Mark Driscoll Mentored By CJ Mahaney-So How’s That Working Out?

“When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person, don't be surprised if they learn their lesson” Will Rogers


How a real man should look!


When I am stymied about what to write about, I can always mosey on over to the subject of Mark Driscoll and he never lets us down. Two years ago, on this blog, we informed our readers that CJ Mahaney was assigned to help old Mark “get some humility” and control his rather foul mouth and his increasingly dubious reputation. LINK

So, how is that radical “solution” working out? Well, recently, Driscoll posted this comment on his Facebook. Here is one LINK.

So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?”

As anyone with half a brain can imagine, the blogosphere lit up with the usual suspects who make excuses for him and far more level headed folks who were properly incensed..

He did NOT apologize but he did make a comment admitting that he was flippant. Apparently his “elders,” who must need to work overtime to overlook his issues, let him know that he “needed to do better by hitting real issues with real content in a real context.”

“…a sincere thanks to all my critics who sometimes have good wisdom that helps me out,” Driscoll added at the end of his post.

Once again, readers, please observe there was no apology. However, to reassure his breathless admirers, he said that “ he will be launching new website where he will speak on social issues in a fuller context."

“In the past, I’ve not had a regular place to work out personal commentary on social issues, and so I’ve erred in sometimes doing so in places like Facebook, Twitter, and the media, where you can have a good fight but don’t have the room to make a good case,” he stated.

And guess what, dear readers? His first posting on the new site will be on the issue of gender! Whenever this guy opens his mouth on the issue of gender, he makes news. Ah well, it makes for good blog material.

I guess CJ was unable to convince this man to stifle himself. Driscoll appears to subscribe to the philosophy of speak what you will and then weasel your way out. This has become such a habit with this man that I no longer believe that these comments are mere slips of the tongue. I think that these statements are planned and intentional.

Because this sort of thing has been going on for years, I am beginning to believe that Driscoll is a troubled man. The Christian community needs to begin to ask some very hard questions about his emergent (yes, that was a joke) issues.

I was a bit surprised by the commentary of Sarah Pulliam Bailey- (addendum 11/26/11 this was written by  Sharon Hodde Miller,  Pulliam Bailey was the editor- I apologize) of Christianity Today who has done a yeoman’s job on representing women’s issues in that venue. She was one of the first women to explore Beth Moore’s teachings and did so brilliantly. However, I take exception with her review of this matter. In a blog post entitled, Much Ado About Mark Driscoll LINK she writes :

“On the topic of manhood and womanhood, I disagree with Driscoll often.However, God is undoubtedly using Driscoll to edify the church and minister to God’s people.”

“I have heard consistently positive feedback from the members of his church. His congregation clearly loves him, and not in a “they drank the Kool-Aid” kind of way, but in a transformational Jesus community kind of way.”

She then takes on how to respond to pastors with whom we disagree.

“Here it is helpful to look at Paul’s example in Philippians. Imprisoned and awaiting an unknown fate, Paul experienced insult on top of injury when rival evangelists sought to worsen his condition. Paul describes them as preaching Christ “out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.”

Surprisingly, Paul responds to his opponents not with bitterness or even condemnation. Instead, he rejoices in the message they preach: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Although it is difficult to comprehend Paul’s utter lack of gall, his apathy to their motives is equally confusing. Lest we think Paul was growing soft in his old age, he later employs harsh language in Philippians 3, referring to false teachers as “dogs” and “mutilators of the flesh.” Why such a different approach to these ill-intentioned preachers?

First, Paul’s rivals were Christians who preached Christ. They believed in salvation through grace and not the Law, a message more important to Paul than his own reputation or the impure motives of these men. Given the modern temptation to make every issue a gospel issue, that is a point worth noting.”

“A second factor informing Paul’s response was his knowledge of his own sin.”


I appreciate Pulliam Bailey’s (Hodde Miller-correction) wish to be positive in this matter and had this been a couple of isolated incidents, I would applaud her effort. But, this behavior on the part of Driscoll has gone on for years. We have documented all of this on numerous occasions on this blog as have many others.

  • He consistently speaks of women as “gullible and easily deceived.”
  • In fact, he consistently focuses on women as the problem and is highly insulting as he does so. ”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.”
  • He has made some worrisome comments about how he screens his wife’s emails and physically threatened men to stay away from her when she was a college student.
  • He has made physically threatening statements about staff who disagree with him.
  • He blamed Ted Haggard’s wife for his foray into a homosexual relationship.
  • “I hated going to church and wanted one I liked, so I thought I would just start my own.”
  • “There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
  • “Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you’re being dirty, he’s pretty happy. Jesus Christ commands you to do this.”


In case there are some people out there who do not understand how destructive and mean Driscoll’s statements can be, I refer you to this poignant post by Tyler Clark.

"Dear Pastor Mark Driscoll,

First off, I want to acknowledge that I don’t know you personally, and I have never attended your church. Most of what I know of you is based on a small handful of your sermons and statements. You and your ministry are surely nuanced and complicated, but this is how a casual viewer perceives you.

When I was in high school, I was called “faggot.” A lot. Walking down the hallways, it wasn’t rare to hear, “Queer!” before being shoved against a locker.

You can probably imagine the guys responsible—macho, rural bruisers who road four-wheelers, played on the football team and dated the cheerleaders.

I was not one of them. I was likely what you, Pastor Driscoll, refer to as “effeminate.”

For whatever it’s worth, I am straight. I’ve been married for five years. I’m a modest sports fan—although one of my favorite sports is tennis, so that might not count for you—and I write this during a break from building a fence in my backyard.

However, I have always been on the outside of the Dude’s Club. When I was a teenager, I chose theater and choir instead of sports. My tendencies were never macho. My time was spent listening to David Bowie, Lou Reed and Rufus Wainwright. To this day, I don’t understand the appeal of Michael Bay or professional wrestling. Even my mother-in-law calls me “prissy.”

But in church I found solace. When I was 13, I met a youth pastor who believed in me. He and his church were patient, kind and celebrated the fact that I was a bit different. Having a musical background, the church found a place for me. Throughout my teen years, I led worship music at several churches, camps and various Christian events. It was a place of belonging for me." Read the rest here. LINK


Instead, what does the Christian publishing community do, they chastise a blogger for calling Mark Driscoll a bully. In fact, one author claims this is LIBEL! In this article by Anthony Bradley entitled Libel Is Not Love, LINK we read

“Granted, the pastor, Seattle’s Mark Driscoll, seems to draw controversy like a magnet, mainly because of his willingness to speak out boldly against feminism in our society and paganism in the media, his unvarnished challenges to men to “be men” instead of soft and “effeminate,” his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture, and his belief that the pastorate is reserved for men and that women should stay home to nurture their children.

That’s where Rachel Held Evans and her blog post, “Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him,” come in. There is nothing loving about calling a pastor a “bully“—that is, “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” That is a serious charge. In her post, Evans describes why she believes Driscoll to be a bully, implying that he, his teachings, and the elders at his church are not functioning in ways consistent with Scripture. While it is more than reasonable to understand why someone would take issue with Driscoll’s post, Evans’ way of responding cannot and should not be encouraged. What was even more disturbing was the way in which many other believers jumped on the slander bandwagon to feed on the carnage once it went viral.”


See, so long as you tell women to stay home and make sure that pastors are men, then you can say whatever you darn well please and Mr. Bradley will be your wing man.

Here is a link to Evan’s wonderful blog post, proving that this smart woman gets it far better than a gullible man. 

Think about it, folks. This is a guy who claims he wants to be missional and yet he routinely denigrates and insults 50% of the human population. The Christian world needs to begin to realize that Mark Driscoll may be a deeply troubled man in need of serious professional intervention. Instead, what does the Christian establishment do? It sends in none other than CJ Mahaney, which is like sending in Bernie Madoff to counsel Congress on how to save money. Folks, both Mahaney and Driscoll need serious help and the Christian community must stop pretending that their antics are normal.



How Driscoll Learned to Make Bank

Finally, Mark Driscoll seems to have learned one thing from his mentor, Mahaney, and that is how to make bank. Besides forming his own little community of churches, Acts 29, Driscoll is also writing books and going on speaking tours. He has also  picked up on how to “lead” tours to Israel and other venues. Here is a link for one that has just left. Please note the cost. Do you think this is just a “nice” thing that a pastor does to "disciple" his needy flock? Think again, folks.

This activity is a potential big money maker for big pastors. Here is a comment, LINK, by New BBC Open Forum over at FBC Jax that gives a brief synopsis of this money maker. Remember, Driscoll is doing this every year.

A general rule of thumb on these Holy Land trips is that the sponsor gets one free trip or the price thereof for every five paid trips. Other packages are available, but that's a popular one.
So in this example if they're charging $3000 for a trip, each full-fare traveler is paying an extra $500 which goes towards the price of the sponsor's trip and the fares of his family and friends or just to fatten his bank account!"

Go to this link to see how these trips advertise to pastors. Here is a quote.

“Our recommendation is that you set up your tour based on a minimum of 15 passengers. Assuming the tour cost is $2,000, you sign up 16 passengers directly you two go free and earn $2,000 + (3%) $960. You invite other potential Tour Hosts to join you and build your group size to 45 passengers. You would earn the 10% $2,700 and a group size gain of ($173 x 45) $7,785. You have 2 free trips and $13,445 in cash.Do this 2 times a year and you have income of $26,890.”

Here is a LINK to an excellent post written by New BBC Open Forum back in 2006 called Are Holy Land Tours a Shearing of the Sheep?

“Are Pastors acting as tour hosts making large amounts of money off Holy Land and other travel tour trips?

I always assumed the Pastor and his wife traveled for free on these trips and the participants paid extra to cover this. It never occurred to me that Clergy (it is not just the Baptists) may be making tens of thousands of dollars per trip. Now if all of this extra markup and income for the tour host has been fully disclosed then the sheep were knowingly fleeced I suppose. But if people unknowingly lined the pockets of a tour host it stikes me as stealing. If it is disclosed that the host got a free trip, but not that he also got a fat check then that too is stealing.

"The price of a tour is affected by departure date (winter season is the least expensive), hotel quality, meal plan, choice of airline, single or multiple destinations, group size, religious holidays, and the selected host benefits."

“We are talking about a potential overcharge of $37,000, which could balloon to $50,000. Remember, this is just ONE trip. The host and wife travelling for free is understandable. Beyond that why not give the participants a price break as more people sign up?

In the end, I believe that there are far too many people who are willing to give pastors like Driscoll a pass so long as they are attracting lots of people and preaching the Calvinista party line of extreme complementarianism and hyper-authoritarianism. Could it be that the Reformed leaders are willing to sell out their standards in order to sell their message? But aren’t the standards a part of the message? Schizophrenic theology ain’t pretty.


Lydia's Corner: 1 Kings 1:1-53Acts 4:1-37Psalm 124:1-8 Proverbs 16:24


Mark Driscoll Mentored By CJ Mahaney-So How’s That Working Out? — 197 Comments

  1. Dee/Deb,

    I know how easy it is to go after Driscoll, but . . .. I would translate “Much Ado about Driscoll” with the title of a Shakespeare play “Much Ado about NOTHING”. Yes the guy is a bully, and the only people who put down women as much as he does are people who are insecure in their own masculinity and over compensate. He is crude, without any polish or manners. He lacks either of the meanings of the French “poli”, meaning polished or polite. Such people should be ignored, even shunned. The feed on their clippings and the commentary about them.

  2. Arce

    What scares me is that all the churches around here are hyping him. He’s invited to SBC churches and to address the Campus Crusade group at UNC. I wish we could ignore him.

  3. I think I understand why it is that people in general haven’t yet seen Driscoll for what he is. It’s because the quotations from him that would give a serious perspective on who he is are so incredibly dirty that they can’t comfortably be passed on. The excerpts included in “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” were downright disturbing. As a young man it’s not difficult to see it for what it is: unbridled lust matured into perversion–it’s painful, and perhaps even harmful, to read.

  4. Hi Dee, just to clarify: Sharon Hodde Miller wrote this post, I merely posted it as the editor. Thanks for your interest.

  5. I think that as a culture we are tolerating/appreciating more and more sexually salacious and perverted entertainment, and this in large part is dulling our senses so much that the ability (or even the desire) to determine a person’s godly character is close to nonexistent. This seems to be especially true in regard to our pastors who in some churches cannot be questioned.

    I suspect that if people knew what goes on in Driscoll’s own bedroom, they would be shocked. The same may be true of “squeaky clean” Mahaney as well.

    Wherever you find porn, you find women demeaned.

  6. Oh, and to add. Yes, Mark Driscoll is a very disturbed man.
    I agree with Ted and take it a step further.
    Mark Driscoll has a spirit of Jezebel which promotes sexual sins, pornography, sodomy, and all manner of sexual perversion but justifies it by saying that, as long as it happens between a husband and his wife in the privacy of their bedroom, it’s okay. The marriage bed is undefiled.

    uhm, no. Mark Dricoll, under the spirit of Jezebel(Revelation 2:20-21), actively defiles the marriage bed. He makes porn cool and acceptable to gulible young men and women rather than to teach them and himself, the fruit of the Spirit, self-control.

  7. Mara

    I read that cage fight thing and was appalled but did not have room for it in the post. I have saved it for future posts because, knowing Driscoll, there will be future incidents, I had also received some info regarding Driscoll’s demands when coming as a speaker. However, there is no corroborating evidence on his site so I did not publish it.

    I believe that Driscoll is deeply troubled and his supporters, including family, have decided to ignore it because he is “successful”, whatever that means.

  8. Dee,

    I, too, believe that Mark Driscoll is intentional when he makes his incredibly crass remarks. What an attention seeker!

    Here is an interesting 2007 post on Josh Harris’ blog in which Josh describes the growing relationship between Mahaney and Driscoll.

    Learning from Mark Driscoll

    Harris writes:

    “In the past year or so I’ve been encouraged to see a friendship develop between Mark and C.J. Mahaney. I’ve benefited so much from C.J.’s investment in me; I knew only good things could come from their interaction with each other. So this past week when I heard that Mark had preached on humility during his series in Philippians and referenced C.J.’s influence, I wanted to hear it for myself. I wasn’t surprised by the kind words Mark had for C.J. but what caught me off guard was the very humble and specific confession that Mark made to his church…. Mark goes on to talk about the influence his example has had on his church and the way that C.J.’s friendship has touched his life.”

    It’s fascinating to look back and see that this commenter on Josh’s post was exactly right:

    “paul | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM

    Boy have you been hoodwinked by Mark! He is so far from humble, or even desirous of being humble! And he doesn’t repent so much as excuse himself. Repentance would require that he actually change his ways, which he has yet to do with any of his ‘repenting’.”

