A Tempted God

I've had Muslim friends tell me that James 1:13 proves Jesus is not God because Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and Jesus' temptation contradicts James' words. If God can not be tempted then how can a being that was clearly tempted be God? It's a good question and the answer is within the story of Jesus and within this very portion of scripture itself. Beyond that, we not only discover how Jesus is God from this but we discover how good Jesus/God is and how good of news this ends up being for us.

James 1:12-15 states,

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

At first read we may instantly think this passage says that the enemy can not bring a temptation to God. That is, God can not be approached by a single temptation; he is beyond that possibility. Such an interaction, the approach of evil towards him, is impossible. Unlike Cain, sin can not crouch at God's doorstep. This is both true and untrue. 

I've come to learn that James is saying that God can not be overcome by temptation and not that an enemy can not try to bring evil to God's feet. This is a much stronger God than the God who can not be tempted. A God who can be approached by evil but never defeated by evil gives me more confidence than a God who can't be approached by evil. That's a great power to be so removed from the approach of evil suggestions, I guess, but it's not a great strength. A God who is tempted and victorious seems stronger and more able to deliver in love than a God who is far off from evil's advances. The God that is too powerful or high up for evil to try and speak to is a God that would also probably be distant from me and my evil

However, the story of Jesus (and the entire Biblical story) tells us that this is not the way God operates. The Triune God of the scriptures has always been a God that comes to humanity and interacts with sinfulness. God does not sin but he loves those who do sin and rescues them from the clutches of evil. The world was overtaken by sin and God was not satisfied with letting evil win.

Our God jumps into evil's realm and defeats it. That speaks volumes to the greatness of God's power and love. Much more preferable than the God who is simply far off from sin I'd say. Jesus in God incarnated. That means God himself came to earth in the person of Jesus to correct what was made wrong in the world by sin. He came near. He is God With Us (this is what Emmanuel means). Jesus came to earth and was tempted by the Satan but he was not overcome, he overcame. Then he went to the cross and overcome death and the power of sin which put him on the cross (along with his unwillingness to sin himself). His strength in faithfulness allowed him to be tempted, beat down, buried, and then victorious. So in a sense, God can be tempted. Temptation from outside sources such as the Satan can approach God is Jesus Christ, but it can not defeat him. 

In another (perhaps greater) sense, God truly can not be tempted. Reading forward into the next verses, we learn that James is more referring to our own evil desires and that we are tempted by our desires (this is a part of our fallen nature). Our desires are compromised (due to influence of the enemy and the world that raises us predominantly). But God is not fallen because he never sinned like humans did. He has never broken relationship but rather has always stayed faithful. 

God is faithful and thus he can not be overcome or tempted by his own desires because his desires are wholly good. This is why Jesus can overcome the temptations of Satan. His character and desires are wholly good. They are strong, resilient, perfect. Jesus lacks nothing. In the previous verses we learn that steadfastness (the nonabandonment of commitment) proves a lacking of nothing, a perfection. Jesus has this steadfastness unlike anyone else due to his sinlessness. The Triune God is sinless and wholly good, perfect, lacking nothing.  

We must remember that Jesus, being God, is not tempted by his own desires in the wilderness. He is tempted by the enemy, an outside source, and he wins out. The enemy appeals to Jesus' desires but finds out quickly that Jesus' desires are not compromised and will not betray him. Jesus was tempted but not by his desires and thus he is still able to be God and we find that the account in Matthew does not contradict James' teaching. As a side-note, it should bring us great comfort to know that Jesus endured trials and temptations of all kinds (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) and that as a result he can identify with us and the world we live in. He overcame where we have not and this gives us reason to trust him and accept his rescuing help.

As a result, God's desires can not turn against him and tempt him to perform evil. It is impossible for the perfectly good to be anything but good. A grape that can never dry or age will never be a raisin. So it is with God's desires. They will never be his enemy as our desires can be our enemies. Our desires can be compromised due to sin's influence but God is safe from this due to who he has chosen to be, due to who he is. In that sense, God can never be tempted. And because God is wholly good and is full of love he never tempts anyone else. He can not lead us into evil because of his goodness. Surely, though, he can lead us out of our evil.

So we pray to God that he would "not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil" for the power and the glory and the kingdom are his. As we pray this we must take an honest look at our life and ask God to help us see what our desires are pulling us toward. Do our desires pull us into healthy and loving relationships that honor and build up others or do they lead us to feed our own greeds and leave others alone and unloved? Do we do what makes us feel good at the expense of someone else or despite the fact that we know doing this won't be beneficial in the long run?

