I think the leap in logic from one comment Hybels made to saying his egalitarian position comes from chauvinistic guilt is a little much.  I’m not sure it’s necessary to call into question Bill Hybel’s honesty ("Driscoll is who he says he is and his actions are an outflow of his beliefs.  I can’t always say the same for Hybels.") and credibility to defend what was to many an offensive video by Driscoll. 

I could say that Driscoll is nothing but a show.  That he’s an actor who says things only for shock value because he loves the attention.  People have said that about him.  However, I don’t know him well enough to make a judgment call of that nature and I choose not to believe that about someone who seems to love God and the church as much as he does.

Hybels shouldn’t apologize, he said nothing about Driscoll personally and spoke what he was feeling.  Also, there is a tone in the last paragraph that makes it seem like apologizing when you say something wrong is a bad thing.  At least I can respect Hybels for being willing to apologize when he says something or the church does something that could be offensive (he has done it on other occasions at conferences I have been to).  From what I have read and seen the same cannot always be said of Driscoll.

I’m an enigma, just not a famous one.

Whoo boy, Im glad that I am like Leonard; ‘a not famous one’ When I say something stupid or not as well thought out as I would like the audience I have to which I must apologize is pretty small.  Ive never met either Driscoll or Hybles all I get to do is read about them but it seems to me that they both because of their platforms get quite a bit of attention in moments of mispeaking (things which need to be clarified) and things which are an attempt to be funny which are out of place because of the situation/audience, as well as biblical positions upon which honest God-loving people can disagree.  I was kind of impressed when Driscoll met with those who were not being very loving or kind or even Christian to begin a dialogue regarding his communication.  The fact that Hybles does it on a regular basis is equally impressive to me.

Snoop, I don’t know if that is the case but it was a pretty big jump.  What did one enigma say to the other?  I Just don’t get it.  Now that’s comedy.

Leonard -

Huh?  HAHAHHAHA HUh?

It is possible, of course, that Hybels is an egalitarian because he is an evangelical who takes scripture very seriously and has studied the issue and agrees with the majority of evangelical scholars that there is no Biblical reason to limit leadership to men.

Let’s not confuse Biblical egalitarianism--the belief that all positions open to a man are also open to a women, and that ministry roles should be based on gifting and character, not gender--with modern feminism that argues men that men and women are the same.

Hybels may have a preference for male leaders, but this is not a theological position.  Also, I don’t think it is true and I think you are making much more out of an off-hand comment that it warrants.  Pretty serious to accuse Bill of being a chauvinist for that…

Michael,

In context - Bill’s comments clearly mean the spiritual gifts necessary to plant a church. I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I do think Mark D has encouraged that with his blog post about the “banned” video. The problem with these discussions is they deteriorate so quickly.

I think both sides were right on target. Mark’s position on women in ministry has been clear for a long time. Conference organizers should have known that would be part of any presentation he makes. It’s a significant aspect of his ministry philosophy because it is so counter cultural.

Bill H has also been a strong supporter of women as pastors for some time. That’s no secret either.

The issue arose because Bill followed the video. He had to say something. It’s a substantive disagreement that would have been like an elephant in the room if he doesn’t make reference to it. He chose pithy remark rather than a direct confrontation. We can debate the wisdom of that. I personnally think it was wise way to go. Too bad people are taking sides. I’ve learned a lot from both of these guys about ministry and I refuse to choose one or the other. I don’t always agree with either, but both deserve our respect.

Mark and Bill both love Jesus, have tremendous evangelism gifts, have grown amazing churches and aided and planted a ton of churches. And neither guy is known for holding his tongue.

I’d be more interested in focusing on the question of whether the pithy remark or a more measured “I disagree with what just happened” response is more effective when faced with similar situations both inside and outside the church. I often find myself following someone that says something I can’t just let go. Spiritual wisdom please....

Stewart –

I love your comments, and am admonished by them.

My distain for the way Driscoll continues to make callous remarks that hurt people, with an attitude that appears to be “if you’re hurt . . . that’s your problem, not mine,” caused me to miss an important point which you bring out in your post.

In a conference about church planting, whether women should assume the lead pastor role in a church plant IS a viable and important discussion.

What if instead of a pithy remark, Bill had said something like:

Thank you Mark.  I feel it’s important to say however, that many people have carefully studied scripture and believe it tells us woman and men are gifted equally, and that have equal biblical permission to plant churches.  This is a disputable theological question about which mature and studied Christians disagree.  As a church planting team, it will be important for you to make a careful and prayerful evaluation of all the elements of your context (demographic, denomination, etc.) through the filter of scripture and then determine appropriate roles for men and women.

Now on with my talk . . .

I’ve come out of the MMI closet as an egalitarian . . . but I’m a practical one.  I feel that scripture gives equal gifting, leadership and authority to both men and women in regard to the church of Jesus Christ.  However I don’t happen to believe the gospel is effectively advanced in our current cultural context when women are in the lead spot.  This does not mean that women cannot have significant leadership (boards, teaching rotations, etc.) On this I agree with Driscoll’s message (though not his method) . . . for the church to effectively relate to men, the top leader of the church should be a man. 

I think that here the Apostle Paul’s words apply: ““Everything is permissible” - but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” - but not everything is constructive.  Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” 1 Cor 10:23

And I still feel BH has demonstrated over and over that it bothers him when his public words hurt and offend, and I think MD has equally demonstrated that he could give a rip about the affect of his words others.

Wendi

Travis Johnson said:

“Its old news already.”

Amen.  I agree 100% with this statement.  Any additional discussion is welcome off-line...but I’d prefer not to give the incident at NNCC any more legs online.  Thanks for the good comments, critique and discussion, everybody...especially those I’ve talked with off-line.

There is much being said about something most of you were not present for.  I attended the conference, watched the Driscoll video, and heard Hybel’s comment live. 

The issue at hand is not whether women can be church planters.  Driscoll made a derrogatory comment regarding women “I’m glad the ladies love Jesus, but if you want to win a war you have got to get the men.”
Hybels then politely stated that women have value as well in the body of Christ.

As I woman, I thank Bill for seeing that I matter as a woman to Jesus.

Furthermore, those engaging in this conversation and debate who were NOT a part of the event are participating in gossip and slander.  Surely there are greater issues to be involved in for the cause of Christ than a bantering between 2 theological ideas.  A conversation that degrades itself by debating whether or not Hybels is a male chauvanist based on hearsay is divisive at best and has no place in the body of believers.