    Paul’s “observation” three years ago was spot on — “Repentance would require that he actually change his ways”.

  9. Hi Everyone,

    Love your blog Dee & Deb, and the way you address such relevant issues that are effecting the church today. I think it’s important that we be as informed as possible on the issues that impact our fellowship with one another in the church, and be actively involved in preventing the kinds of excesses and abuse we’ve been seeing and hearing about – and then going to scripture to figure these things out for ourselves instead of assuming we must always be led. Good leadership is important, but we are all called to follow Christ first and foremost and are to be led by the Spirit!

    Mind if a share a little of my perspective on why I think Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney have missed the mark and have, in my opinion, been as energetically engaged in annoying the Lord and His Bride as a swarm of mosquitos to a group of happy campers who want to relax and enjoy one others company, but instead are left irritated, scattered, and sucked of their blood?

    When scripture says there is neither male nor female in Christ, I don’t interpret that to mean there are no differences between men and woman, as if the Lord is saying the human race is mono-sexual or something (is that a word?) I understand it to mean that the Lord makes no distinction on the basis of gender when we are filled with the Spirit, given spiritual gifts, and made to dwell together in unity within one Body.

    We aren’t to show partiality on the basis of our sex. A woman has the same capacity as a man to preach and to teach and to lead and to organize and to administrate and to be in charge. The bible does not teach that women are to be excluded from these activities. Far from it. We are to be full participants.

    It means we regard one another on the basis of our strengths and our giftings and to celebrate our togetherness in Christ. Men and women are to relate to one another in the church as part of the whole – members of the Body of Christ. If we are always emphasizing our gender differences, it seems the whole issue of sex comes to the forefront, putting an ungodly and sensual strain on our relationships with *one another* – lives that we are to be living out as believers serving *one another*, honoring *one another*, submitting to *one another*.

    When the differences are always emphasized, then all kinds of ridiculous constraints get emphasized over and above the fact we are all in this together – equally. Instead, you hear stuff about modesty and dating and courtship and being a leader and being a follower and being a homemaker and being the boss and how the lines should never cross. All men are like this and all women are like that. Really? I thought the bible taught we are to share all things in common because God created us in His image. For those of you that believe in patriarchy & complementarianism – where did you ever read that women were given a different kind of dominion? “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” applies equally to men and women. As does, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations.”

    Mark Driscoll makes sexual objects out of women. And men. He contributes to the problem of weird, strained relationships between men and women in the church, bounded by all kinds of gender rules and regulations. We aren’t to be following worldly playbooks about how a man should initiate and how a woman is to respond, blah blah. Being led by the spirit in fellowship with God and one another means we walk in obedience to Jesus Christ – Who, in Him and through Him, has broken down ALL the walls that us: race, nationality, gender, socio-economic standing, etc.

    If you prefer to relate to others in the Body of Christ differently because of their race, then may I suggest you might be a racist?

    If you prefer to relate to others in the church differently because of how much money they make, may I suggest you’re worldly, prejudiced and show favortism?

    If you relate to others in the church differently because of their gender, may I suggest you’re a sexist?

    Relating to one another as equals in the Body of Christ is vitally important for a healthy, well-balanced church. In my view, men and women are to be full participants in every aspect of church life within the Body. And it is absolutely imperative that we learn to read scripture within context – especially the ones in Paul’s epistles – that have been flagrantly mishandled, mistaught, and misapplied by people like Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney.

    Thanks for listening! 😛

  10. Evie on Tue, Jul 26 2011 at 10:35 am:

    As I have posted elsewhere on this blog, perhaps the most productive theologian on the last 30 years is Charles Talbert. He teaches that patriarchy is the result of the fall. He teaches that there are four eras: Eden, with no gender hierarchy (helpmeet is used to describe God’s relationship to us!); After the Fall, when patriarchy is result of sin; After Christ, when the world is being, but not yet, redeemed, so that there are remnants of the sin of patriarchy; and After the return of Christ, when we will all be “in Christ”.

    To continue to practice patriarchy is to practice sin.

    We are to live under the law of love, not the law of power and authority.

  11. Hey Arce! Ah ha, so you’re the one! I had read a post under the last blog entry and wanted to go back and reference it – and now I know it was you! Yes, brilliant. I completely agree.

    We start out in paradise (Eden) and we end in paradise regained – because of Christ’s finished work. The “he shall rule over you” is a consequence of the Fall – the effects of which Christ died to overturn and eradicate! And yes, I see it through the same eyes are you: Patriarchy is a consequence of the Fall. (It only took roughly 7 generations after Adam for polygamy to set in – evidence that men grew to view women as objects and property rather than as the co-heirs God declared us to be.)

    Creation – Fall – Redemption. I believe we need to interpret scripture within this progressive framework, understanding the effects of the fall and not make the mistake of incorporating elements of it into our lives together in Christ – which would completely defeat the work of Christ – who has redeemed us from the curse!

    “To continue to practice patriarchy is to practice sin.” Amen!

    We are to live under the law of love, not the law of power and authority.” Amen & amen!

  12. I have never once known a person claiming to be Christian but as focused on masculinity and sexuality as Mark Driscoll not in the end turn out to be a false sheep, a wolf in the fold, someone who on many levels was abusive and predatory.

    The fruit of the spirit is not debasement, anger, abuse, and so forth. A man indwelt by the Holy Spirit can not and will not continue in such things.

    Time will tell.


  13. I left a little off the end of the eras. The final era is when redemption is complete. Jesus completed the steps of the plan, and finished his work on the cross that built, constructed, executed redemption, putting it into operation, but redemption is a process that will be completed at the end of time. So we live in a world that is being, but is not yet, redeemed.

  14. I would just encourage folks who read this blog or contribute it to examine their hearts and motives…is there self righteousness, pride or self-sufficiency? It’s never easy to see our sin, but that’s what the gospel is about…seeing our sin for what it is and managing it so it dosen’t condemn us. I ask that we all do this humbly, and show grace…I posted a similar comment on “Survivors” but was treated very ungraciously…The Lord gave me a picture of what many of them are like right now…people wrapped in a cocoon of resentment and he wants them free of that. Thank you.

  15. Again, I agree Arce and I think its vital to understand God’s will as progressively moving toward the full redemption of the CHURCH.

    Another aspect of the whole problem with SGM is the emphasis they put on FAMILY in place of the CHURCH. Within this emphasis, a great deal of focus is placed on one’s role within the family. The role of the husband to the wife, wife to the husband, children to parents, etc. It’s like the entire gospel boils down to the FAMILY. Like Dee said in her last post, one fulfills the “gospel” by fulfilling one’s “role” – which is defined within a patiarchical (sinful) framework – and erroneously called “biblical manhood and womanhood.”

    Oh, it might be “biblical” alright. In the same way it was “biblical” for a man to have multiple wives, or for Saul to have consulted a witch. Yup, its all there in the bible. But that doesn’t make it all “biblical.” What makes something “biblical” in the correct sense, is when scripture is properly understood and applied. When that is not the case – then we say the behavior or action is “unbiblical.”

    So, really the CBMW should be the CUMW – the U standing for Unbiblical. And those that seek to define men and women using their criteria are seriously mishandling and misinterpreting scripture. They are stuck in the Fall and attempting to incorporate the old with the new. Like oil and water – it just doesn’t mix does it? No matter how glamorous and how nice the pictures look, it still not right. It’s not “biblical.”

    Now, thats not to say the family unit isn’t vitally important to the work of God and the spread of the gospel. Of course it is. The family unit is the building block of society, an institution God created out of marriage between one man and one woman.

    BUT..the family is not eternal. Marriage is not eternal. (CJ would always say his marriage was ‘heaven on earth’)

    Want to find people that believe that? Check out the Mormons.

    Sure God wants us to have happy families.And there are promises He has made that we can stand on regarding our children/families.But it is the CHURCH that is to be our main focus. Because it is ONLY THE CHURCH that will survive history and enter into God’s eternity.

    So it doesn’t matter in God’s eyes if you are married or single. Being married doesn’t give you a LEG UP. In fact, Paul said that being single allows you to devote yourself to the work of advancing the Kingdom of God without the distraction of having to devote yourself to the needs of a husband, wife or children.

    But don’t tell the people in SGM this. It might burst their bubble and ruin CJ Mahaney’s long anticipated “legacy.”

  16. p.s.I want to add that by “CHURCH” (in my last post)I am NOT referring to something like SGM’s “Local Church” or something like their “Family of Churches.” SGM doesn’t function like The Church. I’m sure there are believers in SGM who are genuinely part of the true church. However, they are stuck in a system which is not based on Jesus’ teachings of how we are to relate to one another within the church.

    I am referring to those whom God has called out. Who comprise THE TRUE CHURCH.

  17. SGM Fan,
    One of my motives is to get people to think about what is going on in certain sectors of the church.
    One of my motives is to get people to question the motives of some of the leadership of parts of the church because some of those leaders are really going astray from the purity of the gospel and are adding things to the gospel that don’t belong.
    I have no resentment toward SGM because they have not hurt me in any way.
    I am, however, quite appalled at the dead (spiritully as in turned atheist or pagan) and walking wounded that SGM has produced and continues to produce because of the horrible leadership of some(all?) of the leaders.
    I also am quite appalled at the twisting and misrepresenting of God and the Scriptures that Mark Driscoll engages in. I’m appalled that he had built his church on pornographic sex and putting down women in order to garner favor with the men.
    As I watch this going on with SGM and Mark Driscoll, I cannot turn a blind eye. I must point it out. The teachings are false and bitter and destroy people’s lives. And attention must be called to it.
    But they are not hurting me personally in any way. So I don’t have resentment towards them. I only have concern over the multitude of their victims. Someone has to tell them that there is more to Christianity than the perverted form peddled by SGM and MD.
    And I applaud Deb and Dee for doing so.

  18. SGM Fan
    As an attorney, I have worked with churches where the spiritual abuse was associated with sexual liaisons by the pastor outside of marriage. It is a perversion of the gospel to have an authoritarian structure in the church. That came about when Constantine took over the church, and it is why I call the church headquartered in Rome the Constantinian Church, because it is not universal, which is the meaning of catholic.

    Authoritarian structures inevitably result in abuse of one form or another, to maintain power and position by those who are at the top of the pyramid. A biblical church governance puts Christ at the top, the congregation of the saved next, then elected lay leadership next, and the paid staff at the bottom as servants of the laity.

  19. Well said Arce, and what a joy to interact with your thoughts. So appreciate the atmosphere here. Mara, nice response to SGM fan. I like what you said.

    This is a little embarrassing but I have to admit I don’t feel very confident interacting with others on a blog. The comments I made so far were too long I know. So please forgive my verbosity (hope that’s the right word for it). It’s just so nice to find a place to have this type of discussion, and I got a little carried away. And not a little preachy. Arce, I realize what I worte was in part directed to you, but not with the sense that you needed to hear hat I was saying. Rather, I was responding to the content of Dee’s post and with a wider audience in mind that I hope will interact with what is being said, even if to disagree like SGM fan did. Anyway, I felt like I needed to share that. Hope you all understand. Thanks

  20. SGM Fan

    We all have sin. Not one of us has pure motives. If we waited for that day, the world would be overrun with evil. As one of my pastors says “Even on my good days, my motives are mixed.”

    According to SGM leadership, you must be come to them with the right motives, totally pure. But here is the dirty little secret. You can’t, I can’t and, even scarier, they can’t yet they have set themselves above the little guy who is cowed into thinking he just isn’t good enough to say anything.

    My friend, that is why Jesus came. We cannot be pure and perfect. Yet in spit of this, we can see systemic injustice and troubled personalities. As a former public health nurse, I had to judge when someone was “off balance” and needed help. If I waited until I was perfect to judge the situation, there would be a lot of mentally deranged people continuing to wander the streets.

    So, here is the bottom line. Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney appear to me, this weak vessel, as in need of significant help. Jesus calls the weak to be strong and to stand up against injustice. That is what is going on here.

  21. @SGMfan…Ignoring the mountain of human debris in the wake of certain teachers and teachings – teachings which continue unabated – isn’t “showing grace” or being “gracious”. It’s being irresponsible.

  22. Junkster

    That is the funniest prayer I have heard in a long time. I will have to embed it one of these days. Thank you for the laugh.

  23. Amen on the crazy prayer — no way I would get up in front of a bunch of people and thank God for my “hot” wife — though I might do it in my prayer closet.

  24. SGMfan

    On further thought. I would ask you to stop worrying about our sin and look at the pain and suffering of those who were harmed by a ministry. As a nurse, I know that, when people have been hurt, you don’t lecture them to stop complaining. You fix the problem.

    Here is a Gospel message. Jesus cared about the little people who had been hurt by the powerful Pharisees. He cared for them as a gentle shepherd. He called the Pharisees snakes and white washed tombs.

    How do you know that the good people here have not already look at our own sin and confessed that before God? I know that there are SGM leaders who use this as a means of shutting people up. Perhaps you do not. However, it appears you have been taught very well.

    Did you realize that you did not once, in your comment, show compassion for those in pain. Until you think of the lost and let down, you are not living the Gospel. You are just another guy who is a yes man to those who have some pretense to power.

  25. Arce
    That has to be one of the most concise ways of looking at the big picture of the Bible that i have ever heard. Than you from the bottom of my heart.

  26. Evie

    Thank you for all of your thoughts! You could have written this post, and then some!!

    Your thoughts were very significant and have prompted much discussion.

  27. Still hurting

    Driscoll is not humble. In that, he reflects his suppose mentor. Both of them are far too involved with themselves. Both need to jump off the wagon and do a Francis Chan and think about some real issues for a change instead of their own blasted “position.”

  28. I have seen several comments about Driscoll leading people into pornography. Nothing could be further from the truth. Very few organizations have been as vigilant about speaking out against porn use as Acts 29. To continually try to link Driscoll with porn use is a blatant assault on his character. If you want to critique his doctrinal positions and public statements, that is completely fair game. However, to accuse him of leading people to porn use is ridiculous.

  29. Scott, almost every church pastor I know preaches against porn, but in 1991 a survey showed that 37% of pastors confessed to having been involved in inappropriate sexual behavior with someone in the church.
    Rates are also very high for pastors viewing porn. Given Driscoll’s propensity to speak in salacious sexual terms so often, it’s safe to say he has sex on the brain.

    I for one don’t have Driscoll perched high on any celebrity pedestal. There are pastors I respect, but he’s not one of them.

