Wow, you just helped me understand my husband! Thanks! This is a difference that had been in the back of my mind, but I hadn’t heard it put into words yet.

Right on Tim.

The problem of the lack of male leadership (be it in a church, home, or government) can be traced back to the Fall of Adam. Ever since the Fall, men have been prone to be either authoritarian dictators, or else bounce to the other extreme of being feminine and letting the women wear the pants. Either extreme is a result of man’s sinful propensity.

“You cannot have a thriving church without a core of men who are true followers of Christ. If men are dead, the church is dead…

If we want to change the world, we must focus on men…”

Both are very broad statements. If I were a woman in a church which had few men, a godly faithful minister/elder/eldership, and I were faithful to Christ and His gospel and read that “the church is dead” I would feel must affronted. I know of many faithful true churches where there are few men but many faithful women who pray for their husbands, children and grandchildren etc

The second statement is plain silly. (In fact I find all the one liners here to be pretty empty.)

Tim please define what you mean by “masculine” and “strong”. I’ve seen some wobbly churches where masculine and strong types act in total ungodliness as bully boys. And I’ve seen churches where the elder(s) have been more of a genteel disposition and I know whose ministry I could more easily sit under.

I feel this is just another attempt at using a formula to get church ‘right’ in men’s eyes. As with Mrs Darr - the body of Christ takes on many forms under different conditions, times, places .. and it is His beloved whom He died for.

TimYour post was poorly worded : Men don’t follow programs” may have been better worded… “Men don’t follow programs, they follow Jesus and all His Teachings”

“You cannot have a thriving church without a core of men who are true followers of Christ.”

Couldn’t have a church made up entirely of women? Say, in a women’s prison?

the subtext seems to be… Men are good and godly and not infatuated with silly time-wasting things the way women are.

So, it’s OK to neglect teaching women sound biblical truths - because if you focus on the men, you’ll get what the church really needs anyway.

Way to confirm my perception of the reformed Christian stereotypes about women. KMS is right. This is incredibly condescending.

The truth is “You cannot have a thriving church without a core of MALE AND FEMALE DISCIPLES who are true followers of Christ. If MEN AND WOMEN are dead, the church is dead…”

Why can’t we focus on building strong men and women in the church who follow hard after Christ and love their neighbors, who take risks for eternity and are committed to the gospel? Why do we have this “men vs women” emphasis rivalry in the church when Christ died to redeem both?

Maybe because women want to be challenged too.

Perhaps they put up with condescension and demeaning attitudes Driscoll displays toward females because they want to be challenged in a vibrant Christian community.

But vibrant Christian communities don’t have to pit men and women against each other where the former are interested in “truth and action and real leadership” and the latter in “group therapy and flowers and programs.”

One day, some pastor is going to figure out that he can serve meat to both men and women without implying that the women would rather dine on milk. He’ll end up training both men and women to teach others to teach others and he’ll end up with a far healthier church than the sibling rivalry model that seems to be so popular these days. Not everything bad in Christendom should be associated with women and “feminized men”!

As I read my Bible, I don’t see any commands about designing our church to please men, but to please Christ.

“If you want to have a solid church…you need to have strong, masculine, godly leadership. Without this kind of leadership a church will inevitably wither and fade.”

I have given much thought to this truth, and to the larger context it represents. You can find my thoughts at http://www.bereansnotepad.com/4.html.

An excerpt from pg. 48 of the book:

“Several things result when we allow female authorities in the church. One immediate consequence that often takes place is that the woman, in this context, rises to a position of authority over her own husband. Not only does this potentially weaken his authority in their marriage, it also appears to sanction this reversal of roles in the minds of other women in the congregation.

Second, it removes church leadership from being what I call an ‘arena of male significance.’ We need to remember that masculinity requires some context in which men can be men, can compete with other men, and can gain the honor God designed them to strive for. Moreover, when a man who is contemplating entering the ministry compares himself to some of today’s female teachers and pastors (who can be, as we said, stunningly gifted), there is a real possibility he may decide his lesser talents are not truly sufficient for the task.

But the primary reason men should be in church leadership is that they are specifically assigned to be Christ’s representatives to His body. In this role they are the shepherds or overseers who must teach His people and guard them from error, administer His provisions and sacraments, and model His authority. When these forms of service are performed by strongly masculine men, the church is given an accurate view of the nature of Christ Himself. When these services are also something a woman can do, there is a very real depletion of God’s self-revelation.”

What about women following Beth Moore?