Our desires are compromised. They can lead us astray. We want goodness, all of us, but sometimes we believe lies about goodness and trust our desires to be pure and to lead us into goodness when in reality we need to be discerning about our desires. Let us acknowledge we're influenced by evil and that we need the God who is not compromised and who overcomes evil and all it's wiles to guide us. Let us walk with the God who is safe from temptation and delivers us from evil while he, in Jesus, calls us to a stronger and more steadfast love for others as we abandon our compromised desires.

"To pursue goodness rather than merely our own interests is to transcend ourselves and thereby be more authentically who we truly are." -Miroslav Volf

Men Are More Important Than Women

I'm on a Mark Driscoll kick this week. I'm watching his sermons, I'm reading his blogs, I'm paying attention to my brother. His latest Sermon is on Ephesians 6:1-4 and is entitled "I Am Fathered." It's a part of his sermon series entitled Ephesians; Finding Your True Identity in Christ which is based off his latest book Who Do You Think You Are? (though this is not a chapter in his book like the other sermons in this series).

One of my ("open-handed" or secondary) theological disputes with Driscoll is his complementarian stance. I find it to be potentially damaging to the body of Christ (especially his personally stance). Despite the fact that he has emphatically claimed that his stance is not one that places different value on men or women, I have a difficulty buying the argument. I don't see how what they call an issue of "function" and  "role" isn't simultaneously one of "class" and "value" when discussing nonbiological characteristics. That's a big discussion that has a lot of complicated aspects to it and I won't open that can of worms too much today. Just a little.

Before I get into my disagreements let me make a few positive statements. At the start (and end) of the day, Mark Driscoll and I are brothers in Christ. I'm thankful for his boldness and his theological mind. I'm thankful that many have been blessed through being a part of Mars Hills and that Christ works through that network of congregations. While I have my own issues with Driscoll I respect him. I agree that men in our society, even in the church, have been growing more and more irresponsible in the last few decades and that the Church ought to be the society in which men treat women well by treating them as sisters in Christ. In the Church we should see men staying faithful in the covenant of marriage, refraining from sexual activity outside that covenant, and being responsible in every imaginable way to their children when God blesses them with those children. Fatherhood must be discussed. There is a terrible epidemic of fatherless homes in our land and we should not foster fatherless homes in the Church. I agree with Driscoll in all of this and am thankful he faces the issue head-on with sincere passion for justice. With that stated, I have some thoughts on the sermon.

At the beginning of this sermon Driscoll opens the teaching by stating, "The most important person in your entire life is your father." Apparently Driscoll agrees with me now. Let me explain.

We can't say men and women are of equal value and merely of different function if we say that one role/function that only men can fulfill is more important than any other function or role that only women can fill. That is, if we say fathers are more important than mothers then we immediately place more value upon fathers than mothers and thus more value on men than women. The child with a single father is immediately better off than the child with a single mother. 

The use of the word "important" creates a value statement. Important and valuable are often synonyms. If I say something is the most important thing to know then I say it is the most valuable thing to know. If I tell you a father is more important than a mother than I say a father is more valuable than a mother. One role is more valuable than the other. And since only a man can be a father and a woman a mother it follows that men can be more valuable than women. In the family, a woman can never be more valuable than a man because 1 man will always be the most important, the most valuable.

Driscoll's statement goes completely against his views on complementarianism and proves his views to be inconsistent (but who doesn't have inconsistent views). Driscoll is here saying that the two are different and not equal which is contrary to the popular complementarian view (the one he holds and preaches) that states men and women are equal in value but different in role and function.  This statements shows what is often called a strong "patriarchal" view. 

We could go in circles about how roles are given value and who places importance or value upon roles in our lives (do I put value into roles of people in my life, do they, does God, does the social sphere somehow do it itself, etc.) but let it be sufficient to say that Driscoll is claiming an absolute truth. For our purposes, let's point to God as the one who makes fathers the most important person in our lives. I think Driscoll would do this and claim the level of value attributed to the role of father is one established by God.

Driscoll states that the father is the most important person in our lives because "He has more power than anyone to influence you for good or for evil." How has this been proven? How do we see this in scripture? Sure, the Bible is written within patriarchal societies but the scriptures don't seem to consistently promote a patriarchal view (for an in-depth explanation of this see William Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals) that gives this type of power to fathers above all others. The Bible never states or implies that fathers are meant to be regarded as more important than mothers or that fathers have the most influence for good and evil in our lives. 