  30. SGM Fan said: “I would just encourage folks who read this blog or contribute it to examine their hearts and motives…The Lord gave me a picture of what many of them are like right now…people wrapped in a cocoon of resentment… ”


    Here is an excerpt from that addresses that:

    The “Bitter Card” has trump power. Pop that baby out, and you can dismiss the criticism. It’s played this way: person A has a grievance that he/she does not feel is being understood. Eventually Person A vents too often, too emotionally, or even sinfully, or gets too close to unsettling the happy delusion of the establishment and consequently in danger of getting too much influence. At this point, play the “Bitter Card.” This puts them on the defensive and, in the minds of the clueless, guts their argument. Plus it has the added benefit that you can say that their defensiveness is proof of the truth of your claim. Often people who play the “Bitter Card” employ Hebrews 12:15 and warn that the bitterness could result in the defilement of many.

    So, let me explain. Biblically.

    … The “root of bitterness” in Hebrews 12:15 could more aptly be applied to the scourge of immorality and its abuses than to the wounded, spiteful, angry, and sometimes over-the-top venting of those who have been “defiled” by it. In other words, friends, the disgruntled are more likely the “many” who have been defiled by the “root of bitterness” … than bitter souls who ought to be dismissed for having a bad attitude.

    It is the root of bitterness, not bitterness that defiles. But that may be stretching it too much. At the very least, “root of bitterness” ought to be understood as an evil core, a wickedness that cannot be more darkly described than using the words from the Pentateuch. It is the essence of a person who, though in the fellowship of believers by association, has “failed the grace of God” and is not even a saved person. That wickedness, a wickedness that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways … ultimately springs up and defiles many of the people within the fellowship of believers. That the writer of Hebrews thinks such a person is an unsaved person seems clear by his use of Esau seeking repentance even with tears but not able to find it.

    The Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the need to be vigilant over the community of believers. Hebrews 3:12 calls for community vigilance. And, when sin occurs, there ought to be a godly purging. Instead, (in certain situations) the root of bitterness was retained and those who were defiled by it were sent away.

    There’s no denying that sometimes victims and their friends and the disgruntled “many” are sinful. Very sinful. But, pastorally, it’s just plain stupid to try to control somebody’s speech or the effect of it on others by pulling out the “Bitter Card.” First of all, anger and indignation is not always “bitterness.” Wounds and hurts still felt are not bitterness.

  31. Scott,

    Pornography is defined as: “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

    I just glanced through Driscoll’s free online e-book Porn Again Christian (which anyone can access), and I found it to be pretty graphic. Sure, he denounces pornography, but he can have a corrupting influence as well with his inappropriate language.


    Thanks for speaking out against Driscoll. You’re what we classify here at TWW as a “manly man”.

  32. Scott,
    Many men are under the false notion that as long as certain sex acts occur only between husband and wife, then those sex acts are fine.
    This is not so.
    Anal sex damages people and Dricoll encourages it between husband and wife. He has also told women that Jesus commands wives to perform oral sex on their husbands. He falsely uses the Song of Solomon to spread this perversity.
    Both oral and anal sex were, at one time, outlawed under the sodomy laws of our nation. There was a reason for this, though our porn-saturated culture now scoffs those laws.

    (to be continued.)

  33. Scott

    Have you heard his interpretation on the Song of Solomon?
    How about his comments on anal sex?
    Did you know that his little talk on Song of Solomon in Scotland was removed from a websitea couple of years ago?
    And then, there was the missing recording of his talk to students at a local university?

    TWW has documented his exact statements in the 2 years of blogging. Please feel free to click on his name and start educating yourself.

    There is something very amiss with Driscoll and I believe that we will see more and more questions about his verbal statements as the years progress. There is something wrong with him and there are far too many people giving him a pass.

    And frankly, I am sick to death about the assaulting character nonsense. We received such a comment from a well known mega pastor when we begged him to look at Cj Mahaney and Gary Ezzo last spring. He pompously told us we were assaulting the character of these men. Well, look at the Mahaney mess today. Who was assaulting who?

    And I was talking about Driscoll, not all the people in the Acts 29. But I am sure there are his “followers” who are giving similar talks but they haven’t made news yet. If they do, you can bet we will write about it.

  34. Ted

    I was called “bitter” when I found out a church had slipped a lawyer onto a committee investigating a horrible pedophile incident at the church. But, they didn’t tell us that she was a lawyer. They said she had worked investigating pedophiles. We were supposed to meet with her and tell her what we knew. When I found out, I called the church on it. Some brilliant elder and supposed seminarian told me I was bitter. What nonsense! No wonder the pulpit is going to hell in a handbag.

    Bitter is one of the buzz words from abusive, authoritarian churches who are trying to get people to shut up. It doesn’t work with me. I just start talking louder as my former church found out the hard way.

  35. Scott, Yes I’m still talking to you, Here’s a couple verses for you.

    Revelation 2:20 I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to cmmit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
    Vs 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

    The Greek word translated fornication is the word porneuo from which we get both fornication and pornography. Fornication is sexual sins that includes all deviant sexual behavior. Sex outside of marriage and looking at pornography are included. But so are sexual sins within the marriage, like anal sex.

    Driscoll promotes anal sex. He is seducing people into accepting it as normal and healthy.
    Instead of really dealing with porn and lust inside the hearts of men that comes from living in our porn saturated culture, he encourages them to pursue it with the little woman, which is hurting her.
    Plus he is telling everyone that if a wife isn’t available for her husband in the deviant way Mark describes in his rape of the Song of Solomon, then SHE is responsible for the husband’s sin rather than dealing with the lust in his own heart.

    Driscoll only moves the pornography from the page and into the marriage beds of believer and this is damaging countless women.
    It is also keeping men from dealing with the perversion in their own hearts.

    Men have a hard row to hoe in this porn culture of ours. There is a right way to deal with it, to have compassion and encourage healing and deliverance. Driscoll’s methods are not it. He just sweeps it out of public view and into the marriage bed where Christian wives are paying a heavy price.

  36. I am loving the comments here on this subject. Way to go guys!

    Evie, for someone who does not blog or comment much, you sure make a ton of sense. You should blog and comment more. We need your v
    views out there. You should be confident only because you have truth.

    Scott: Don’t think pink. :o)

    See how that works? Driscoll keeps the subject on sex. Everything points to gender roles and sex. I am trying to figure out how the saints made it through 2000 years without the focus on sex. I suppose it was not relevant to the culture all those years. :o)


    Why are you not concerned about the wolves who have infiltrated the Body? Acts 20. Perhaps it is because you cannot recognize a wolf?

    “I have never once known a person claiming to be Christian but as focused on masculinity and sexuality as Mark Driscoll not in the end turn out to be a false sheep, a wolf in the fold, someone who on many levels was abusive and predatory”

    I agree and we have his own words to make us believe it going back for years. There are a ton of red flags. But some are so entertained they cannot see them.

    You see, Driscoll I get. I understand him. If church was not a way to get easy followers, he would have found a stage somewhere. That is who he is.

    What I DO NOT GET is all the followers. All the “brilliant” theologians and seminarians who support and/or defend him. I can be only one thing…building the Reformed brand. Otherwise, why wouldn’t a Mohler come right out and declare him crude and not representing our Lord at all?

    That is ONE thing I agreed with John McArthur about. He is the only one with the nerve to confront Driscoll. And he even agrees with him on a lot of doctrine.

  37. Evie,
    Don’t stop commenting or worry about the length of your comments.
    You have a lot of good things to say.

  38. Ted, I think if someone ever pulls the bitter card on me, I will ask them why they are joyful about evil. It is a cult tactic meant to stop the discussion and twist it around on you as the real problem. When all the time they are celebrating or supporting sin.

  39. I hate to point out the obvious, but SOMEBODY has to. Didn’t Driscoll think Mahaney was a tad bit effiminate and giggly? I mean, he is the expert on such things.


    Jeff, I think you are right.

  40. As a former SG pastor I must clarify for the readers of this blog what SGMFan “saw”. SGMF “saw” a cocoon of resentment. What SGMF may really have seen was a racoon of contentment.

    See, it’s really easy to have your “vision” clouded when the world you live in features blue skies, puffy clouds, and somebody like CJ mentoring somebody like MDris. That’s ’cause in the real world CJ would be defrocked if he were in a real denomination.

    Wait, wait, new image for y’all – this one is a spittoon overflowing with penalty abatement.

    Cheering on WW,
    Former SG Pastor

  41. FSGP,

    Thanks for weighing in. I guess it was a real ego trip for Mr. Humility to look after the soul of a shock jock preacher like Driscoll.

    Blessings to you!

  42. Mara said,
    “Oh, and to add. Yes, Mark Driscoll is a very disturbed man.
    I agree with Ted and take it a step further.
    Mark Driscoll has a spirit of Jezebel which promotes sexual sins, pornography, sodomy, and all manner of sexual perversion but justifies it by saying that, as long as it happens between a husband and his wife in the privacy of their bedroom, it’s okay. The marriage bed is undefiled.

    uhm, no. Mark Dricoll, under the spirit of Jezebel(Revelation 2:20-21), actively defiles the marriage bed. He makes porn cool and acceptable to gulible young men and women rather than to teach them and himself, the fruit of the Spirit, self-control.”

    Mara, if you read Mark Driscoll’s booklet (distributed for free on the internet), “Porn Again Christian,” he says just the opposite of your accusations.

  43. Aaron

    Once again, I must refer to you to his Song of Solomon catastrophe, his routine of “answering” texted questions about things such as anal sex, and on and on.

    No, its not like tuning into a porno site on the Internet but Driscoll has made a habit of being shocking and might I say ridiculous with his handling of this issue.

    Porno is not just how you (Aaron) define it. As one of the Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, in 1964, aptly said, “I can’t define pornography but I know it when i see it.” Your guy skates around the surface and occasionally falls in. He can write all the books he wants (and he does and makes a bundle) but the perception, and I include myself in this, is that he enjoys grossing out his audience. Unfortunately he does damage when he does so.

    So what if he claims he doesn’t like porno? His words and actions in other venues belie his protestations.Driscoll plays both ends against the middle and is increasingly demonstrating a schizophrenia that I believe may be indicative of an underlying problem.

    I call on the Christian community to stop treating him with amused indifference. He is not just a foul mouthed man who is stuck in junior high in his psychological development whose antics we overlook because he gets people with tatoos to come to his church. He may have a problem.

    I will say this once again. I believe Mark Driscoll could be a deeply troubled man and I bet there are a few people around him who know it.

    I am sorry that you feel you need to defend him. He is a big manly man and can come and beat up my husband for allowing me to talk about him. Read: facetious

    Driscoll appears, to this gullible and easily deceived woman who, actually, in spite of these hindrances, gets it right from time to time, to be a deeply troubled man just as his mentor, Mahaney appeared to me to be a troubled man. The documents prove me right on Mahaney and I can assure you that the plethora of recordings and writings by Driscoll cause me even greater concern.

  44. FSGP

    A few years ago I confronted a church which I believe did a terribly poor job in helping some boys who were molested.Because the church got a little testy (read-lawyers, plural), I consulted SNAP (Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests (pastors)).They gave an excellent piece of advice that has served me in good stead when confronting any sort of abuse in the Christian world. They said that I would be tempted to get sidetracked onto minor arguments, etc. Instead, I was to “remember the boys who were hurt.”

    So, as I assess those coming on the blog to criticize people who have been hurt, I employ one assessment tool. Do they, first and foremost, remember those hurt? If they don’t, I don’t care one whit about anything they say. They lack compassion which is a key component in my assessment of their words.
    So SGMFan’s words are just blowing in the wind with no substance.

  45. Lin

    Driscoll employs a basic Calvinista principle. If he supports me, all of my Reforrmed theology and will endorse my books, I think he is simply “mahvelous!”

  46. Deb & Dee –

    Greetings to you both. Dee, thanks for your words. It is easy to get sidetracked and I needed your reminder.

    Appreciating it,
    Former SG Pastor

  47. Thank you, Dee. Your words save me time and effort.

    Aaron. I do not care what Driscoll writes that has been through many rewrites and edited by others, (elders? wife? pubishers?) to keep him from getting into trouble.

    I care about what falls out of his mouth. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.
    When he talks, we see what is in his heart. And it is not good.

    Some time ago, when I expressed concern over some of the things that Driscoll has said, a Driscollite challenged me to listen to one of his Song of Solomon (SoS) series. He was sure it would win me over and convince me that Driscoll was a good guy. A little crass maybe, but otherwise decent.

    Now I will tell you what I told him. I listened to it. I agreed with much of what Driscoll said on marriage. But when he got to the actual text of SoS, his lack of honest exegesis and hermeneutics absolutely floored me. The way he twisted and turned and manipulated scripture to serve his own purposes and his own agenda was far beyond shocking.

    A. He either knows he is taking tremendous liberties in interpreting SoS but does it anyway to appeal to our porn saturated culture, thinking he knows better than the original author (Solomon), (in other words he’s lying.)
    B. He is so deceived in his sin soaked, porn soaked brain that he picked up from our fallen culture that he actually believes the crap he’s teaching.

    So he’s either a liar or he’s deceived.
    I don’t know which.
    But it comes from the abundance of his heart and he is seducing many with his wrong teaching on what the Song of Solomon is about.

  48. FSGP

    I am absolutely sure that you don’t need to be reminded of that. You have lived it. It is people like SGMFan who need to learn a lesson that I believe was ignored at SGM. Way too many of those folks have learned from the “experts” at SGM how deflect legitimate criticism back onto the victims. This is obscene and it is time to call them on it. Maybe SGMFan is just one of those who has never been taught how to care for those in pain. It sure seems like the leadership at SGM only care about themselves and those who care about them. They are whitewashed tombs.

  49. Mara/Aaron

    I like what you said Mara. Something just came to mind. Years ago, Hilary Clinton was tasked with protecting her husband’s reputation back in Arkansas. It seems that there would be regular reports women of women accusing Bill with being inappropriate with them.

    When this happened, she would call them “Bimbo alerts” and go to town minimizing the reports and even attacking the reputation of the women. Now, I am not here to judge the validity of those reports or even the response, but Mark Driscoll seems to get himself into hot water on a routine basis. And then, his Acts 29 buddies or friends, etc, leap into action. It is essentially a version of “Bimbo Alert” except that Driscoll is his own bimbo.

  50. Thanks Dee.
    Sometime when I’m able I hope to demonstrate one of his blatant twistings, lay it open and bare for all to see it for what it is.

  51. Dee,
    When you tell someone to go educate themselves on something, you are assuming that they do not know what they are talking about. I know about the Song of Solomon series. I was not talking about it. I was referencing comments like Mara’s that Driscoll has a “porn-soaked” brain. Again, the Song of Solomon series is fair game to discuss. There are a lot of people who had problems with it and it is easy to understand why. What is not fair game is to assume what is going on in a man’s private life.

