Article.

A quick search suggests that Driscoll is/was a fairly popular figure. Does this article (if accurate) surprise our resident evangelicals? Thoughts on his comments/actions?

My first thought was: lol

My second is: holy **** he said that in 2001 and this is just now becoming a problem?

My third thought is still "lol" though

I'm not surprised, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they are infallible, or in this case, extremely insensitive.

I am disappointed someone in his position would take a stance with such certainty, when it is obviously offensive or at the very least, will be seen differently by many people, including some of his peers. I read the transcript of the message in question, and it made me quite sad to be honest.

Around 10 years ago I was in Seattle on and off and I attended Mark's church a few times. I remember thinking it was so modern and cutting edge. They served brand name coffee at the breaks and had grunge style worship music. Mark's teaching was also relevant, one of the sermons I remember was on alcohol and how the Bible actually condones drinking (of course in moderation). The church emerged out of a gritty subculture that is Seattle, if one is going to reach this area don't bother sugar coating the truth...

That was then... since my original experience in the early 2000s it seems every time Mark comes up in the press it is in a very negative light. Not long ago there was a scandal about how he paid a marketing firm to get his book listed on the NYT best sellers list.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ma...h-talk-116269/

He has also faced ongoing criticism for his outspoken approach to sex. Just before summer my bible study group just went through one of his video series' on marriage and sex etc. It was pretty painful, he comes across arrogant and seems to view every issue as black/white. I made it clear from the outset to the group that I didn't really like this guy but alas we watched the whole series.

I think Mark has a lot of good things to say but he lacks skill in delivery IMO. He comes across so abrasive and proud that just having the right answers is not enough. It is preferable to have Christian leaders that actually embody the spirit of Christ in being humble and compassionate.

I am not surprised by this. I think Mark started out with good intentions and just got too big for his britches.

I guess trolling internet forums can have a real life effect after all.

To anyone who follows evangelical news in the U.S. this isn't at all a surprise. Stories about Driscoll and his power-hungry ego-driven "ministry" have been coming out for years now.

For what it's worth, my problem with Driscoll is not just that he is extremely insensitive (although he is), or that he is so abrasive and got too big for his britches. Rather, it is the deeply misogynistic (and homophobic) "complementarian" views which he has been pushing for his entire "ministry." He's gotten in trouble because he's not smart enough to avoid presenting these views in terms that a twenty-something frat bro would use (because he's hip you see), and because he has serious power issues, but the real problem is the neo-patriarchal worldview to which he subscribes.

Do you inherently reject complementarianism? While I agree with everything you say about Driscoll, (At least from what I perceive of him) I personally agree with a basic form of complementarianism, and I don't believe that misogyny needs to be attached to this concept. Although as I say that, I'm sure some people will see some of my views as misogynistic.

IME many Christians hold the same views on paper as Mark. If one holds the same "complementarian" views as Mark then it is not a matter of him being misogynistic but simply rude. I don't view the controversy to be primarily about his theology. Other big names in the evangelical world such as John Piper and Tim Keller (I believe) hold very similar views when it comes to the relationship between men and women.

My point is I don't think Mark is especially misogynistic rather he just communicates his theology in a raw manner. Many evangelicals hold the same views but communicate it in a warmer way (eg. NR above...) If you maintain the charges of misogyny & being homophobic these are criticisms that should be applied to much of the evangelical church, not just Mark.

My guess is that it is not a matter of intelligence. I think Mark thrives on the media attention and controversy. He probably views himself as a martyr for "standing up for the truth of God's word."

I agree he does have power issues...

EDIT: PS.

As I alluded to in my 1st post, what really troubles me is the evangelical world at large. In my home church I would likely get flak for taking issue with Mark Driscoll. People like the fact that he "fearlessly proclaims the truth" in a modern world. It may seem to outsiders that Mark is a fringe element but he is not. He is still accepted as a mainstream trustworthy teacher in many circles.

