Lin

This does not really go here but it is about Eve and the teaching out there about her. A friend sent me this today. It is a quote from Mark Driscoll about Eve.(CBMW disagrees with Driscoll as he allows women to teach men in Bible studies)  Driscoll is the rising star in the Reformed movement and is a big church planter. His teaching on Eve is illogical. If we follow his logic then NO MAN should ever preach or teach because they are all evil traitors on purpose like Adam. Perhaps men were redeemed but not women? (It must be nice to live in a bubble where no one ever points your logical fallacies to your face!)

The full article by Denny Burke and John Hamilton is here:
https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-12-No-2/Younger-Evangelicals-and-Women-in-Ministry-A-Sketch-of-the-Spectrum-of-Opinion
“Mars Hill Church has published a little book that describes the church’s posi­tion on various issues related to church leadership. In this book, Driscoll insists that “Paul’s clear teaching” is that “only qualified men should be elders/pas­tors.”32 Driscoll comes to this position in part as a result of his understanding of 1 Tim 2:12-14. Driscoll writes,
Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gull­ible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed.33

Driscoll’s droll interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12-14 is precisely what makes his ap­plication of the text so surprising. Mars Hill Church endorses gifted (but ap­parently “gullible” and “easily deceived”) women to lead and to teach men so long as such women are not ordained as pas­tor/elder.

It is the opinion of the present writers that not only is Driscoll mistaken in his interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12, but also his application of it to the ministries of his church is a non-sequitur. Why would one allow a person from the “gullible” and “easier to deceive” sex to lead and to teach God’s people? How could such a person possibly be qualified to teach and to lead when they are so easily brought under the spell of error? We are not ready to concede Driscoll’s interpreta­tion of Paul on this point.36 Yet even if we were to grant his interpretation, we believe that his praxis is hardly a legiti­mate implication of his exegesis. ”

The article ends with this:
 “The whole process led Wayne Grudem to comment, “Suppression of any al­ternative point of view is probably the most common way for an egalitarian viewpoint to be advanced in a church… Mars Hill [followed] that pattern ex­actly.”53 ”

The entire article is interesting because one can see they are moving away from the term ‘complementarian’ which I think is good. It does not fit and it is not honest. I also noticed that the only scripture they reference for their view on woman teaching men is 1 Tim 2.