  52. It’s just that I have heard his Peasant Princess series (SoS), and my wife and I found it extremely helpful. What about his exegesis seemed fallacious to you all?
    The other thing that I cannot see is the comparison drawn between him and CJ Mahaney. CJM comes off as giggly and melodramatic; and he never seems to get around to saying anything when he preaches. Mark Driscoll seems in stark contrast to that. He is utterly serious, but well-humored; he always has clear conclusions and manages to put highly intelligent pursuit of the text into common language for his church. What is so similar about those two?
    Actually, I think my only complaint about Driscoll is that he seems to be ignorant of the many abuses of SGM…

  53. Scott

    Please hear me. I am saying that the Song of Solomon talk to which I refer was so embarrassing to the entity that it was removed from the web. Same goes for his talk at a major university here in the south. Now why is it so embarrassing? I say because it has a porn feel to them.

    Since most of Driscoll’s controversial comments center around sex based themes, it is reasonable to say that he seems to be obsessed with the subject. Now, can someone say for sure what is going on in someone’s mind? Of course not but one can make judgements based on words. As a public health nurse, I would have to make a judgment call on what might be going on in the mind of a client and how those thoughts could adversely affect him or the people around him. That judgment might compel me to say that someone appeared troubled and needed intervention.

    Driscoll has made a number of comments that raises red flags for me just like Mahaney’s actions over the past couple of years troubled me as well. I say it would appear that he needs some help.

    Secondly, since Driscoll’s church is “missional” it is important to understand the perceptions of those who are looking into a ministry. Driscoll has all but done a Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch which basically says, “Look at me.” However, he does not have the right to tell people what they should look at or listen to.

    I would think that Driscoll, who seems to be concerned about the unsaved and unchurches might want to assess the perceptions that people have of his ministry. If he doesn’t give a flip, then too bad for him. By ignoring this input, he is showing that he is not truly missional but merely another guy who wants to control the message and response. He can’t. The blogs are now opening the shutters of the church universal and shedding some light on some very dark corners.

    So, please don’t tell Mara what to think. This is what she thinks and Driscoll and gang need to deal with it instead of going into Bimbo alert and telling her, in your own way, what she can and cannot say. This is not slander/libel-it is a private person’s opinion and it is one possible logical conclusion based on the evidence that I have seen.

  54. Aaron

    So, is your wife gullible and easily deceived? Let’s start there.

    As for Driscoll, you think that his statements on effeminate worship leaders constitutes, “serious”, well-humored,” and “highly intelligent” remarks. Should a pastor joke about punching staff members in the nose, especially when he plans to can them immediately?Or is that simply “humorous.”

    How about monitoring his wife’s email? Whoops, that makes sense-she is gullible and easily deceived. Right?

    As for Mahaney-since Driscoll agreed to have Mahaney mentor him, that should tell you what he thinks of this “giggly” man.

    And I am truly amazed that the only complaint that you have about Driscoll is that he ignores the abuses of SGM. Do you think the reason he can ignore them is because he has some of those same tendencies?

    Your comments are insightful which will help our readers to understand the types of individuals who are attracted to Driscoll.

  55. Mara, your response does not seem fair to me. I simply wanted to know what you meant when you were pointing out exegetical fallacies in Mark Driscoll’s teaching on the Song of Solomon.

  56. Aaron

    You appear to be ducking my questions about your wife.Is she, along with her Christian friends, gullible and easily deceived?

    As for SOS, how about the oral sex stuff? Also, if one pornographies something in Scripture, does this mean it is fine so long as it doesn’t change the theology?

  57. To my readers:

    I have invented a new term today: pornographies. This means to take text from Scripture and turn it into a salacious presetnation why being theologically correct. By this I mean, it is just fine to discuss oral and anal sex that might be in Song of Solomon so long as you keep to a Reformed, complementarian point of view.

  58. Clients’ grade is the most important for our professional writing corporation and at this minute you have a chance to get information: “how to do my essay ” and get good discounts.

  59. To “essay writing service” –

    You have the wrong website. Please try googling “Pastors College” or “CJ ghostwriter”.

    Then perhaps a class or 2 in conversational Anglish,
    Former SG Pastor

  60. FSGP

    I was about to erase the essay spam but have decided to let it sit longer because your comment is so gosh darn funny.

  61. “There are a lot of people who had problems with it and it is easy to understand why. What is not fair game is to assume what is going on in a man’s private life”

    If only it were his private life!

    Mark’s main focus is gender roles and sex. he can take any doctrinal position and build gender role and or sex into it. It is on his brain. he is eaten up with it.

    My favorite Driscollism ((which has since been removed) was his comment after Ted Haggard was outed when Mark made the comment on his website that pastors wives who let themselves go cause pastors to fall into sin.

    It is always about the woman. I bet that makes his wife feel secure knowing her looks are the only link between Mark and adultery.

    Now, please tell me that is not what he meant. That seems to be how it works these days. The celebrities say these things and then their defenders come out and tell us it is not what they meant.

    If it was not so bad, then why did he remove it soon aftr he put it up?

    So, answer Dee’s question. Is your wife easily deceived as Mark claims all women are? Are you filtering her emails, too?

  62. One more thing…Driscoll appeals the the Jr High in people. Jesus was a redneck, Mary in the back of a pick up truck, SOS chp 2 is about Oral sex, and on and on.

    Driscoll is an entertainer. He points people to Driscoll. That is really what all the shock jock stuff is. He does it, removes it or apologizes, says he repents, gets a mentor like Piper or Mahaney and then does it again and again. This has been going on for years and he still has not grown up.

    So, we can be assured his followers won’t grow up either.

    He is Jezebel and a Nicolatian. He gains followers after himself. It is all about him.

  63. RE Mara @ Tue, Jul 26 2011 at 05:59 pm:

    Let me be abundantly clear. I am NOT defending Driscoll or any other preacher who makes a handsome living off the fears and insecurities of the flocks they fleece.

    “…The Greek word translated fornication is the word porneuo from which we get both fornication and pornography. Fornication is sexual sins that includes all deviant sexual behavior. Sex outside of marriage and looking at pornography are included. But so are sexual sins within the marriage, like anal sex…”

    The immediate context for the word porneia in the passages you’ve cited originally referred to heathen temple prostitution common in the ancient Roman world. Religious conservatives have always conflated the word to also mean any sexual practice they abhor or don’t agree with out of personal revulsion.

    Although I can respect your beliefs so long as they apply to you in your pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, I must draw the line when you hint that they MUST APPLY to everybody across the board via sodomy laws.

    In this regard I am a religious liberal and I am glad that sodomy laws are being struck down nationwide as unconstitutional.

  64. Dee –

    : )

    I couldn’t resist. Well, I coulda and I shoulda and I tried but resistance is futile.

    All your base are belong to us,
    Formal SG Pasture

  65. So wait, I have two questions:
    1. Are we saying that “oral sex” is wrong between a man and his wife?
    2. Are we saying that it is incorrect to read Song of Solomon as, among other things, having obvious descriptions of sexual relations between the man and his wife?

  66. Ladies and Gentleman,

    If it wasn’t for me, the man would not have eaten the apple. Plain and simple. Or the peach. Maybe it was a mango, whatever – I forget. I have a weak mind in a weak vessel.

    Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yes. I want you to know I was mainly transfixed by that talking snake. None of the other animals had ever spoken to me and I felt like maybe they didn’t like me as much. Adam told me how they had performed a parade for him one day before I was created and it sounded like one big chat-fest. Lots of name-calling, etc. So when the snake spoke to me and offered me something to eat I was excited, even though I thought the way he slurred his S’s was a little weird.

    So, ever since, me and the womenfolk have always been more friendly with the snakes despite rumors enmity between us. Do you want to know the real reason Adam took the piece of fruit? Because I was naked. Duh. If you want to know why men like CJ Mahaney are having problems…? I’m sure it’s a woman’s fault. That’s why he has preached so much about modesty. He knew women were dangerous and that one immodestly dressed women could cause a fall.

    And I’m quite sure in all this he will pass the buck just like my better half did. He reminds me so much of my Adam!

    (The above was really written by Evie who would also like to thank Dee and Lin for their words of encouragement 😉

  67. Aaron

    Answer my question and then I will, once again, answer yours. Do you believe your wife is gullible and easily deceived?

  68. Muff

    I think Mara and others are saying that Driscoll is making it a requirement as opposed to freedom. Sodomy laws as are being struck down in the name of freedom. Driscoll wants to entrap and codify behavior on his terms. Meanwhile, he calls all women gullible and easily deceived. He plans to fill in the blanks for us moronic females and tell us what to do and when to do it.

  69. Evie

    Poor gullible Adam. Deceived by a woman. Does this mean he was gullible and easily deceived?

    You should take up writing, btw.

  70. FSGP

    Tut, tut. You said “All your base are belong to us”. You are into Japanese video games? Be careful or commenter Jean Seldon, for whom I am formulating a response as to why I enjoy The Office, will now come after you. It’s sin, it’s all sin. Didn’t you learn anything from SGM?

    Live long and prosper, friend.

  71. Dee, its just so hard to understand when so much of their energy has been channeled into keeping women under the control, why men like CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll have erred so much! So perplexing when as men they are less inclined to deception and more capable of leadership! I’m sure many of them sit scratching their bald heads!

  72. Hi, Muff,
    “Pornea” as used in Scripture basically means unlawful sexual activity ((i.e., sexual acts prohibited by God). One use in the New Testament is temple prostitution; it also includes adultery or extramarital sex. By extension (and based on extra-biblical usage), most lexicons include in the meaning other sexual acts specifically commanded against in the Bible, such as homosexuality and bestiality.

    It’s true that many modern conservatives have used it as a catch all term for any sort of sexual activity that they personally find distasteful, offensive, or inappropriate. As such, they may condemn things not specifically prohibited by Scripture. But it does include more than just temple prostitution.

    Laws prohibiting specific sexual acts are another matter. I don’t think God expects believers to expect that unbelievers will follow God’s laws.

  73. I wish people would stop using the non-word “gullible”. I realize it’s a common misconception that it’s a real word, but it just isn’t. Look it up people!!

  74. It is also a misconception that Dwight Schrute said “All your base are belong to us.” He did, however, say, ” I am faster than 80% of all snakes.”

  75. Junkster

    I thought the statement about all yor base belong to us came from a Japanese video game which did a less than stellar translation into English.

    Hey, do you want to answer Jean Seldon?

  76. Dee,
    Yes, it is from the Sega game, Zero Wing. (Yes, I knew the phrase, but no, I didn’t remember which game, I had to look that part up.)

    I can’t answer Jean as to why you enoy “The Office,” I could only speak to why I do. 🙂

    But how could someone not like a show in which a character (Dwight) says, “Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Because if so, you are succeeding. Fortunately my feelings regenerate at twice the speed of a normal man.”

  77. Aaron, one of the things that SoS is about is sex. It is not the only thing it is about. It is about many other things as well.
    Oral sex may or may not be wrong. I cannot weight in either way. I know that many, many women find it distastful, pun intended.

    But one thing I do know. SoS absolutely does not support oral sex. Driscoll using SoS 2:3 to support it causes the Lover and Beloved to commit adultery since they are not married until Chapter three. And no, in spite of what Driscoll says, SoS IS chronologcial. Driscoll claims that it is not but he gives no support whatsoever that it is not. He just says it’s not and thinks that his saying so is enough. It’s not. Anyone who does more than just lift ‘the good bits’ out of SoS and really meditates on the whole as well as the parts, would know that it is chronological.
    He just doesn’t want it to be because then he couldn’t make the outrageous claims that he does concerning SoS 2:3.

  78. Dee and Junkster –

    I loooooovvveee the Office. I am fairly confident that Dwight dropped out of Southern Seminary. He is waitlisted for the Pastors College, from what I hear. Of course, Michael Scott will be off the show while he advises SG apostles on applying business practices to rescue shipwrecked denominations. Meanwhile, all cringe when Creed heads to the prophecy mic.

    Wondering which bear is fastest,
    Former SG Pastor

  79. Junkster and FSGP

    But, she says I am giving the appearance of evil!!! So, this means you both do as well.

    Well back to the beet farm….

  80. Mara

    Aaron will not answer if he believes his wife is gullible and easily deceived which probably means that he does believe it. If you asked my husband this question, he would look at you as if you were nuts and be able to answer immediately.

    So, because you are a woman and so am I, anything we say is dismissible based on Driscoll’s contention. Aaron claims that the ONLY thing he disagrees with Driscoll about is Driscoll’s overlooking of the abuse at SGM.

    However, if I am in error, perhaps Aaron can educate me. If he believes this, I feel sorry for his wife. There will be hard days ahead.

  81. Dee,
    Enjoying humor does not give an appearance of evil, IMHO.

    Besides, the proper translation of 1 Thess 5:22 is “Avoid every form of evil” not “Abstain from every appearance of evil” (KJV mistranslation).

    The appeal to the Thessalonians is not to avoid or abstain from that which might appear to be evil, but to avoid those things that are clearly evil. (See

  82. I am fine with Aaron not answering me or looking down his nose at me. I actually don’t give a flying flip whether he wants to hear me or not. He has what he wants, open season on any orifice on his wife’s body complements of Driscoll. He also has the right to shut his ears to the truth and to blame his wife and all women for anything he does wrong, also complements of Driscoll. Why would he ever want that to change?

    The reason I’m engaging him is to show how freaking easy it is to kick the legs out from under Driscoll’s false teachings on the Song of Solomon in case poor Aaron’s wife (or any other downtrodden wife of a Driscollite) wants to know the truth concerning the book. It is not what Driscoll twists it to be. It is something that transcends higher than any thought Driscoll or Aaron are capable of.
    There was a reason the Jews of old didn’t let adolescent boys read it. If only we could bar it from the eyes of adolescent-minded adult males so that they would quit defiling it.

    Driscoll make a lot of money defiling it.
    I don’t make a dime defending it. But I will never stop defending it. I hate seeing the Greatest of Songs trampled under foot the way they do it on Mars Hill.

  83. Oh, and thanks again for providing a place for me to speak freely about my concerns with Driscoll and his SoS series.

  84. I am disappointed that the Cross was not enough for female Driscollites to overcome their bent to be easily decieved. I guess they do not receive the Holy Spirit like the male leaders do. Wait! They don’t need the Holy Spirit, they have their husbands and Mark.

    But wait a doggone minute. Eve ADMITTED she was deceived. Adam just blamed Eve and God. Now, there is leadership material if I never saw it.

    You guys are corrupting me with the Office. I have never seen it.