I think complementarianism is inherently sexist and typically misogynistic.* The basic idea of complementarianism is that men and women were given different roles in the basic institutions of society--such as the family, the church, and in business. However, in all these institutions it is men who are given the higher authority.** People used to think that some classes or groups of people were uniquely suited by nature to rule over others (and vice versa that some were uniquely suited to be ruled over). Thus, we've had races, social classes, and even particular bloodlines all thought to be markers of this kind of superiority. In all cases that I'm familiar with, this higher position was eventually (or immediately) used as a tool of oppression of those who were to be ruled over.

To a certain extent, I oppose complementarianism for similar reasons that I support democracy. I think equality and openness of opportunity for all members of society is one of the best means we have for limiting the ability of more powerful social groups from dominating less powerful ones. Even getting a few members of less powerful groups into power can have a dramatic impact on the social or political norms of society.

If you look at the history of the family and the church in western societies you see this playing out. It is only when women refuse to take this subordinate position that politics and family life become more responsive to their goals and desires as well. Complementarianism in Christian thought is a clear rejection of that equality of opportunity.

I don't particularly mind if people reject egalitarianism as a family model and think a more vertically integrated decision-making structure is better. But I think it is stupid and sexist to think that it is always the man that should be at the apex.

*I don't mean that if you hold complementarian views that you yourself feel hatred of women, but rather that the views are based, even if only historically in strongly negative views towards women.

**I would be more interested in a (as far I know nonexistent) more equal version of complementarian where, for instance, men have higher authority in the church, but women have higher authority in family life. But I don't know any complementarian who accepts something like that. It is always men who have the higher authority.

This is very well thought out, and it makes sense. The only thing I can say is that the different roles between men and women are often labelled by culture and society to incorrectly degrade one and extol the other. Take the position that women are better at raising kids, and therefore, men better at working and providing. Since the industrial revolution, there has been an advocacy for women to join the labour movement, and much of this has entailed making the position of "housewife" degrading, and lesser than the man's position. I never understood this. The idea that there is inequality between genders, doesn't mean a degree or value, but an inherent difference. So I do think that some of the sexism in this paradigm only exists if you are biased to begin with. One is not better than the other, they are simply different.

With that all said, I can agree that one of the foundations of complemantarianism is that men lead women. I happen to agree with this, but this too has been taken extremely out of context. There is no lording it over a woman like Driscoll seems to advocate, it's a position of love and sacrifice. I can certainly concede that this is subjective, and the position could be wrong, but I think it is largely misrepresented and abused by hateful men.

Actually, Piper has gotten into trouble over these issues before as well (this video, where he discussion how a submissive wife should relate to an abusive husband is pretty troubling in my opinion). Don't know about Keller.

Well, yeah. That is kind of what I'm saying. Yes, Driscoll is a rude idiot, but the real problem is that he accepts a patriarchal theology that is all too common among evangelical Christians. In making this point I was trying to broaden the criticism beyond just him to much of the evangelical church. I disagree with the bolded because I think the evangelical church is broadly misogynistic and homophobic.

Then he is an idiot. He hasn't gotten in trouble for "standing up for the truth of God's word." He's gotten in trouble for "standing up for the truth of God's word" while acting like a clown. As far as I know, acting like a clown is not a commandment of God.

Oh, I know. I had a discussion with my sister about this issue a few weeks ago (a conservative evangelical Christian) where she was expressing sympathy for Driscoll and an appreciation for his sermons (more on Calvinism than family life). That being said, I think there are definitely strong evangelical critics of the patriarchal mindset of Driscoll and others. The blog I linked earlier by Rachel Held Evans is a good example.