This also begs the questions 1) If the father has the most power to influence a child towards good or evil then why does Driscoll find stay-at-home fathers (by choice) to need church discipline? 2) If this is true of fathers then why ought the mother stay at home to raise kids when they are young? Isn't this wasting the father's potential?" This is a confusion I have. But we must truly ask if fathers really have this power of influence.

Yes, the Proverbs often are framed as a father teaching his son the ways of wisdom (which is female and Christ at the same time by the way) but this influence is accredited to God, our heavenly Father. Influence is also accredited to the Satan. This is first seen in Genesis 3 where the serpent (representing the Satan) deceives and manipulates the man and woman into sinning. They had no earthly fathers. The influence of good and evil is not rested upon humans (alone). When it is, it's from a peer. From the very beginning of scripture's story we see influence for doing good and evil as coming from nonhuman sources. This is why we go to God asking for wisdom (James 1:5). 

In giving Driscoll the benefit of the doubt, we should assume he meant to communicate that the most influential human in our lives is always our father. However, even this stance wouldn't be supported by scripture. 

Do people influence one another? Absolutely! That's undeniable. The Bible indicates that we are greatly influenced by those who surround us socially (again, in Genesis it is a peer that brings human influence). That is why we are not to keep company with those who invest in evil deeds and are of sinful character (1 Corinthians 15:33). We are influenced to do good and evil by all those in our social sphere.

Matthew 27:20 shows that our religious leaders have great influence on us. Our religious leaders influence us so much that they can help lead us into life (as we see in the Apostles) or into sin and corruption (as we see in this Matthew passage). This is part of why I wrote my previous blog about Driscoll. The Proverbs prove that seductive women influence men far too often. This passage shows that the way in which a father treats his child affects the child (as is true with any two people, especially when a power dynamic is involved) but never in any of these passages are we told that one role, one person, is more influential than all the others in leading a person to good or evil. 

The problem with Driscoll's statements is that it demands that a single mother can never be as important to her child nor have more power to influence her child towards good or evil than that child's father, even when absent. However, a story in scripture shows us a time when a mother influenced her son in a terrible way. In Genesis 27 we see Rebekah influencing her son Jacob to fool his father and steal his brother's blessing, despite the fact that Jacob knew his righteous father would not have approved (obviously). In this story the mother had far more power than the father to influence a child and the father was present! Driscoll's statements completely go against scripture on this one. 

So yes, fathers need to step up because they are important and affect and influence the lives of their offspring. However, don't be fooled into thinking your father is the most important person in your life because then you admit your mother is not as important to you as your father and I don't see that going over too well (because who wants to be told "you're less valuable to me"). While the role of the father is incredibly important, fathers need to remember that they are not guaranteed to be  the most important person in the lives of their children (even if absent). Plenty of psychology and sociology textbooks will confirm this.

We must admit that the scripture does not supply us with a teaching that allows us to conclude that the earthly father is the most influential person in our lives. That's not at all a guarantee. Are we affected by the presence and/or absence of our fathers? Yes. But this is also true of mothers and friends. Ultimately, humans are easily influenced creatures and they will be influenced by anything and anyone that speaks to them. 

The question is if we will listen to God above all others and allow him to influence us the most and if we will choose healthy and wise social circles that bring us and others closer to God. To me, it seems that if we are going to place importance on people and give them value then we should always view others as greater than ourselves. The most important person in my life is my neighbor in this moment. Seek God and love neighbor. Rest in that, whoever and whatever your father is.

Don't Study the Bible!?

I recently wrote a blog about the famous pastor Mark Driscoll's latest sermon. Today I watched the entire sermon (watch it here) partially because of a blog I read that critiqued a quote by Driscoll from that sermon. I watched the entire sermon to see for myself whether or not they were appropriately handling the quote (since I try to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt). I encourage you to watch and determine for yourself whether or not their blog (or mine) has been fair to Driscoll (and Christ and his body).

As Driscoll enters into Ephesians 5:22-33 he tells people they won't like what he has to say. He starts with the first two words. "Wives, submit..." He lightens the mood by laughing about how this has already caused tension for the audience (I appreciated that). "Submit" can be a word that causes tension, he knows this, maybe better than most these days. He stops his reading after emphasizing the word "submit" and states,

"'What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?' You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else. I'll just read. Ok..."

And with that he continues reading the passage.