  85. Yes, I did know that Creed played Creed. He’s got a rock band, too.

    Dee, me – just giving the appearance of evil? Heck, that would be an improvement according to some.

    Dee, your accuser may have a medical condition that makes it painful to laugh or smile. Or maybe she’s just like Angela. Ask her how many cats she has.

  86. FGSP/Junkster
    Read my reply. Please feel free to add to it.

    As for Angela, I love the story line that is developing with her and “the senator.”

  87. Muff: “The immediate context for the word porneia in the passages you’ve cited originally referred to heathen temple prostitution common in the ancient Roman world.”

    You are gracious and I do not mind you bringing up certain things where we disagree.

    And you can completely disagree with with what I say next. But I hope that it causes you and others to think a bit.

    Temple prostitution may have taken on a new form in the twenty-first century. Instead of Christian men going to temple prostitutes and breaking one of the Ten Commandments concerning adultery, how about teaching Christian wives that it is their duty to God and men for them to learn how to preform like a porn star at home for their husbands? And since this is taught in the modern day sanctuary, how different is it from ancient Roman temple prostitution, really.

    Also, just to clear things up with you, when I suggest that perhaps Big D is operating in the Spirit of Jezebel it is really only a reaction against the overuse of that term by certain men to beat down women. In the Bible, it is NOT about women who don’t submit enough to men, it is about sexual perversion, especially, as you pointed out, in temple situations. So many men have thrown it around mercilessly to control and hurt women, therefore I don’t mind throwing it out a bit just to get people to rethink what it is actually is about.

  88. Lin,

    Start with the original British version of The Office. This way you will be properly indoctrinated. All true believers know this. Hold as suspect anyone here who claims to be a fan yet has failed to mention this. No doubt their entire belief system is flawed, too 😛

  89. Evie

    True confession: I have never watched the British version. I repent from the error of my ways. Was there a Dwight in that one? He truly is my favorite character.

  90. Dee,

    I admire your quick repentance. I’m glad I didn’t need to write a 600 page document in an effort to get you to see the light.

    In the British version, Gareth is the equivalent of Dwight.

    If you like Ricky Gervais “Extras” is funny, too!

  91. Evie, where does one see the British version? I am tv illiterate.

    Mara, Don’t you wonder how 2000 years of saints made it through without consistent how-to teaching on sex in marriage….. as if it was NOT relevant to their culture? Only ours :O)

    Calvin, Wesely, Spurgeon, Lloyd Jones…… Driscoll?

  92. Lin, you can get it through Netflix. That’s what I’d recommend.

    This made me laugh lol:
    “I am disappointed that the Cross was not enough for female Driscollites to overcome their bent to be easily decieved. I guess they do not receive the Holy Spirit like the male leaders do. Wait! They don’t need the Holy Spirit, they have their husbands and Mark.”

  93. Yes, Lin, I wonder how the church survived 2000 years of sexual repression without Driscoll’s teaching… Smirk.

    My kids love the office. I don’t know if they have seen the British version. I’ll have to ask.

  94. Warning: Explicit Comment, Driscoll Style
    (Editor insertion)

    I’m not sure why all of this has become personal. The biting words you have for me are certainly not warranted by the Scriptures, nor even by the face value of my questions, but only by your wrong assumptions about me.
    Besides, my question about oral sex was not what you seem to have thought it was. I was asking whether or not you think I am in sin when I orally stimulate HER…

  95. Aaron

    I am not pleased with the direction of this conversation. You are becoming far more explicit than I would wish on this particular post. When we have been explicit in the past, once again on Driscoll, surprise, surprise, we have warned our readers. This is a WARNING to you. Dial it back a notch.

    I would ask that you answer my question. Do you believe your wife is gullible and easily deceived? Until you answer this, I will not engage you. Your answer is important for me to know how to continue this conversation.

  96. To our readers

    I am sorry for the turn this conversation has taken. I toyed with the idea of deleting Aaron’s comment but decided to leave it up so that people can see the type of conversation that seems to take place whenever a Driscoll fan gets going. And I am the one who is supposed to read my Bible, hmmm?

  97. I am sad. Aaron’s last comment was a disappointment to me.
    I wanted to talk doctrine, exegesis, and hermeneutics.
    I wanted to lay out a few of the many errors in Driscoll’s teachings. I’ve done it before with thinking men and they have received it.
    Aaron only wants to talk Drisconian sex. (talking out-loud or in print about sex in order to shock and/or titillate)

    Oh well.
    I rest my case on Driscoll doctrine.
    It’s all about sex and has very little to do with anything remotely resembling Biblical truth.

  98. “Besides, my question about oral sex was not what you seem to have thought it was. I was asking whether or not you think I am in sin when I orally stimulate HER”

    Oh, please do not delete this. It only shows how Driscoll’s doctrines are….” me, me, me” centered.

    Aron does not get the larger picture of the problem because he is so excited this is being taught in church. So, his defense is to charge us with THINKING WHAT HE DOES IN HE PRIVACY OF HIS MARRIAGE BED IS SIN.

    Don’t even go there, friends. It is a huge bait Driscollites use to excuse their tawdry focus instead of Christ as the focus.

    My question to Aron is why this is even discussed? But then, he would give me a big Driscollite answer about how important this is in a believer’s life, blah, blah, blah. 1 Corin 7 is not enough for Driscollites.

    Aron has probably never heard of Richard Wurmbrand who lived in a Romanian prison most of his life for preaching the Gospel. His wife was imprisoned, too, even though they had children. And horror of horrors, not the same cell. How did they ever make it without Driscoll’s teaching on sex?

    Oh, there are countless examples of such saints throughout history. I wish Aron would read more of their stories so he could see how shallow his focus is.

    Don’t get sucked into Aron’s “is it sin” bait trap, friends.

    The real question is why is this even being brought up at all by Driscoll and his sycophants. Why is it a focus at all?

    For 2000 years believers figured this stuff out without help from pastors. It was NOT the focus.

    It is all ‘me, me, me’ with Driscoll. Which is why he is so popular.

  99. Dee–

    You know Aaron isn’t going to answer you, right? Most likely because it’s true. It’s a demeaning answer, but nevertheless, probably true. It’s kinda like asking a racist, so you really think black/white people are just trash, don’t you? And then you dont get an answer. At that point, the silence is most likely your answer. Otherwise, if you didn’t think that and even consider it abhorrent, wouldn’t you just answer with an emphatic NO!

    Mark Driscoll is most probably a perv. See, most people in the church have not had the sheer pleasure of working in a ministry for, let’s say 6 years, learning and counseling those struggling with sexual disfunction, addiction, broken healthy image, or abuse. I have.

    People want to play Scripture wars about what we can and cannot say about others; how we cannot make solid educated and discerning judgments based on a person’s speech, actions, interests, focus, behavior, convictions (or lack thereof), and whatever else we use to make solid judgments about others. God has freely given us these faculties and highly suggests we use them. I would use these same faculties, judgments, information with regards to determining whether someone was safe or not. To call it mere intuition is to rob real true discernment of it’s power to know and understand something with which one may or may not be well acquainted with. Then you have the defenders rushing to condemn any true judgment or discernment on the part of others as wrong simply because they make the argument that we are going by what a person says. It is not only what he says, it’s all of those other verbal and non-verbal factors, the visual communication and the non-visual that tells us FAR more information about a person than we even know ourselves. People act like psychology and understanding the conscience, human behavior and information we receive from others is all bunk. And pretty much, making a judgement based on these things, people are saying you are sinning, or slandering/libel, etc… They essentially throw away an entire sphere of human interaction, influence and science that has proven it’s effectiveness, reality, and concrete substance for centuries.

    I, for one, am well acquainted with those who have these issues. I can tell you that many factors that I know for sure, without a doubt–both verbal and non-verbal, show that Driscoll has a problem and his Uncle CJ too. Let his followers and apologists try and clean him up all they can. But this dude will continue to go back and roll in his own slop. He’s surely a pig and has no place in the pulpit. You ask any licensed counselor, preferably my friend who has been working in sexual brokenness ministry for over 30 years, what’s on this dudes mind and what he’s doing when no on is looking, she’d be more explicit than I, but I can tell you, it’s what you’d think it was and probably far worse. Driscoll may not be bathing his eyes in porn–true that. But he doesn’t need those images to help him sin and think the gross things he probably does. People can’t see that his perversion is oozing out of his pores and it stinks.

    It would be far too inappropriate to speak of the things I know on here, and things I know that men do and men have done that I have either served with in ministry or helped counsel. It’s just unreal. Oh and let it be known, these are men in the church I”m speaking about. The guys sitting next to you in the pew. Your pastor. Your elders. Their homeboys. The guy at the backdoor. Yep, it’s real. It sucks. But it’s real.

    Driscoll, like anybody who is perverted and messed up, wants everyone else to “join” him in treating their wives the same way. If he can get the masses to do what he’s doing, it might not look so bad afterall. He might get to clear his conscience a little. He needs affirmation that he knows he won’t get–not in normal circumstances anyways. BUt his church is not normal. And of course, why wouldn’t “men” want to hear these things and believe them to be true? I put men in quotes, because I know honorable, outstanding men who, even if they would even think about it, would never ask their wives to do those things, and never would want her to do something that made her feel less than or degraded. These guys love their wives and respect them far too much; and they are well-pleased where it counts…exceedingly. Normal relations between a husband and wife become boring and unsatisfying to a man who’s thoughts, desires and expectations are unrealistic. And that’s what pornography and impure or unnatural thinking about sex does–it sets a person up for an expectation that no normal woman/man will ever meet for them. If the person is abusive, they manipulate and coerce their partner slowly, groom them, until they slowly give in. One day it’s one thing, the next day it’s another, until that person is getting exactly what they want. Mix God in with all that and you have a classic spiritual/sexual abuse situation. It’s really sad.

    Oh and BTW! I love LOVE The Office! And Creed is my dude. But Stanley–when he told Michael, “did I studder?!!!” Was my most favorite episode ever. I have a friend who acts just like Stanley at work. It’s hilarious. Except, she’s a girl. We laugh about it allll the time.

  100. “People want to play Scripture wars about what we can and cannot say about others; how we cannot make solid educated and discerning judgments based on a person’s speech, actions, interests, focus, behavior, convictions (or lack thereof), and whatever else we use to make solid judgments about others”

    This bears repeating. We are to judge fruit. And the fruit coming from Driscoll is rotten. But note, his defenders will say he has correct doctrine. Amazing. But how would they know better?

  101. Yes, Lin.
    And one of the reasons Driscoll’s teachings on SoS is so popular with young men is that he blatantly strips the female of her voice and either gives it to the male, making him say it, or makes what the female says all about what the male wants to hear and/or is going to get out of it.

    You are so right on. It’s all about ‘me, me, me’, especially men’s ‘me, me, me’ with a scrap thrown to the female every once in a while to trick her into thinking that it is a little bit about her too.

    And thank you so much NLR for chiming in. Your info is invaluable.

  102. NLR

    Awesome response. My years in public health nursing lead me to believe that Driscoll is deeply troubled. Ted Haggard gave off the same vibes before his little fiasco. I was startled that he was made the head of the NAE just prior to his fall. I kept thinking I was the only one (well, actually Deb agreed but I pay her to agree with me).

    I think Aaron’s response is very illuminating. What is interesting to me is that he had no trouble posting his comment. Anyone who has not been indoctrinated would know that such a comment is a bit strange. Driscoll is doing a good job desensitizing people to the issue. My guess is that , if he is found to have a bizarre situation, his followers will leap to his defense and claim his actions were normal and understandable.

    As for the Office, did you see Jean Seldon’s comment? She wanted me to justify, Scripturally, why it is OK for me to watch the show. She said I must not give an appearance of evil. I asked her how that is possible. Even Shakespeare deals with explicit topics.

    The Office is one of those shows that many people in our culture watch. It has been a good source of conversation for me when talking to others who are not initiated into our little club of “perfect” people.

    You are right, btw, Aaron refuses to answer my question. It is an easy one-yes or no.Good night-can you imagine any man thinking his wife is gullible and easily deceived. Sure there are some women who are but , if Aaron’s response is any indication, there are quite a few men who fit that category as well.

  103. Lin
    Thank you for backing me up on this. We have been criticized on a couple of occasions that we let some comments stand. But I want people to see this stuff for what it is. It is far more effective to be hit between the eyes with the actual comment then try to explain it.

  104. Mara
    Keep beating the drum. We are starting to get through.Blogs are changing the face of the church-especially for the hyper-authoritarian one.

  105. “You are so right on. It’s all about ‘me, me, me’, especially men’s ‘me, me, me’ with a scrap thrown to the female every once in a while to trick her into thinking that it is a little bit about her too”

    But Mara, the females have to be ‘told’ what to think. They are easily deceived and the husband must be the Holy Spirit for them. It is also best to filter their emails because they are all gossips when they do communicate with each other.

    This is according to Driscoll’s ‘correct doctrine’, if you listen to him long enough to sort it all out.

    I would think these young men would want a smart, discerning wife as their equal partners for life. But that is not how it works in Driscoll doctrine. Driscoll makes it about them and they like it that way.

    I think Driscoll is a time bomb waiting to go off. He has already set off quite a few grenades that most people ignore because he comes back with ‘sorry’. But then does it over and over again.

    So far, I think many celebrities have given him cover because he is helping to build the Reformed brand. People forget that not too long ago, Driscoll was emergent. Donald Miller wrote about him in Blue Like Jazz as the cussing pastor.

    That was not that long ago. But Driscoll saw where the wind was blowing and hooked up with the rising stars of Reformed movement and it has served him well with international speaking gigs, books and lots of money and fame.

    I say it that it is obvious to some that Driscoll is more about having a “stage” to perform on. To me, he is in the Ergun Caner category of christian shock jock celebrity. It is about having followers after himself. It is about self absorbed entertainment with Jesus as an assessory to wear. Jesus is to validate the performance.

    I wish more young people were discerning of such things and would follow Christ, instead.

  106. You see, I really believe that “doctrine, exegesis, and hermeneutics” influence practice. So how one views actions, both one’s own and those of others, is a great starting point for understanding one’s doctrinal assumptions. For, as one of you pointed out, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Matt. 12)
    I had a chat with my wife last night about the passages from God’s Word to which I think Mark Driscoll was referring when he said that women are, in general, gullible and easily deceived. The details of the conversation aside, I came away from that conversation wondering that I had been blessed with such a rock-solid, capable, discerning, and gracious wife as I have been.
    Actually, her words are rather worth noting.
    I asked her what she thought of Driscoll’s aforementioned words, and she answered, “Sometimes I am [gullible and easily deceived]!”
    “Well, I see men being gullible and easily deceived all the time,” I replied. “What makes men qualified to lead the Church as opposed to the ladies?”
    Her answer: “Nothing. But God’s Word calls them to lead.”
    So no, I do not think she is gullible or easily deceived. She is rooted in God’s Word and she listens to the Holy Spirit.