I basically agree with OrP

It is interesting to me that some of the "proof texts" for these ideas have either disputed authorship (i.e is the book of 1 Timothy Pauline?) or are considered possibly later additions to an authentically Pauline text (1 Cor 11:2-16), or that interpretation is problematic (see for example this article for an argument that head may denote source more than authority in 1 Cor 11:2-16; the linguistic argument seems reasonable, the parts about chiastic structure didn't help me much)

I don't have a very strong grasp on how much the desire to reject those passages is supported by evidence (although the non-Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy seems reasonably well supported) but, in any case, to whatever extent Paul believed in male authority I think he was wrong, and given that elsewhere he said that there was neither male nor female, but that all are one in Christ, it's a pleasant idea that they might also not even be authentically Pauline.

I believe that Paul (when speaking of male leadership in the Church) makes the distinction that it is *his* opinion, and not that of Christ, which I have heard used to argue against it.

A few points. First, I was very careful to frame my argument in terms of equality of opportunity. I am not assuming, nor do I think it is probably true, that there are no differences between men and women. Nonetheless, the positions of power and authority should still be open to all for the reasons I brought up in my last post.

Second, you seem to be missing out on the crucial problem here. It doesn't follow from egalitarianism that women shouldn't be stay-at-home moms, or that raising a family isn't a worthy pursuit (honestly the attitudes you decry here are more characteristic of strongly patriarchal societies), but that they should have the choice whether or not to do so. The patriarchal viewpoint of people like Piper and Driscoll says that women should not have this choice, but instead that their proper place is as helpers to their husbands, tending home, raising the kids, and wanting more is to rebel against their natural state.

Third, it certainly doesn't follow from the claim that women are better at raising kids that therefore men are better at working and providing. Anyway, it certainly isn't the case that all women are better at raising kids and all men better at working and providing.

Finally, let's say you are right that women are better at raising kids. In that case, I would say that we should then put women in charge of the family. After all, the primary purpose of the family is to raise children to have good lives as productive members of society. So if women are better at doing that, then let's put them in charge of the family.

Two points. First, it hasn't been taken out of context, it is a specific criticism of the viewpoint. Yes, it is usually the case that American complementarians emphasize that along with the power and responsibility of leading a family comes duties of love and respect for their partner. And great! That is obviously better than only emphasizing the duty of obedience of the wife.

However, the criticism of complementarianism here is that a social model where it is always the husband that has the ultimate authority in the family will make women whose husbands don't do this more vulnerable and make it less likely that men will fulfill their duties of love and respect. So just saying that they are supposed to act that way completely misses the criticism. In other words, the reason we should reject the complementarian model is because it empowers hateful men.

Second, one of the reasons I reject this view is the limiting effect it has on women's lives, even in loving homes where the husband does respect his wife. I grew up in a home with these views about women, and have had many conversations with my sisters about how it encouraged different treatment by my parents of my brothers and sisters. My sisters were supposed to graduate high school, have a job for a few years, get married, quit their job, have a family, and that was it. There was no real sense of possibility for them to have a career outside of this, and no encouragement or pushing (as there was for me and my brothers) towards being prepared for a career in the workforce.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it is just a fact of life now that most American families rely on two income streams. So what often happens is that women with this ideology just end up working lower-paying and less interesting jobs rather than being a full-time stay-at-home mom.

Second, this can hold back talented women from achieving their full potential. I know a few women who are very smart, driven people, and who are either stuck in unsatisfying jobs, or are not very happy full-time parents. To me, it seems clear enough that these are people who would be successful in competitive high-skill careers, but are stymied because of an ideology that tells them they are wrong for wanting more than to be a housewife.

Look, there is nothing wrong with being a housewife. There is nothing wrong with working as a secretary either, or as a construction worker etc. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that everyone is such that they would be happy doing those jobs.

Finally, I just think that in America this is mostly an impractical theology. Our society is too egalitarian and it is just embarrassing to see women who are clearly superior to their husbands in almost every way say that they are supposed to submit themselves to them.

I don’t entirely disagree with equality of opportunity, sometimes it’s just a matter of who is the most suited for the position, whether male or female.