BUT HOLD UP. There is a problem.

Whatever Driscoll meant is probably lost in his wording because his wording is communicating that word studies and learning about the Biblical languages is a sign of a rebellious evangelical. I don't know why he chose the term "evangelical" over "Christian" but I'll touch on that in a moment

I am sure he doesn't mean what his words communicate at face value. I think we owe it to him to investigate what his intended meaning was because it can be dangerous to just take people's words at face value when the words can be controversial.

What he might mean is that a casual reading of a translated Bible in the English will be sufficient for our understanding of a passage's meaning. In other words, an author's intent can be found through a reading void of investigatory study. 

Maybe Driscoll is (also) trying to say that people in other theological camps who disagree with his complementarian position try to find loopholes through selective word studies so they can disagree with his position and escape the "soft patriarchy" position he finds to be the Christian truth. Thus, "rebellious evangelicals." Maybe he is trying to argue that those who disagree with his position are abusing scripture to support their claims. Sadly, that approach reeks of an unwillingness to have reasonable discussion over a theological disagreement. I'm hoping this isn't what was in his heart/mind when he spoke these words but, at the same time, it wouldn't be surprising if he's making an off handed comment that jabs at people for disagreeing with him by trying to make them look bad. He's done it before without apology. Maybe this isn't the case though! Let's hope not. 

Maybe he meant those sorts of things but Driscoll doesn't say any of that. He doesn't qualify his statement at all. He leaves us with a statement that, at face value, villainizes word studies and a deeper look at author's intent. At the very least, at face value, he villainizes those who disagree with him. Either way, he used poor wording and for the sake of those under his teaching (and the rest of the body of Christ) he should clarify his statement in a public address or his next sermon. An apology would even be helpful since a lack of clarity can be incredibly damaging. I think of the new believers at Mars Hill and those who listen to his podcasts that will be confused or poorly influenced by this statement.

It's fine if Driscoll thinks his position is the right one. I expect that. I feel the same way about my opposing position. However, the way we talk about each other must be respectful Jabs don't help. Bold truth is fine but cheap shots are not loving. Implying that the brothers and sisters who disagree with us are abusing scripture simply because they reach a different conclusion isn't helping. We have to try to understand each other. Hopefully Driscoll isn't taking cheap shots. Hopefully he meant something harmless and just used the totally wrong words. 

 I hope he makes this more clear because right now he's saying the sort of thing that cult leaders say. I'm not wanting him to be viewed that way. I don't want my brother to be so terribly misinterpreted. 

To be clear, I'm not saying he is trying to start a cult or is trying to hoard power over people. I'm not saying Mars Hill isn't a part of the body of Christ as a faithful church. I'm merely saying Driscoll, at face value, just sent a message that sounds like the message cult leaders send (that is, don't investigate to see if my teaching is right or wrong, just listen to what I say). And remember, I'm hoping to God that he didn't mean what he said. That'd be incredibly sad and would cause me to seriously worry about the people under Driscoll's leadership. 

I just obtained my Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies. I had to take 2 years of Koine Greek classes to get that degree. I don't like Greek. In fact, I despised those classes because they got on my nerves. But I understand the value of word studies, etymology, cultural studies, and all the research that helps to better understand the biblical author's intent. This is especially true for passages that are controversial. That's what makes this statement so troubling.

Only minutes earlier Driscoll emphasized that this might be one of the most controversial passage in all of scripture for some listeners. This is a big deal, a hot button issue. This is difficult and causes tension. He admits this before he begins. He even says some people refuse to discuss the issue because it's so touchy. He makes it clear that our culture has trouble with the word "submit" and then, almost immediately, dismisses the pursuit of understanding what that word means for the author and his audience. Driscoll opts out for his own interpretation (which can't be void of word study with how much he speaks on this issue on a public level). That's beyond foolish. It's dangerous. 

However, again, I'm hoping and betting he's not truly against word study. I think he'd agree that it is good and wise to do word studies and to do everything you can to better understand the words of scripture. If all we can do is read the Bible at face value then that's fine but most of us can do far more than this and we should do far more. We should do everything we can (together) to better understand the truth of scripture as Holy Spirit leads us in our learning (and remember, God gave us study tools as well as the Spirit). I firmly believe Driscoll and I agree on this.