    As for the sexual comment, I simply wanted to know if the rather prudish standard I am picking up here goes both ways. And how is it that bringing pleasure to my wife shows my thoughts are all on “me, me, me”? Explain that one.
    And I disagree with Mara’s comment about Driscoll’s preaching from the Song of Songs “strip[ping] the female of her voice”. It was his very teaching on the matter which convinced me that, primarily, a man is to be oriented to the service of his wife (in sex and in all things aside) and has been uniquely outfitted by God to do so, as directly opposed to the common cultural and pornographical fallacy that the woman facilitates and the man gets what he wants. As to the voice of the woman, Driscoll repeats no other phrase more often in the Peasant Princess than, “She speaks first; she speaks last; she speaks most.”
    Listening and reading comprehension around here seems to be selective.

  107. Lin–

    I wish I could answer your question clearly, yet I sit with a blank face. Maybe because that answer is a big fat “nothing.” They are being converted to nothing.

    People want real people in the pulpit. I get that. But they have to understand what the office and duty of a pastor is. It should be clear to most Christians that a pastor’s duty is not to preach about sex in explicit ways from the pulpit. I’m single, older (33) and still waiting for marriage. While that feels lame sometimes (hahaha… yeah, it acutally does) it doesn’t make me naive. I know a lot about sex, relationships, things that go on in marriage. I get that from my closest friends, from having the opportunity to counsel others in stages of life I have not yet arrived to, simply I get it from being an adult. Adults don’t need their pastor to do this for them. Adults need good people in their lives with whom they can discuss sensitive issues with. My girlfriends don’t treat me like a child just because… And I don’t treat them as knowing any more than I do just because… We are on the same playing field. The same level of maturity although our experiences differ. And yet, I still teach them, yes, even on intimacy issues, and they teach me. That’s what relationships are for.

    Dude has confused himself with trying to be your best friend rather than your pastor. It’s none of his business what I do and don’t do in the privacy of my home–it’s so much none of his business that it’s not even his right to even mention it to me! I would be terribly offended and want to possibly charge at him. This simply is a boundary. I should not know what Driscoll does with his wife in private or even in intimate communications between the two when they are in public–yet, he tells EVERYONE! This dude is a child. He is merely a pubescent boy wanting to impress his peers and everyone around him with his false masculinity–when we’re all just laughing AT him and not WITH him. Because, dude, I know you are weak, abusive, insecure, perverted, and lack all manner of self-control. He is a ticking time bomb for his next big gaffe… And his glassy-eyed followers will just blink and it will be forgotten.


    Ted Haggard has always given me the creeps. I pay a lot of attention to subtleties in behavior–the slight eye wince, the look to the left when you are lying to me, the slight purse of your lip when something I”ve said has made you mad and you dont think I can see your angst. I pay attention to behavior. I should have been one of those people like on, what’s my show…ummm… yeah, Lie to Me. That is exactly who I am, and I guess I never really considered it a talent. Most people that get over on me, it’s not because I dont know they are or that they are lying or hiding something, it’s because I let other people convince me with polished speech and Scripture wars that I am wrong.

    I might not be able to express myself in such big words or use clever language deceptively, but I know that I see what I see. There have been many times where I saw Haggard on TV, and Ed Young Jr., and many times I have thought, these guys have a problem. Their faces and body language tell me more than their actual words. They make me suspicious and distrusting, but their words! Their words convict them and tell me I’m probably right.

    I dont see how Aaron thought it was at all necessary to post that comment and that it was appropriate, even. But as you said, they can’t see that because they are in too deep.

    I did not see Jan’s comment. Where is it? That’s a bunch of hogwash. It actually makes me laugh. People like that, sometimes, I leave them living in their bondage. They dont even want their eyes open. It feels safe to them in their prisons. You know what’s so funny though, I see a lot of younger Christian women reading these novels, what I call Christian chick porn. You know, the story of the lily white fair-skinned girl, who quilts, who lives on a prairie or farm, and then Reformed Christian Ken needs a wife and finds her and scoops her up, and they have a bunch of babies. And at night, he reads Richard Sibbes to her and translates, and they make baby number 7. Yeah, those stories. People don’t see all of the blatant sin in those either–how they distort real life–how they are fantasy–How God calls us to be present, right where we are–how they make women (sometimes) stupid, seriously stupid (trust me, I’ve talked to a bunch of them)–and various other complaints and issues I see with these books. But like Driscoll, you slap Jesus in front of something and it makes it cleaner and okay. Yeah, those novels might not have any blatant sex scenes or cussin’ in it, but it’s just as wrong. It creates a longing for false comforts and a false reality that just isn’t real. It makes marriage and men idols, and honestly, you end up rejecting obviously good men because of it. I could go on and on, but why bother. I’m preaching to the choir here. But Jan should consider that everything she views or sees, or speaks of isn’t super holy, isn’t blessed, isn’t pure or whatever. I’m sure Jan probably battles day in and day out with her own mind. Nobody can do what Jan is trying to do. Most people will end up exhausted or going crazy trying to do that. They don’t see that though. I know someone who is on the brink. I secretly pray for them all the time.

  108. Aaron–

    You wife sounds like one of a Muslim–repeating simply what she has been taught. You are right, people operate out of their doctrinal positions. Your wife has been taught that she can’t lead or show initiative. Your wife has been taught that she is gullible and easily deceived. She simply agreed with what she’s being taught. The fact that she doesn’t have a problem with a pastor saying that specifically about women from the pulpit is troubling. The fact that the pastor didn’t say that both men and women can be at times gullible and easily deceived when he could have chosen to say that, shows you that pastor’s stance on what he thinks about women. And your wife, she simply agrees with him. She is not outraged that a man would even say that about her own sex. I see Muslim women respond this way all the time. They have no idea the bondage and misogyny rooted in their theological and doctrinal beliefs. They simply want to be pleasing to God–as I am sure your wife does. Either way, do you, is what I say. Do you. If that’s what you want and think is right, then do you.

  109. Oh and Aaron–

    Just because nobody wants you to write on a public forum a very private sexual act doesn’t mean that people are prude or that they even disapprove of the act itself. It’s your blatant disregard for the fact that you shouldn’t be so explicit in a company of strangers about a very private and intimate occasion between you and your wife. There are more than at least 10 other more appropriate ways you could have gotten your point across. I’m sure you may not see my point. But that’s okay as well.

  110. “Well, I see men being gullible and easily deceived all the time,” I replied. “What makes men qualified to lead the Church as opposed to the ladies?”
    Her answer: “Nothing. But God’s Word calls them to lead.”

    Then she is not rooted in God’s Word if she really believes that. Patriarchy is a result of sin. To teach it as virtue is heinous.
    She is basically believing the charlatans who teach that men have some sort of special anointing over women. God’s plan is pre fall in the garden of both having dominion and created in His image. There is no authority, chain of being hierarchy before the fall. What you see taught there is READ INTO the account. With Christ, we are to strive for that pre fall existance.

    her thinking that men are only to lead is simply laziness on her part. We are all, in the Body, nothing but lowly servants to one another. There are no “special” Christians.

    All of her thinking comes from centuries of bad translations/interpretations on Ezer, teshuqa, authenteo, kephale, etc.

    I do believe the masuclinists can be saved. GASP! I know. But think about this, anytime we put gender roles, hierarchy in the body front and center, we are following humans and putting humans front and center. Not Christ. It is extremely dangerous. it is a works Christianity.

    Believers in the body are to be lowly servants to one another whether they are elders, pastors, etc. In fact, the elder is the mature Christian who would only point to Christ. not himself as someone to be followed after. In fact, most masculinists ignore Eph 5:21 completely. Or, like Grudem, they claim it does not apply to all believers.

    ” And how is it that bringing pleasure to my wife shows my thoughts are all on “me, me, me”? Explain that one.”

    Explain why you think it is our business what you do in your private marriage bed. To boast? Once again, you are helping Driscoll take the focus off Christ and onto mere men.

    I certainly hope your wife never contracts a debilitating disease that keeps her from sex. or you become impotent? What WILL you do since that is your focus. Your poor wife probably does not get that part. Because sex and gender roles have become the focus.

    ” It was his very teaching on the matter which convinced me that, primarily, a man is to be oriented to the service of his wife”.

    No! WRONG!

    You are both to be oriented in the service of Christ..FIRST. He is to dwell within you. Seek first the kingdom of God and all these things will be given to you. Your false doctrine keeps you focused on each other, your roles and your own appetites. It is why masculinist doctrine is so very dangerous. It makes you feel pious when it is nothing but works.

    Driscoll is preaching another Gospel. And it is man centered.

  111. BTW Aaron, Your wife would know that the Cross and resurrection means she can have the indwelling Holy Spirit and not be easily deceived….IF she is really in the Word without all the man made filters.

    She insults the work of the Cross with her wrong thinking.

    Not to mention you all are leaving out a BIG part of Genesis. Eve ADMITTED she was deceived to God. Adam blamed God and Eve. Great leadership material, huh?

    There are so many fallacies in masculinist doctrine that are obvious when one takes off their blue lens glasses. I admit it is harder for men to see it because they have a lot to give up.
    And some women really believe their husbands will answer for them at the Bema seat. They really do.

  112. “Just because nobody wants you to write on a public forum a very private sexual act doesn’t mean that people are prude or that they even disapprove of the act itself. It’s your blatant disregard for the fact that you shouldn’t be so explicit in a company of strangers about a very private and intimate occasion between you and your wife.”

    Does Driscoll really want men looking at his wife and thinking about what he teaches concerning such private things? The answer is yes. that is how immature he is.

    I can imagine how many Mars Hill bedrooms the words “Well, Grace does it”, occurs.

  113. Aaron: “As for the sexual comment, I simply wanted to know if the rather prudish standard I am picking up here goes both ways.”

    I knew this was coming. Driscollites try to shut people up using the ‘P’ word. They think somehow that makes them right.

    Aaron: “As to the voice of the woman, Driscoll repeats no other phrase more often in the Peasant Princess than, “She speaks first; she speaks last; she speaks most.”
    Listening and reading comprehension around here seems to be selective.”

    No, Driscoll takes the woman’s voice away either altogether and attributes it to the man OR he takes what she says and MAKES it into what the man wants to hear.

    IF a woman were to DARE express that she thought something was distasteful, she is immediately shamed by liberal use of the ‘P’ word and really, really bad/twisted proof texting. And she is told she needs to lighten up and get with the program. That she is in sin if she’s not readily available for her husbands at all times. If she feels dirty, that’s a good thing on Mars Hill. She’s not allowed to buck the system nor is she allowed her own opinion.
    The Beloved in SoS is not allowed her own expression. She’s given the Driscoll approved expression which is dirty and raunchy. It makes women feel used and cheap and strips away their right to say so and strips away their right to their own feelings because they are not allowed to feel what the actually feel. They must feel the way Driscoll says they must feel.

    So yes, the Beloved does speak first, last, and most often. But the way Driscoll twists it, it is not her voice or the voice of any real woman. It is the Driscoll approved, fake voice that the men want to hear. Mars Hill women are being shaped and formed, not by the Potter, but by fallen men who think that God thinks like mere men.

  114. Lin–

    Yes, men who brag like that, yes BRAG, about what their wives let them do or what they do to their wives are simply little boys. The thing is though, we used to have a joke amongst other friends, and it’s this… Women would do that sometimes too and brag on what their husbands did in the bedroom or tell other women how endowed he was. Well, usually, it was one of the “best” friends or persons in the group of women she’d be telling who ended up with her husband. Jus’ sayin’… Keep your goodies private and to yourself. Nobody cares what your wife does! If it won’t be something I can have, why do I care anyways! I can’t have your spouse so I dont care what your spouse does. Dude wants everyone to treat him like a jock. I know one thing though, jocks dont wear young Mickey Mouse t-shirts. By young, I mean tight as hell. That’s urban for too little, too tight, should have left in the store. For instance, you can be walkin down the street and see a guy and say like “man, those are some young jeans dude is wearing.” Hahahaha… Yes, Driscoll and his young shirt. I’ve met men like him, attitude, mannerisms and all. They usually leave me with two options, barfing or wanting to kick their butts. Before I was a Christian, I’d love to go toe-to-toe and emasculate a man like him who obviously loves to dominate and demean women. I’d have him crying and writing me an apology on flower scented paper with a box of lemon bars beside it on my doorstep. These days though, I am equally peeved, it’s just that I pray for them, and pray most often that the Lord would bring them down off their little high horses and show them true humility.

    The funny thing is that I think if you had an opportunity to get to know these men personally, you’d find their character and masculinity seriously lacking.

  115. Aaron

    If she is not gullible and easily deceived, then how do you stand, as a manly brute of a husband, to have him insult her? She, as a woman, is no more easily deceived than you are, as a man. You admit as much. However, your intelligent leader says she cannot lead because she is gullible and easily deceived. That is his reason behind the Biblical passage. Yet, you say you are as well. So, why do you think you can lead? Does the Bible say that a gullible and easily deceived man can lead? That is Driscoll’s brilliant exegesis.

    The reason I asked this question is this. I will not converse with a man who is trying to ram home a point if he disregards my analysis straight out of the box because I am woman. I tried it a couple of times and, when I was clearly winning the argument (dang those uppity women), I then get the fact i am a woman thrown in my face which is used to negate everything I have said.

    As for your wife’s point-The Bible said it, I believe it, and that’s that – is one of the tricks of Satan. The Bible says a lot of things. For example, I doubt your wife keeps her head covered.But, the Bible says it.

    I asked my Godly daughter what she would do if she went to a church and heard a man call women gullible and easily deceived and that is why they cannot lead. She said she would not attend that church.She is an emergency room nurse. Can you imagine be cared for by women who are gullible and easily deceived when you are sick?

    My answer to your question: I couldn’t care less what you and your wife do in the bedroom so long as it is mutually agreed upon and not forced on one another. Driscoll says certain acts are commanded by the Song of Solomon. It’s a lie, btw. Read today.

    See, it can be discussed without getting explicit. So cut the nonsense on prudishness. That is one of Driscoll’s ways of dismissing the concerns of others.He mocks those who have legitimate grievances against him.

    I have been a public health nurse and I have seen things that would make most people feel uncomfortable. Why don’t you read my blog post on Driscoll and anal sex? Just click on Driscoll and go back two years. You might be surprised just how plain spoken I am. BTW, nurses are some of the least prudish people on the planet.