This stance which you describe here is rather strong. I would never make such a demand, I’m simply saying that the ideal is as such, not that choice should be taken away from the equation. If women don’t want to raise their children, but work instead, then so be it, although I contend that it is not as ideal. I can concede that this is simply my opinion, and would not enforce it or condone the enforcement of it, since dong so would itself be a failure of my leadership role as a loving husband or man. That's really my position, that the ideal is that women should raise the kids, and women should be encouraged to do so, not forced to do so. Just like men should be encouraged to work, not forced to work, some men like to raise their kids and be stay at home dads. Sometimes it is about equal opportunity.

Perhaps it doesn’t directly follow, but I insist women are better at raising kids. Certainly there are bad mothers out there, but in general, I believe women are better, by nature.

Sure, they are in charge in a sense. If I’m at work all day long and my wife has been taking care of the kids, I’m not about to come home and take the reigns of leadership from her, because I understand she is more informed than me about their behaviours and the going-ons and so on.

Well, such criticism is then necessary, but it’s a misrepresentation of the ideal position I'm speaking about.

It does empower hateful men, and that’s unfortunate, although, it’s just hateful men justifying the behaviour they would likely take part in anyway. It doesn’t mean that there is not an ideal.

I’m from Canada fyi, so I’m not privy to some things about American culture.

Now, I’m not talking about stymying anyone, I just think that there is an ongoing message that says that a housewife is menial, when it isn’t. If a woman wants to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a maid, go for it, but the argument is always the same - maybe a woman doesn’t want to raise kids, but wants to be a “pick your profession” instead. It is inherent in this type of thinking that raising kids is inferior. It is never the argument that says - "What if a man wants to raise kids instead of being “whatever profession”?", because inherent in this type of thinking is that whatever profession is better than being a house-husband or a house-wife. This is wrong to me. Raising kids seems like anyone can do it, because you can’t get fired, but to do this well takes more skill than many so-called elite professions. To me it’s unfair to hear that a woman (or man) is not reaching their potential by staying at home and raising kids, and it is a bad premise to begin with. I don't think that a woman is giving anything up by staying at home, quite the opposite, and I think that many women only think this way, because this culture has taught them to think this way, erroneously so.

If one simply doesn’t want to do it, then that’s another discussion, perhaps they shouldn’t have had kids to begin with, but I’m not forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do, I’m only arguing that women are better nurturers, by nature, and the ideal situation is that they raise the kids, and the less nurturing but stronger man, work.

This, of course, doesn’t really pan out too often in our modern society, so perhaps it is no longer ideal in this context, but in a perfect world, I believe it is. To me it's simply a man is better at X and women at Y. Neither X nor Y is better or worse, simply different, and men and women are better suited for X and Y respectively. Everyone has the choice to do what they like, and this model has been abused and that's unfortunate, but I believe that this is the ideal. Again, just my opinion of course.

I am confused as to how you can describe yourself as a complementarian if you don't reject equality of opportunity. At minimum, complementarians claim that women shouldn't be the head of a church or family. Since men can have these roles, this seems like a pretty clear case where men are offered an opportunity for leadership and power that is not offered to women. Equality of opportunity is the idea that everyone, regardless of their gender, race, etc. is offered the opportunity to compete for these offices. Complementarian seem to me a fairly clear example of denying equality of opportunity.

Okay, sure, I am presenting a fairly stark version of complementarianism. Maybe it isn't fair to say that complementarians want to deny women the choice to lead their families and work. After all, Christians today usually believe you should follow God freely, not by force.

However, let's be clear here about what you are saying. You are saying that women should have the a choice, but a choice between following God's plan and sinning. I don't see how this offers a real decision to a sincere Christian women. Furthermore, in practice this often does mean denying them a choice. For instance, conservative denominations will typically deny women the choice to hold a senior leadership position in their church. Or, girls who are raised in complementarian homes who are not given the same educational or professional opportunities as their brothers.

