Who Is Gullible?

I feel like I’ve written enough about the places in which I disagree with Mark Driscoll, but then he writes something like the passage below making claims about the gullibility of women and it’s just so bad that it deserves fisking:

Without blushing, Paul is simply stating [in 1 Timothy 2:12-14] that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men.

The passage to which Driscoll refers makes no such claim. It only says that Eve was deceived, it makes no attempt to argue from the specific to the whole. Of course Eve in turn deceives Adam, so it would appear that gullibility is equally distributed across genders.

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. . .

Once again, this isn’t really Paul’s assessment, it’s Mark Driscoll’s projection onto Paul. If all women are as gullible as Driscoll insists, is Proverbs 31:10-31 talking about a chimera?

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 (p. 43).

Sure, media aimed at women doesn’t always compliment their intelligence. But what about the stuff aimed at men? Has Driscoll seen Axe commercials, or heard of Spike TV’s show Manswers, or the magazines FHM or Maxim? If men aren’t gullible how come all those “natural male enhancement” companies are still in business? What Driscoll doing is not applying a Biblical view of women to his argument but rather the sort of view that held sway amongst 19th Century male medical doctors that regarded women as emotional, weak-willed and prone to hysteria.

Before you get angry like Mark Driscoll (see how I appropriated his joke there), I know that some of you will say that this was just Driscoll using a funny joke or illustration. I hope you will realize though that such humour masquerading as an argument severely undercuts Driscoll’s position. I am not a complementarian, but if I was, I would be cringing at this sort of an attempt to defend complementarian views on church leadership.