    Reading comprehension is low here? Good night! There are words being said in the book and there are words being expressed in the pulpit. We, as thinking humans-men and women-can judge for ourselves if the words play out.BTW, my co-blogger has a degree in English from Duke. She can read, well. Also, please feel free to read our reviews of books on the blog.

    Just a couple of days ago, I had an atheist try to convince me that Hitler was a Christian. He quoted a compelling passage out of Mein Kampf. However, as you know, I think, that is a bunch of nonsense. Hitler said one thing to pull the wool over the eyes of the German Lutherans. Some believed him and did not speak out against his atrocities.

    Driscoll has a knack for this. Say one thing and then another thing and then use one as “proof” that he didn’t mean the other.He is an expert.

  116. ..and one last thing… It’s quite unfair for him to brag about his sex life (because THAT IS what he is doing) and talking about these issues in a congregation of people who are in all manners and walks of life.

    What about the widow/widower who longs for intimacy with a spouse they have lost?

    What about the couple who can’t have sex because of an illness or some type of physical issue. I have a friend who cannot. Her husband is the most manliest man that I’ve ever met and he cherishes his wife and the creative ways she chooses to bless him intimately. Driscoll couldn’t be married to a woman like her who has a physical difficulty with sex.

    What about the single people who are STRUGGLING, SERIOUSLY STRUGGLING to be celibate and wait for marriage? It’s not fair to brag about you having sex when they long for it. And yet, you are literally rubbing it in their faces, a la Josh Harris telling everyone not to do this and do that, but yet, he was one of the lucky ones and actually got married and actually GOT to do those things while the rest of us followed those guidelines (yes, stupidly so) and stayed single never to find anyone and still are single most likely because of wrong thinking. (yeah, don’t get me started on him). Thank God for truth. I guess it’s never too late.

    What about the military wife/husband who is separated from their spouse?

    What about those who have suffered sexual abuse and were molested? You think they want conversations about that in church so openly? Maybe they’d want to discuss healthy sexuality in a more private setting where they can be gently guided and helped with their fears and issues.

    There are so many other situations I could bring up that still makes this blaringly and obviously WRONG!

    Not everybody can have sex, not everybody is having sex, not everybody wants to have sex. Has Driscoll even considered that and considered that he needs to be sensitive to all the life situations others are in who cannot or are not having intimacy.

  117. Thanks go to Mara for her gracious reply to an admitted liberal & open theist (Muff). Again, this is why I like TWW, it is not a place for shrill ideologues to shout down dissent. All are welcome within reasonable bounds of civility.

  118. Wow! I take my Maltese to the groomer and look what happens. So many great comments. I’m trying to catch up with this fantastic dialogue.

    I really like what Lin wrote:

    “Driscoll is preaching another Gospel. And it is man centered.”

    Yep, Driscoll definitely preaches a MAN-centered Gospel. He’s not just tickling ears… I feel so sorry for the ladies in the Mars Hill congregation.

  119. ‘The funny thing is that I think if you had an opportunity to get to know these men personally, you’d find their character and masculinity seriously lacking.’

    Trust me, I know this first hand. Masculinity. Let’s define that as believers. Jesus wept. Jesus had compassion for those oppressed. Jesus took on the Pharisees with truth they could not rebut.

    Now, how is that any different from something feminine?

    Let’s not get sidetracked with the masculine/feminine trick.

  120. Lin–

    Exactly… Jesus did all those things. I think it’s hard to grasp just how gentle and respectful and kind that Jesus was with women. Sometimes I have a hard time picturing God and Christ in flesh being that kind of gentle. Weeping. Because men have painted him so harsh, so unkind, and so mean to my sex. You know?

  121. Also, would someone tell me what this peasant princess stuff is about? If it’s gonna make me REAL mad, you can decide not to tell me. Haha

  122. @ NLR (about Jesus’ sensitivity and gentleness with women): yes, I know what you mean, in terms of how he is presented by many people.

    And that’s one very good reason to keep going back to the Gospels and re-reading all the accounts of Jesus’ love for the “ritually unclean” (including a woman with some sort of serious gyn problem – fibroids or something similar?, gentiles (men and women alike), children… the maimed, the crippled, the lame, the blind, the mentally ill… I could go on, but I know everyone here can fill in the blanks. 🙂

  123. @ NLR again: “The Peasant Princess” is the title of Driscoll’s “preaching” on the Song of Songs.

  124. Numo: Thanks. Also, didn’t you give me your email back at Survivors? I’ve been meaning to write you. I had some questions.

  125. @ NLR: nope, I didn’t – but you could ask Dee for it, here. Is that OK? (I really don’t want to post it publicly.)

  126. Numo:

    Yes, I’ll ask Dee for it. I totally understand not posting it here.

    Dee: Would you have the time to send me Numo’s email addy? Thanks!

  127. I’m getting the idea that there is more back story over this scathing commentary on all that Mark Driscoll teaches, his marriage, his Church, his t-shirts, his dog, etc., than that of which I am aware. So I am backing off the Song of Solomon road.

    I do have a problem – enough to speak to it – with the assertion that ANY hierarchy is a result of sin. And whether I have interpreted with exactly the right wording what Lin meant, I can easily reproduce her statement here:
    “God’s plan is pre fall in the garden of both having dominion and created in His image. There is no authority, chain of being hierarchy before the fall. What you see taught there is READ INTO the account. With Christ, we are to strive for that pre fall existance.”
    I think this train of logic starts to not only misunderstand the obvious differences between men and women, but, more importantly, to misunderstand Jesus Christ and the relationship among the Triune God. Hierarchy and authority is not a result of sin, even when it exists between qualitatively equal parties. We know very well, as it is reproduced for us in four different accounts, how our Lord submitted to the Father in all that He did, not even exercising his rightful power without the Father’s permission (thinking of His temptation in the desert). Moreover, even now, it is the Father Who has put everything under the feet of the Son. Even their very designations reveal a hierarchy of roles between them, though we recognize them to be both fully and equally God. And I think we would agree that the Lord is not mastered by sin on any level.
    A similar state of affairs exists between the man and his wife, according to the letter Paul addressed to the Ephesians. They, foremost, submit to one another, that is mutually, out of reverence for Christ. Equally important is the WAY they submit to one another. The wife is called by God to recognize her husband as her head, just as Christ is the head of the Church, and give him due respect and honor. And, with an equally fearful and weighty sense, the man is called to see to the needs of his wife at the expense of his own, in love and understanding, bearing with her in all things just as Christ bears with us. Moreover, he is to facilitate her “cleansing…with the washing of water through the word.”
    This cannot be a post-fall arrangement only, since it is out of reverence for Christ that the husband and wife submit to one another in their respective ways! It is the very sin that caused the fall that breaks this state of affairs and makes it terribly oppressive. Now, the wife has the same sort of “desire” for her husband as sin had for Cain – that is to master him – and finds herself frustrated by a broken form of rulership coming back at her from her husband – a constant power struggle. He was created first in order that he might be the one to first give himself for her – just as John says of Jesus, “We love because He first loved us.” – and now he only wants to make sure he stays foremost.
    And if that is not convincing you, consider Paul’s letter to Timothy: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve…” Whether we like it or not, Paul is making a pre-fall argument for a post-fall situation. He, at least, considered that order of creation (established before the fall) important in the present; conversely, he recognized the importance of hierarchy in the pre-fall relationship.

    Therefore, it must not be said that any sort of leadership structure between husband and wife is a result of sin. It is, rather, that the hierarchical structure has been fouled up by sin’s entrance into it.

  128. Aaron

    “consider Paul’s letter to Timothy: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve…” Whether we like it or not, Paul is making a pre-fall argument for a post-fall situation.”

    Context is key. Please tell me what Genesis had to say about the creation of Adam and Eve, especially why Eve was created.

  129. Aaron,

    Actually, it’s true that context is key but the context is not only the surrounding scripture you are reading, but you might lack sufficient knowledge of the surrounding culture AT THAT TIME of the people whom Paul was speaking to. You may believe that women should submit as the wording in those chapters suggest, but if so, and tge actual translation is correct (which I disagree with the translation, which is not inerrant, mind you) then why aren’t women also not braiding their hairz, not wearing gold, costly linen, praying with their head covered? Why aren’t we doing all the other things Paul commanded them in the surrounding Scripture?

    How can you say the authority and head statements were for all cultures fir all times, yet the dress and code of conduct weren’t for all cultures for all times, IN THE SAME CHAPTER, FROM THE SAME SPEAKER, TO THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE.

    Also, Lin didn’t say that all authority was wrong. Of course, God approves of government and Christs authority, naturally. It’s just that the original Greek didn’t speak of head, ruler and authority within the marriage relationship. You should do a word study on words like kephale and see how it was used in the whole of scripture. You should also know that certain bible translations fit a certain agenda and belief of it’s counsel and not necessary the original meanings.

    That statement by Paul is completely unclear and remains an enigma by many theologians whi are not afraid to say that it is a mystery. We do have ti admit that scripture, when translated etc does not always make sense to modern readers. If there’d was hierarchy in the garden and Adam was authority over Eve, why did God wait all the way to the NT to even mention it? You will see this nowhere in the OT about a mans god-given authority from the garden onwards. If you are a woman’s authority and head, then why does she even need Christ who says that he is her head and her authority. Anyways, this could go on forever. But your Bible, your interpretation, and your study and findings I do not find convincing.

    If you are willing to consider deeply another view, even for comparison, check out this series Start with part one. Also, check out the free articles section on Christians for Biblical, particularly the studies on Greek and Hellenistic culture, and Ancient Middle Eastern Culture.

  130. I’d encourage anyone else who’d want to be encouraged to listen to the series on the link I provided. One Gospel for men and women. It will bless your socks off 😉

  131. I like the word translated as “helpmeet” as applied to Eve. Elsewhere in the Bible it is used to refer to God in relationship to us — as in He is our helpmeet.

  132. Aaron: “I’m getting the idea that there is more back story over this scathing commentary on all that Mark Driscoll teaches”

    There is a lot of backstory on a lot of things concerning Driscoll. Different ones here had dealt with different aspects of it.
    Dee has given a nice run down of a bunch of different things on her stutter post.

    Since I have done a great deal of meditation on SoS, since 1998, long before I ever heard of Driscoll, it was what he did to SoS that drew me into this fight. And yes it is a fight. He keeps asserting things about SoS that simply are not true. But we have already been over this and since you are backing off SoS, I will too.

  133. Muff, I’m glad you saw my words to you.

    I can come on very strong when I deal with Driscollites.
    I do it because that is the Driscoll style. He/They(?) respect nothing less. He/They(?) promote a smack down culture that I respond to by verbally smacking down, never backing down. Unless they back down first.

    But it is not my usual style.

    I prefer mutually respectful exchanging of ideas and friendly arguements. I learn a whole lot more from those situations.

  134. @ Mara – you said

    I prefer mutually respectful exchanging of ideas and friendly arguements. I learn a whole lot more from those situations.

    me too! Thanks so much for this. 🙂

  135. Mara
    You said,
    “I can come on very strong when I deal with Driscollites.
    I do it because that is the Driscoll style. He/They(?) respect nothing less. He/They(?) promote a smack down culture that I respond to by verbally smacking down, never backing down.”

    I am so glad you brought this up. Whenever we have discussed Driscoll, we get bizarre comments and emails. The first time this happened, I almost dropped my teeth. Some guys, Driscollites, wrote incredibly foul, sexually based comments. We had to delete one of them because it was beyond the pale. Even today, I’ve got a guy who wants to discuss oral sex. What am I? Playboy Magazine??

    The weird and hostile rhetoric always seem to rise on certain subjects which deal with hyper-auhoritarian pastors and ministries. They all take themselves very, very seriously.

  136. Lin said …
    I do believe the masuclinists can be saved.

    But how can that be? They can’t bear children!! 🙂

  137. Aaron, bro, I feel for ya and know where you’re coming from. I held those same views for my first 27 years as a Christian (and was seminary educated, including years of Greek, Hebrew, and theological studies). But our dear sister Lin helped me see past what I’d been taught when she encouraged me to look into what the Word itself has to say. You should consider her words carefully, and also read the series provided by NLF.

    And even if you still disagree, please recognize that this is a secondary matter, not essential to the faith or the gospel. We can debate these things, but need not let them cause division or diminish our love for one another in Christ.

  138. NLF,
    I’ve been called much worse than Hunkster. But I don’t think I’ve ever been called a hunk, at least not by anyone being serious. I’m more like a slab, I think. Fortunately my masculinity (or perhaps lack thereof, in the opinion of som) doesn’t define me. 🙂

  139. Anybody else notice how Aaron is teaching ESS in his comment?

    Aaron, You won’t want to give up your priviledged position ala masculinist doctrine but you might someday decide to see if what you have been taught is right or not.

    Start with Ezer and then Teshuqa. See, Teshuqa was translated as “turning” up until about 1300 when a Monk named Pagnini changed it to “desire”. Turning is how those who read the Sept would know it. And Jesus quoted the Sept a lot in the NT. God described what would happen with Eve. And He described that she would be “turning” to Adam. (Instead of God) and because she did that, Adam would rule over her. And that is exactly what has happened.

    Next, you need to understand Kephale in the 1st Century context and within the context of Eph 5. See, if the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate authority, He would not have used Kephale but a clear Greek word for authority or rule such as exousia or archon. (He used clear authority word in 1 Corin 7 in relation to the marriage relationship)

    The “Head” was considered the source for life in the 1st Century. What is even more interesting is that it was considered the heart where thinking and decisions took place. This thinking was in place for at least until a hundred years after Paul. In fact, you can see many passages talking about the heart in this respect. It is almost cliche today. (What is in your heart…when it is really what is in your mind, etc)

    So the “head” in the context of Eph 5 is of a source of life. Jesus is the source of life for the church. The husband is the source for the wife in the 1st Century. This was a step up for women as they were considered property of the husband. Submission was a huge step and quite radical because in the chiasm that makes up Eph 5 (ignore chp breaks) submission of believers one to another is for all. In fact, submissin is not in verse 22, it was added by translators. It should read wives to husbands. It is part of an entirely different way of thinking in that culture. Submission in the Greek is a voluntary position. This had to be because in 1 Century from a legal standpoint, she was property. Paul is echoing Jesus: Not so among you. (as believers)

    No where in pre fall Genesis does God say that Adam is in charge of Eve. No where is it said he is her authority. You have to read it in there. Many say it is because he names the animals or because he was to tend the garden. They read it in there and totally ignore Gen 1 and what God said to the human (adam). He created “them” in Gen 1 and formed them in Gen 2.