This seems to be a trend lately. Someone argues that x is true because of y. Then, when it is pointed out to them either that y is false or that x doesn't follow from y, they agree with the criticism, but continue to confidently assert that x is true. Why bother with the argument in the first place?

Anyway, you have ignored both of my criticisms here. Sure, maybe it is true that on average women are better than men at raising kids. Fine. But surely you don't mean to argue that any woman is better than any man at raising kids. And second, maybe women are better both at raising kids and at providing for their families. I find it plausible that women are generally more nurturing than men. But I don't see any general principle that says that men are by nature better at providing for their families.

You said that you accept complementarianism. Do you believe that women should submit to their husbands? Do you think that men should have the ultimate authority to make family decisions? Do you think that women shouldn't be the head pastors of a church?

No it's not. My claim is that since humans aren't angels, if your position became the dominant view that these would be some of the downsides. If your view is that if men were angels, this would be the ideal system, then I don't care (because in the actual world that we live in, they are not, and so your views wouldn't apply to the actual world).

Come on, you don't actually believe this. You are saying, violent and abusive men are going to be violent and abusive anyway, so it doesn't actually matter if women believe that they should submit to and obey them.

A couple of comments. First, go read what Mark Driscoll has to say about "pussified" men and tell me that the problem is that egalitarians don't have enough respect for the work of being a housewife. That being said, sure, I think there is a prejudice against some kinds of work, including housework, that have traditionally been seen as "women's work" (e.g. we also see this with secretaries).

Second, the reason why being a housewife is regarded by so many as a menial job is because much of the work of being a housewife is menial. What we are really talking about here is things like: cooking, cleaning the house, doing laundry, shopping, watching/playing/teaching your kids, yardwork, and the other jobs of keeping a house. Most of that is menial labor and, if hired out, would be paid as such.

The argument you are making is one I am familiar with--I know Christian women who think they are looked down upon for being a housewife instead of having a career. And I can understand why they dislike that--everyone wants to be respected for their choices and position in life. And, to a certain extent, I do respect them for their decision (if it was one) to be a housewife.

However, when thinking about what makes for a successful life, professional success is undoubtedly one component. And here I think it is true that some professions are better than others--whether because they are paid more, because they are more interesting, more respected, more powerful, and so on. This is why parents brag when their children become doctors and lawyers, but not so much when they are cashiers. There is nothing wrong with being a cashier--it is a necessary job in the modern economy--but nonetheless, being a doctor is a higher status position.

This is what I mean when I say that some women who work as housewives don't reach their full potential. Not everyone has the ability to be a scientist or engineer. But if someone does have that ability, but works a job that doesn't make use of those relatively rare abilities, whether it be in the service industry more generally, or staying at home, then yeah, I am going to think that they didn't achieve their full potential in life. That might be by choice, and maybe even a correct one given their values, but I think that those abilities will mostly lie fallow in that profession, and that is too bad.*

*This is of course true for men as well. One of the smartest people I know dropped out of a Ph.d program in physics and now works laying foundation. I have nothing against that job--it pays well enough and is honest labor, but I think he is wasting his abilities.

A couple points. We don't live in an agricultural society anymore. For most jobs, it doesn't matter how strong you are. So men's greater strength is irrelevant. However, if you want to go this route, I would argue that women's longer life span means a longer career and so the potential for greater lifetime earnings.

Anyway, this isn't really the point. Women can be perfectly fine nurturing parents and have a career. Modern inventions like the washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, microwaves, and so on mean that keeping a house no longer needs to be a full-time occupation. So I don't think your claim, even if true shows us that ideally women with children shouldn't have careers.

Okay, well I think your opinion is wrong and has led to great deal of oppression and suffering over the years and you should change it.

In what sense are they in charge if the man is the ultiamte authority in the relationship? For what reason(s) do you think that men should be in charge? Do you have any that aren't taken from scripture?

My personal view is that gender should be a non-issue. People should be selected for roles based on individual suitability. That religions tend to be so focussed on male and female roles is just another of the reasons that I consider them to be primitive belief/sociological systems. It's more control disguised as divine command.

