I wonder if there is an equivalent thing for women. Or are they implying that women shoudln’t get together and learn the Bible? I try not to leap to conclusions, but they should definitely either make it a coed group or have an equivalent group for women.

The college mission has a Theological Fight Club. Sounds cool, students discuss biblical texts. But that it’s males only is just offensive. I have no problem with single-gender discussion groups. However, this is clearly suggesting that women shouldn’t be debating these things, too. You’d have thought college students would be less chauvinist.

I was commenting on the biblical argument. However, since I view the Bible as a collection of historical documents, I don’t think they hold any more authority than any other historical document. Using the Bible to support your views makes as little sense as using the Code of Hammurabi or the Iliad. We can talk about what these documents say about their authors and the societies in which they lived, but we can’t use them to say how we should live today.

I would certainly argue that Driscoll has the right to say whatever he wants about women in his sermons, as long as he does not fall into the “screaming ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” problem. I’m not actually sure where legal scholars draw the line between free speech and hate speech. However, I am surprised that he would use such rhetoric, since he is presumably trying to attract Christians to his congregation rather than drive them away. But I think you misunderstood my previous comment. I was not trying to defend Driscoll in any way; I was saying that his biblical argument didn’t make any sense.

Insert “Jew” or “black” for “woman” in Driscoll’s sermons…

Another interesting link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/294572_marshill04.html
Driscoll commenting on the uproar surrounding some of these quotes.

Besides, when Paul did talk about these things, he was doing so because his churches weren’t doing these things, because, as he had taught them, these things weren’t necessary. Christian women were told to do things like cover their hair so as not to alienate the Christians from society. So that their worship more closely resembled that of contemporary cults. To normalize them.

Also, Paul was somewhat misogynistic. That was the time. That hardly made it right then, and doesn’t make it right now. Paul was hardly infallible, even biblical literalists would be hard pressed to argue that. I mean, the guy did believe in an imminent parousia.

Most people, of course, are familiar with the misogynistic passage in 1 Tim 2:11-15 that says: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” The problem, of course, is that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

There is a similar passage in a letter that Paul did write, which is the topic of Mark Driscoll’s talk, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35: “As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” However, this passage seems so out of place in the chapter, and so inconsistent with what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that this passage was inserted by someone other than Paul, perhaps someone sympathetic with the views of the author of the Pastorals.

The idea that Paul can be used to support traditional family values is so ridiculous that I am surprised that people who know the Bible use this kind of argument. Paul explicitly states that celibacy is better than marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Everyone who can be celibate should be celibate, just like Paul is. Marriage is only a concession granted to those who are too weak to live in this way. Paul’s reason for preferring celibacy is twofold: first, he thought the end of the world was on its way shortly; and second, he thought that marriage forced the followers of Christ to redirect some of their time and energy away from the gospel.

Paul’s writings clearly show that he still saw some differences between men and women. For example, men should have short hair, and women should have long hair (1 Cor 11:14-15). A wife is subject to her husband, as her husband is subject to Christ (1 Cor 11:3). Woman was created for the sake of man (1 Cor 11:9). Women should pray with their heads covered by a veil (1 Cor 11:5). However, he also talks about women who are prominent in the church. Junia is prominent among the apostles (Romans 16:7). Phoebe is a deacon (Romans 16:1). Other than the questionable passage in 1 Cor 14, when Paul talks about women serving prominent roles in the church, he does not mention anything about them being silent.

Eventually, the view endorsed by the author of the Pastorals won, and the churches rejected the views of Paul about the role of women in the church and about the superiority of the celibate life.