How can the man who says of this verse – I Peter 3:1, “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands”:

This also does not negate the equality of husbands and wives, again they are both image bearers of God. … There is equality and deference and respect, and that is the way God has ordered the world … Now what we mean by “be subject to” or “submit to” is that the husband is to lovingly humbly, sacrificiously, selflessly –let me put lots of words behind this– lead his family. And that the wife is to respect him and follow his leadership. This is not chauvinism. He is very clear that he is against chauvinism. We read elsewhere, in Ephesians 5:25 that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. This is sacrificial, humble, selfless leadership.” (emphasis mine – hear full audio here)

Also say this:

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. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality.” (emphasis mine – quoted from article here)

(First, this is Mark Driscoll’s example of deference and respect?)

Let’s leave the awful woman-like emotions out of this, shall we? There’s a fundamental logic problem here. Is he really arguing that  women should not lead the church based on the culture of our fallen world and the contents of grocery store newstands? So I assume that’s where we should look for validation of God’s plan of male church leadership? Is that evidenced by Maxim? Playboy? Internet porn stats? The fact that 30% of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year? What about the fact that on average, more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends or husbands in this country every day?

We are a people in need of redemption. All of us.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. – Romans 3.22-24. 

Those verses always bring to mind another favorite of mine: 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3.28

Let’s think of this another way – there is no difference between male and female, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Leaving aside whether or not I agree with the position Driscoll ends up in, I object and am righteously angry with the way he chooses to defend and express his position. God did not choose men to lead the church because they’re slightly less broken than these womenfolk they accompany. God’s choices do NOT have to do with the relative sinfulness of  the fallen people we are, it has to do with His plan for His church and their salvation.