My impression of the Piper clip is that his views are nothing out of the ordinary (not saying they are great objectively, just that they likely receive broad acceptance)

Far be it from me to spend my time defending MD as a "non-idiot", I happily cede he is an idiot. I try and understand the underlying issues, I think you correctly pointed out he has power issues which blind him to being reasonable.

The Rachel Held Evans blog was a good find. I read 1 or 2 of the linked articles which were really good, I liked this one:

http://tylerlclark.tumblr.com/post/7438158715

EDIT:

aha good counterpoint, have not heard this one before.

How do you know that (all) religions are more focused on gender than secular people?

If you want to make this charge against Christianity then you can just find examples from Christianity. If you want to make this charge against all religions then I would expect you can find examples from every single religion past and present.

I wouldn't describe myself as a complementarian, and I can recognize that there are exceptions. I'm advocating a very basic view that says that men and women are different and should act and be treated differently. I don't agree that gender should be completely ignored like the strong egalitarian view declares. Again though, there are exceptions, and I'm not hand waiving a good reason for a woman not to work or a man not to raise kids.

I am not saying it is a sin. It's like saying that the ideal amount of TV your child should watch is 30 minutes a day, but I'm not saying that if a child watches 2 hours a day they are sinning, just that it's not the ideal, and will be less productive in the long run.

I am in no way advocating that women are not to be given the same education or opportunities as their brothers. You don't need to prep them to do anything, but the opposite is true as well, you don't need to shame them for wanting to do the opposite either.

I didn't pick my words carefully there, that's my mistake, I didn't mean to make it an "if x then y" argument. Women are better nurturers is my main claim.

I hear what you're saying, some women are bad mothers. To me it's like saying that some women are stronger than men. Sure they are, but in general men are stronger, that's why there are different leagues in sports. Obviously you can grab some weakling and put him up against a stronger woman. Now if you have a wife and mother who is just absolutely useless with kids, well then maybe that's one of the exceptions to the rule I mentioned.

I don't agree with everything about complementarianism, at least in degree. I believe women should be submissive to their husbands, in general, more so in attitude. I believe men should lead, but more in a spiritual sense. Women can be Pastors.

I've mentioned exceptions, and it's difficult to just say "yes" or "no" to these questions, because it's not all black and white. Women should be respectful, but not if a man is abusive. Men should lead, but should not ignore facts, opinions, common sense, and his wife's desires. Woman can be Pastors if they are called by God.

People have sullied everything. I'm not applying my views to anyone but myself. Many of my family and friends ignore everything about this and that's their prerogative. My sister doesn't raise her kids, she sends my nephew to day care and he's 2 years old. That's her business, and while I don't think that's ideal for him, again, that's her business.

No, I'm saying that there is an ideal, even if it has been ruined by people. I'm not advocating for women to submit to abusive men.

Driscoll seems to be purposely provocative, it's hard to take him seriously. I don't agree with his statements, he's a bad role model and representative (From what I've read).

Certainly there are menial tasks involved, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about raising children so that strangers don't raise them. I'm not insisting the wife do every chore like some 50's sitcom, there is nothing stopping a man from doing his laundry.

I understand, and you're right to a degree about reaching your potential. What I disagree with is that this potential is only a professional one. Successfully raising kids is a huge feat, and a potential that is rarely met anymore, and it takes a back seat to the success of a career. You imply it as well, by saying that someone who could have been an engineer didn't succeed because they raised kids instead. It's not a lesser thing, to me. I honestly think it's the greater of the two, but for simplicity I'm calling them equal.

Well, there are exceptions. A man can play poker from home for a living, and need not raise more than a finger to earn a living, although I don't think that's the point. More that you're serving your wife.

Certainly there are shortcuts in modern housekeeping, but those all come in second to putting in time with a baby or toddler.