I won't villainize Driscoll. I'd rather assume he said something he shouldn't have said off the cuff and it was a poor choice of words to communicate what he actually meant. I pray that he clarifies and apologizes. I encourage you to study scripture and to respectfully interact with those with whom you disagree. Seek unity! Seek to understand how you might be wrong. I may be wrong about Driscoll's statement. I try to be fair but perhaps I'm not being fair enough. I don't know but I'm trying to help us all however I can, if I can, if it's needed.

And if you want, tweet @PastorMark and encourage him to clarify this confusing and dangerous statement for the sake of his ministry. Be blessed my siblings!

Birth Control for Christians Part II

Recently I picked up a book entitled Birth Control for Christians by Jenell Paris. I was going to do a blog series through the material because I was under the impression that the book would be giving a theological perspective on the various types of available birth control methods.

I was wrong.

Paris' book is highly informative about the various available forms of birth control but she doesn't give very much theological thought to any of them. A few of the methods are given a paragraph or page of light reflection on some general theological positions regarding them but that's about it. For example: It's debated whether or not certain methods can be classified as abortive. That's really all that's provided theologically.

The beginning of the book is far more informative on the theological matters of birth control. Paris provides a few historical positions of the Catholic church, which is great, but doesn't travel too far beyond the short history lesson. I was hoping to see theological argument for and against all the various methods with a short explanation of the method as a precursor to the positions. Needless to say I didn't get that. Instead, an explanation of the intricacies of each method were explained, pros and cons were listed, prices were listed, side affects both in the positive and negative were listed, and how one can obtain the method was mentioned. As stated before, there were, at times, concise mentions of theological thoughts on the method but this was a rarity. 

Though, I must mention, there is a good little bit on the pull-out method and misreadings of "the sin of Onan" which I found to be entertaining (too bad I've already studied that and written a blog on it). 

As a result of my being wrong, I won't be delving into a blog series about this book. I apologize. Sorry. However, if you're looking for a book that just says "Here's all the birth control methods and all you need to know about them outside of theological stances" then this is a fantastic choice! It's quite informative. Perhaps this is a good book to read prior to reading literature on theological positions regarding the various methods. 

So with all that, good luck on your baby making... or avoiding. Maybe Pray about it or something. I hear that helps a good amount. Also, adopting is a good idea. Just saying. If you know of books that might be more in line with what I'm looking for please let me know! Thanks and may God direct your steps as you make plans in your heart. 

Is Driscoll Right About Women & Conflict?

I was watching a 7 minute video snippet of a recent Mark Driscoll sermon (source) that was brought before me through an article criticizing an interpretation of a Proverb (which was unfair). In the sermon he speaks of Ephesians 22-33 and how women submit to their husbands in love and respect.

I always try to hear Driscoll fairly and to give him the benefit of the doubt since I know I disagree with some of his major theological views. I owe it to him, myself, Christ, and the body to give him the benefit of the doubt so that I can ensure that my love for my brother is not tainted by ignorance, pride, lies, or any other weapon that can be used against me by the enemy. Unity is important and I don't want to give the enemy a foothold. 

With that said, Driscoll's view of men and women often baffles me. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong and I'm not insulting him, I'm just saying that I don't see what he sees and what it is that he sees in this world baffles me. Let me explain.

Starting at about the 2:20 mark of the video he instructs women that they need to be respectful, which is true, and that wives must feel and speak in a way that doesn't "pick a fight with him, declare a war, and start the crazy-cycle." I agree that wives and husbands need to not fight when they disagree but rather respectfully work through conflict. This isn't a command just for women but for spouses, and as I'll later explain, people in general. Also I don't think Driscoll is saying "crazy-cycle" in a way that demeans the female gender. Unfortunately, it can easily sound like he is saying women are typically the ones who start the "crazy-cycle" and we all know that's not true. This is the biggest problem with Driscoll's sermon. Sure, he's working off a teaching meant for wives and such but this is wisdom for all God's people, not just married females and that isn't expressed in any form.

Driscoll states emphatically that it is good and right for wives to express their thoughts and feelings to their husbands because Jesus expressed thoughts and feelings. He goes on to say that women shouldn't disrespect their husbands in public because it encourages others to do so. This is a big part of his teaching; the public nature of the wife's "disrespect" and how it affects the husband socially in the realm of being respected. Next he states, "You can disagree with your husband but respectfully, privately." Here's an issue for me, and I'm not sure if he intended it but, it seems Driscoll is making respectfully and privately into synonyms. Now, disagreement with the husband can only be a private matter, otherwise it's disrespectful. Earlier he was saying to just be respectful but now it's to be respectful and to be private.  

