my womb, but I also use my brain.

I am curious as to what you mean by "objective truth" however. If you mean "don't steal, don't murder" etc, these things are not exclusive to religion. Laws of this sort exists before religion did - especially Christianity. Please elaborate if you will. I often hear theists claim "truth" is in their religion, but none has ever been able to provide any.

There is no need for Christians or any other brand of theist to apologize for what they believe. However, if you want to preach it to the wider public, you will receive criticism - just as anyone else's ideas would be. Theists tend to believe they are above criticism simply by virtue of being one of the faithful. They are not. The author of the article, whether she paints a picture you want to see or not, has the right to do so. Given my time spent around Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, I don't buy the picture you're painting at all. Women being "allowed" to hold positions of authority means little when the authority over them follows a religion that devalues them to such a degree.

No Name Given's link went to a story about Ugandan refugees coming to America in which I didn't see any reference to Mars Hill. Have I missed it?

~~~

To No Name Given - I find it interesting that you paint a picture of your mother that says she was a woman with little to no support, and you blame feminism? Feminism in no way says that women need to be just like men. Feminism is about celebrating was is female. You seem to believe that "what is female" means being a housewife, free to follow her fancy, but with nothing to call her own. I disagree. And, as I said before, if you chose to spend your life in the house, fine. (I would rather slit my own throat, but that's the beauty of having choices, isn't it.) But let's not pretend that it is a superior or even possible choice for most people. While I am not suggesting that you have done such - plenty of women who do stay home take on a smug air of superiority that is both undeserved and laughable.

And once again, no one has said that having children makes one less of a woman. That you and others keep implying such says to me there is either a) undue defensiveness coming from MH's supporters, or b) a little uncertainty on your end. Where did you get these goofball ideas that "feminists" (read: women who don't stay in the house) don't nurture their children, don't want their S.O.'s to be successful or don't want to go out on the town with him? If you do believe any of these things that I have to think you have been lied too, or that you are lying in order to slander women not like you - and possibly to give justification to your life choices.

I am not a wife or a mother. However my identity is not my job. I don't waste anytime trying to impress anyone. As you do not know anyone here you can't claim you're been more respected, honored of truly loved than anyone else. These are other assertions MH's supporters keep making that have no basis in reality.

I can see that MH's supporters are trying desperately to convince the outside world (you know, the one you're not apologizing to and not trying to impress) that the picture painted in this article isn't the truth. However, the more I read from you the more convinced I am that is it very accurate. And, unsurprising. Religion is no place for self-respecting women.