Fair. Not to be flippant, but to me it's similar to not advocating capitalism, because free market has run amuck. I understand that people abuse it, and I'm not supporting the abuse of it, mainly because I'm only applying these to my own life, and I am willing to concede things as I go. I believe the head of the house is more of a spiritual title, and comes with it the greater responsibility and sacrifice. You're supposed to love your wife like yourself, not demean her and make her do things you don't want to.

I don't know about "ultimate authority", I'm not advocating some warden-prisoner relationship. If a woman is in "charge" or raising kids, by that I mean stay home with them all day, then she is in charge. You trust that she's doing a better job than you could, or else God would not have given her that role.

I believe men (in general) are better at leading, and women (in general) are more nurturing. You can approach this evolutionarily and find common ground with this, but I base this mostly on scripture, and on experience as well.

Gender is often a non-issue, but what I find is that society is trying to do away with gender entirely, and I don't think that's right either. Men and women are different, and it makes no sense to me to deny that. Sure there are exceptions, and this can be abused, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I don't think mainstream western cultures are trying to get rid of gender entirely. I'm vaguely aware that there exist transgender advocates (there is probably a better term) who might be described that way, but I don't think those views are very close to being mainstream.

I can't think of any reason to believe that men are better leaders than women in general.

It's true that there are a number of unintentional* biases against women in general in the workplace and education. Among many possible links:

http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/perfor...w-gender-bias/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/sc...says.html?_r=0

(*I declare these as unintentional because I don't believe there is an intentional decision in these situations to view women more negatively than men.)

That being said, it's hard (impossible?) to know at this time whether these biases are purely cultural or whether there's some innate difference in leadership between men and women that has led to the cultural bias.

Or there could be a time-dependent claim. For example, it may be true that men are generally larger/stronger than women right now, but in 1000 years that might flip around. Similar claim may be true of something like "leadership capacity."

I don't accept either the positive or negative claim as it pertains to the comparison of men and women in leadership. I'm neutral on the matter.

Well, I am arguing against complementarianism, so if that isn't your view, then fine, whatever (although I will point out that in your first response to me you said "I personally agree with a basic form of complementarianism"). As well named said, I think the claim made by conservative Christians (usually against feminism) that their opponents think gender should be ignored to be mostly false.

This conversation has gone too broad. Let's narrow it to a specific point of disagreement. I believe that women should not, in general, be submissive to their husbands. You believe that they should. Can you give an argument for your belief?

Again, you seem to be assuming that a woman's choice is to either have a successful career or to raise their kids. That is a false dichotomy. Indeed, it is assumed that men can be good fathers and successful professionals.

I'm not sure that this will be a fruitful starting point. There is a sense in which "submission" is to be mutual:

http://biblehub.com/niv/ephesians/5.htm

But mutual submission does not indicate the absence of leadership.

Maybe I'm wrong in saying that my view is a basic one of complemenatrianism, but I thought it was, although I agree with most of your criticisms.

I don't entirely agree that gender is not being downplayed, perhaps "ignored" is too strong of a criticism.

Agreed that this is getting out of hand for a written debate.

I can give a biblical argument, I believe there is a biblical precedent for this format, but I think it would be worthwhile to define the terms, since I believe there are some misconceptions about what the relationship entails.

Aaron has already provided a meaningful distinction in the above post, that there is a mutual submission.

Consider that the argument is that the man is like Christ, and the woman like the church. Remember that Christ washed his disciples feet, and came to serve and to lay down his life, loving the church more than his own body. This is a more precise picture of what the man should be emulating, not some guy sitting on the couch drinking a beer barking orders because he's "in charge", that's a misrepresentation, and is actually the opposite of what the role entails.

I believe that this role of leadership is more of a spiritual role. God seems to like order, and positions people in certain hierarchies, but more importantly, the "greater" one serves the "lesser", and the lesser submits to the greater, so there is a mutual submission that takes place.

There is no room here for abuse and oppression, that is against the inherent nature of the role.