I don't disagree that most conflict needs to be settled privately (again this goes both ways for husbands and wives). This is not the case for all conflict. Some smaller conflicts can happen in public. Anyway, Driscoll continues this thought and it's the next point I'm actually focused on.

Around the 4 minute mark he says to the women, "...you ladies don't perhaps understand this but when you disrespect, cut down, your husband in front of others, he is in a lose-lose scenario because if he argues back he is being mean. If he doesn't argue back he is being weak. He's in a lose-lose. Men with men, it's not like this.You disrespect me, we can talk about that. Right? We can actually have a bit of a debate about that. But with your wife? 'I'm in a bad position. Either I respond and I'm a mean husband or I don't respond and I'm a weak husband.'"

I 100% agree that disrespect is harmful to the person in a personal way and in a social way. We should never disrespect one another be it in private or public. That's just flat out loving others. Husbands should respect their wives and wives their husbands. However, I still worry Driscoll is operating under the idea that disagreement in public is disrespect. I hope not because I couldn't say disagreement in public puts a spouse in a lose-lose situation. This brings me to my next thought.

Why must the dichotomy be mean v. weak? Who says it is weak to refuse to engage in conflict publicly and opt to settle the matter privately? Isn't this, more or less, what he was teaching the wife to do only moments earlier? I think this is the third way out of the situation if it arises. Respond, in love. That way you're not "mean" or "weak." This scenario will inevitably happen and the proper reaction is to respond in love. Don't be passive, don't be aggressive, be kind. Step to the side and settle the matter in love or agree to resolve it later alone. Back to the dichotomy.

There is nothing weak about being disrespected. If it is weak then it's probably the type of weakness we see when Jesus is spat upon (to a much smaller degree). That is, it is an appropriate weakness. It is better to be wronged to than to wrong. Christians don't fight back to uphold a reputation. Christians have no interest in their own pride or looking good in the eyes of others. No, their aim is to be loving, patient, and kind. They want to be like Jesus and thus they don't need to worry about appearing weak to others (especially if the others are a bunch of guys).

I also don't think engaging in the disagreement and having an argument, even in public, constitutes being mean. The wife isn't mean when she publicly disagrees and the husband isn't mean when he disagrees in public. How one disagrees determines whether or not they are being mean. If it's insulting or done in an unloving manner then it can be classified as mean but arguing in and of itself, even in public, is not enough to constitute being mean. So I find the dichotomy to be unreasonable on both ends.

Furthermore, the notion that men get to hammer out differing opinions in public but women (or a particular woman) can't hammer out differing opinions with their husband in public is a bit silly. Sure, there is a different intimacy. I get that. Again, most matters should be handled privately if possible BUT anytime a Christian man is disrespected, be it by a wife or another man (be he Christian or not) then the Christian man ought to respectfully, patiently, kindly, seek to resolve the conflict in a way he would with a beloved. That might mean saying "Can we talk about this later in private?" instead of fighting for his reputation or pride in front of the guys. But, like with the wife, sometimes the issue must be handled in the forum it is proposed and the matter must be solved in a loving and respectful way. I don't think we need too different an approach to conflict with wives and bros (and this is the context I think Driscoll presents as opposed to a context which has within it a personal enemy). 

Also on that note, I don't want to assume Driscoll is saying women are incapable of engaging in debate when men are capable of it. I don't at all think he is proposing them women are of weak mind and unable to intelligently debate with men. That wouldn't be fair to him and his intent. So let's not go there, let's respect the man and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Either you are mean to people and a bad lover of neighbor/spouse or you're like Jesus. Why must we say the dichotomy exists with the wife and not fellow men? To me, it seems like Jesus wants us to be the same person for everyone, consistent in our conduct. Yes, context (even socially) plays a part but I don't see how it plays as big a role as Driscoll seems to think. Both men and women need to be respected by the Christian man (and woman) in the same way. Our conflict resolution skills in marriage can, for the most part, work off the same principles in public with those we are not bound to in marriage.* Maybe I don't understand marriage very well as a single man but I do understand conflict resolution pretty well and this is something I've found to be true in my experience.

Here's the real question: Am I misreading Mark Driscoll? Do I not understand his view of how men and women are different or am I misunderstanding what he is teaching here and the implications of that teaching? I'm working hard to hear him rightly. 

*A great book for conflict resolution in marriage which has a ton of carry-over principles for conflict resolution in general is Fight Fair! by Tim and Joy Downs.