    The differences between men and women are physical. Please show me in Gen 1 or 2 where intellectual or emotional differences are listed so we would know what to expect. There are none listed. But the evil of patriarchy started right after the fall and is a result of sin. What you teach others and what you believe is nothing less than teaching sin as a great virtue.

    Eve was decieved and ADMITTED IT. Pretty smart on her part because of the promise of the seed. Adam blamed God and Eve. What was not smart on Eve’s part was to “turn” to Adam instead of God.

    There is tons more but I will stop. You are teaching ESS which is heresy and does nothing but lessen Jesus Christ. It is too lengthy to get into here but there is NO hierarchy within the Trinity. You are taking the 33 year Incarnation and mapping it to eternity past and future. Perhaps you can tell me who the Holy Spirit reports to?

    Just for fun, check out John 5:18 (The Pharisees got it and wanted to kill Him for it) and Isaiah 9 (Where Messiah is also described as “Father”). Then go to Phil 2 (An older translation such as Calvins is best) and explain to me how Jesus Christ could empty Himself, give up His Glory (Lord of Host Armies)
    come to earth if He was simply following orders. Empty Himself of what?

    You cannot Glorify and Magnify the Name of Christ when you also seek to put Him down with ESS. It is dangerous because you love the hierarchy MORE than you love Christ. Give it up and come home to Christ.

    get educated about this horrible heresy that is sweeping the Reformed movement.

  140. “”I do believe the masuclinists can be saved.

    But how can that be? They can’t bear children!! ”

    Ok, Good one!

    Hey, I went to a country church today for a family thing… I was saw my very comp pastor cousin that I have not seen for 7 years. I was teasing him by standing behind the pulpit and pretending to preach.

    I was so shocked when he shook his head and said: I have totally changed my views on that since really studying. Then he started in on the many things I too had discovered in my deep study on this matter. And he read NO egal literature, he said. He came to this by praying and studying.

    In fact, he left as a staff minister of an SBC mega church to go to a small country SBC church where he is bi vocational. For that, he credited the example of… Francis Chan!

    If this guy gets it, then there is hope. How Glorious!

  141. “But our dear sister Lin helped me see past what I’d been taught when she encouraged me to look into what the Word itself has to say”

    Oh my. You are going to make me cry.

  142. Lin–

    Uh wow! I am Proud to call you sister. Talking about women teaching men and women teaching other women. I just wanna sit under your feet and listen (and then like a good Christian, go study and show myself approved). What’s your story, Lin? Have you shared it before already?

  143. Dee: “I’ve got a guy who wants to discuss oral sex. What am I? Playboy Magazine??”

    And this is the point with these guys. It has nothing to do with Biblical truth. They are all about hanging onto our porn culture while still getting into heaven somehow. Driscoll is their savior because he not only winks at the sinful porn culture, he embraces it with both arms and twists scripture to force Christian wives in his church and (he wishes) the rest of the church into this deception.

    The sex drive is a strong thing in men. This is not bad.
    It simply makes them vulnerable to porn influences.
    I have compassion on men concerning this in spite of my strong words to Driscollites.
    Some men are smart enough to fight against porn and escape the snare that is set out for them.
    Other men are gullible and are tripped up by it, entangled and ensnared.
    Still others are complete fools and rush in where angels fear to tread.
    And I answer fools according to their folly.

    The deceptions it deep, think, and impossible to see through for the fools who rush in.
    Their god is their sexual appetite. They give that appetite first place in their lives over Jesus who died for their souls and over the hearts of their wives.

    Philippians 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;

  144. 7:23 comment, second to last paragraph should read:
    The deceptions it deep, THICK, and impossible to see through for the fools who rush in. Their god is their sexual appetite. They give that appetite first place in their lives over Jesus who died for their souls and over the hearts of their wives

  145. Catching up on some of the past comments. You all rock. I love this blog and the way you keep hammering away at ESS. It is my belief that exposing and excommunicating this alse interpretation of scripture, along with it’s baby complementarianism, fwill open wide the doors of the to a fresh infilling of the Spirit and much needed revival. The house must be swept clean of this garbage in order to prepare for The Guest of Guests. And this is OUR JOB!!

    “The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence…”

  146. “Lin, big happy congrats on your cousin. It’s stories like these that I love”

    I know! Can you imagine waking up to “meet your sister in Christ”, for the first time?

    What they (the masculinists) believe is “religion” pure and simple. They are even devising their own Christian Talmud of sorts so we can know our “roles” and stay in them.

  147. Pingback: Mahaney, Controversy, and Eating One Another « Whispers on the Journey

  148. Ted

    Second guffaw of the day! Thank you so much.

    See, this is how it works, he apologizes for his lack of humility. That then prevents people from confronting him about his attitude. He can say he knows and has already apologized so he can continue business as usual. More to come, hopefully in the next few weeks.

  149. At the risk of coming to this discussion very late, my disagreement with Driscoll’s approach over Song of Songs was that by explicitly rejecting typological and allegorical interpretations (of the sort championed by Puritans Driscoll says he admires) Driscoll sets up a precedent in which all of scripture properly interpreted points to Jesus …. EXCEPT Song of Songs because Driscoll’s not comfortable with that. So did Jesus lie when He said the scriptures pointed to Him? Did Jesus, when he explained how all the scriptures pointed to Him to disciples on the road to Emmaus, skip Song of Songs? Why has Driscoll accepted the bridegroom/bride metaphor for Christ and God’s people when it appears in every other canonical setting? The metaphor is okay in the prophets, it’s okay in the book of Revelation. It’s okay when Paul makes reference to it by way of a very sidelong allusion to Genesis 2 … and yet in Song of Songs it has to be absent because the application of that creeps him out. It sets up a hermeneutic in which Driscoll must say that all Scripture properly interpreted points to Jesus except Song of Songs, which can’t because the bedroom moves aren’t the sort he wants to imagine Jesus using on him as a part of the body/bride of Christ. It is because Driscoll does not concede the typological role of bridegroom and bride attested everywhere else in biblical literary types that makes his approach to Song of Songs problematic.

    When you explicitly reject an allegorical element in favor of techniques and positions this can be construed as a hermeneutic of erotica or pornography. Driscoll used to advise that a Polaroid of the wife as a Bible bookmark was a great idea so long as nobody else read that Bible. Driscoll’s handling of Song of Songs reveals a peculiar contradiction between his formally stated view that all scriptures points to Christ while denying allegorical or typological elements pointing to Christ in Song of Songs because of his committment to a strict hermeneutic of erotica toward the book. The case that Driscoll has pornified Song of Songs derives from Driscoll’s own contradictory hermeneutic toward Song of Songs in contrast to other biblical texts and not from any simplistic accusation that Driscoll encourages people to go expose themselves to porn. This was a concern that some pastors and Christians raised about Driscoll’s approach to Song of Songs even back around 2001-2002 but it’s not like Babblerash was a widely read forum.

  150. Wenatchee,
    This is an astute and very well laid out explanation to the problem of Driscoll and the Songs.

    When my husband and I were first married, 24 years ago, we were given the book, “The Act of Marriage” which goes into the sex part of the Songs, so I was fully aware of the ‘sexual’ understanding of the Songs.

    Later, through a series of events that I will not get into here, I was made aware of the allegorical side to Songs. It was uncomfortable at first but soon the Songs became the biggest blessing of all the OT books to me because it further revealed God’s yearning for closeness to His creation by allegorizing the Lover and the Beloved.

    Later still, I was made aware of Driscoll’s “hermeneutic of erotica” and utter rejection, mockery, and distain of the allegorical side of the Songs. Upon being exposed it was as though Driscoll was defecating on the book. Can you tell that I’m still really mifted with him?

    But I really like your explanation better because it is logical, reasonable, and minus the intense emotion of my reactions that I still have trouble controlling.

  151. W. the Hatchett

    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of a major log in the eye of Driscoll. I had not considered this aspect before. The more I think about, the more convinced I am that you have made an important observation that must be brought to the forefront in this argument. If Driscoll is truly uncomfortable with bridegroom/bride SOS being tied to the relationship between Christ and the church, then I would say he has missed a major emphasis of the NT.

    Having no difficulty with such a comparison, I wonder why Driscoll feels uncomfortable. Once again I have to point towards his seemingly strange over-emphasis on sexual topics, including his visions of molestation and affairs in progress. I continue to raise the specter that something is, indeed, wrong here and I hope his elders have their eyes wide open.

  152. Babblerash hasn’t existed since about 2003 or so, so it’s not available to read. I doubt Morgan74 would come out of the woodwork to repeat comments made roughly a decade ago. 🙂

  153. Oh, Driscoll readily grants the husband/wife metaphor everywhere ELSE in Scripture. He preached from Ephesians and Revelation and readily identified the husband/wife metaphor there repeatedly. But by refusing to recognize it as a possible metaphor in Song of Songs he may have a more subtle problem than just rejecting a metaphor in Scripture.

    I would tentatively suggest that a Bride who is only described as having sins bad enough to warrant Christ’s death is just half of Jesus’ heart toward His Bride. Driscoll has always camped out on how our sin was so terrible it sent Christ to the Cross. Of course that’s true but that’s just half of things. Driscoll’s been unable to articulate that Christ, in love, chose to bear the Cross for us and share death with us to reconcile us to Him.

    It makes sense. Everywhere ELSE the husband/bride metaphor is used is in a setting where God’s people have to be rebuked for being disobedient to God in some way. In the Torah Israel is going to face the reality of apostasy and exile. In the prophets Israel is told she is a wayward, whoring wife. In the wisdom literature we get shown that if we do the right things we’ll avoid the wayward women. In the New Testament Christ dies for the Church but the apostles, after going through what may be dubbed the honeymoon of Acts, pass through that honeymoon into the exasperating world of having to write epistles to real churches with real sins. A new Exodus has led to a new age of wandering through the wilderness of Sin until the Land of Promise is reached. Only now we do not go rushing to meet the Promise, the Promise will come to us. But it is in Song of SOngs where a husband and wife speak to other with unbridled affection. The Bride is betrothed but we know the wedding feast of the Lamb has not yet happened. A pastor like Driscoll only knows how to speak to the betrothed Bride as someone who isn’t worthy of the groom. She’d better clean up, get her act together, and stop being so bad because her sins are bad enough that Jesus had to die for them … but it’s not quite clear Driscoll knows how to articulate the depth of the Bridegrooms love for the waiting Bride. Driscoll could preach for years on Hosea and mention the promise God makes to speak tenderly and winsomely to the wayward Bride. But where could we turn in the scriptures to see HOW God might speak in such a winsome and tender way to such a Bride? Well, obviously NOT in Song of Songs as Driscoll expounds it because in it he sees wifely stripteases and oral sex.

    Driscoll’s understanding of how a pastor should speak to the Bride is as a Hosea or an Elijah telling Israel she’s a whore. Or an apostle telling the Corinthians they should be ashamed of themselves. In other words, at the risk of stretching the metaphors a bit, Driscoll is fine with the Hosea who says God “will” speak tenderly to His people but can’t accept that Song of Songs could be where God DOES speak tenderly to the Bride of His people. He’s got absolutely no problem at all invoking the biblical metaphor of husband and wife when it deals with the ancient near-Eastern AUTHORITY STRUCTURE within marriage. He’s got problems if that metaphor ever takes on an element in which the husband is beside himself in admiration for the beauty of the bride and seeks to love her in ways that are unbounded by any sense of discretion or restraint. This can play out in two ways. First, it suggests Driscoll has a theology of sin that can tell Christians why their sin is so bad it killed Jesus but is not so good at articulating that Jesus loves people NOW. Second, this plays out in a weakness Driscoll has always had in his preaching, which is that though he can rant for hours about how your sin or my sin is so bad it killed Jesus he’s unable to articulate that Christ’s love is stronger than death in a way that has emotional and relational immediacy in his preaching. Well, he gave me hope some six years ago in his “christus exemplar” sermon but that was a long time ago.

    This second part is the most important. In Song of Songs we are told that love is as strong as death. We know what love that is most obviously talking about. We can see cases where an old spouse dies and the widow or widower dies within a year of that death. We all get that love is as strong as death in that way! But Christ’s love is stronger than death. By rejecting a typological approach as even possible in Song of SOngs what we may be seeing is that Driscoll has granted the high flown poetic hyperbole as being legitimate for erotic love but shudders at the thought that a comparably powerful, or even more powerful love animated Christ to go to the Cross for us. After all, Song of Songs CAN’T be pointing us to Jesus now that Driscoll has established it’s about techniques and positions. So it’s ultimately not surprising that even pastors like Piper and Mahaney could look at Driscoll’s preaching and point out that Mark is exceptionally weak at articulating God’s love for His people. Captains Obvious and General Observation made a good point. If Driscoll refuses to see how Song of Songs points to Christ this does not suggest he rejects a metaphor attested elsewhere in Scripture, it suggests, paradoxically, that he can’t accept that the perspecuity of scripture suggests that when this metaphor is applied in the rest of biblical literature in the Law, the prophets, and the New Testament, that it may even be found at some point in the wisdom literature. The problem is that he must claim that Song of Songs is the one book in the Bible that DOESN’T point to Jesus even though Jesus said all the scriptures point to Him. That problem has implications that are so self-evident I’m not sure there’s any point in trying to unpack them. If Jesus was telling the truth about Himself and the Scriptures then to refuse to see Jesus in Song of Songs would look suspiciously like saying Jesus was a liar, wouldn’t it? Or … we can say the Song of Songs aren’t really Scripture so that that way they can’t be anticipating the coming of Christ. We can’t go there because then we’d have to explain why Song of Songs isn’t in the Bible … and it isn’t in more than a few teen study Bibles. 😉

  154. Then there’s his fantasy that Solomon and Abishag were sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g. Nonsensel Solomon’s first wife mentioned in scripture was an Egyptian and that was, as scholars such as Iain Provan pointed out, this is a foreboding of how bad things would go in Solomon’s reign where faithfulness to the Lord was concerned. I’ve never heard Driscoll explain that Provan and other conservative scholars said that Abishag was chosen to assist David because he had trouble keeping warm at night. Abishag’s presence in the court highlights what ends up being a story, at every level, of royal impotence (of every kind) in David’s final years.

    Even conservative evangelical scholars have noted that the line from “could not keep warm” to “did not know her sexually” to Adonijah deciding he had a shot at the throne is pretty well spelled out in the narrative. As V. Phillips Long put it, the potentate is no longer … you know. The idea that Solomon killed Adonijah because he was in love with Abishag himself is pure fantasy. Absalome took some of David’s concubines both to shame his father and show that he was made of kingly stuff at the crudest level. By this time in Israel there was a precedent that if you took any woman who belonged to the king you were making yourself known as a claimant to the throne. Solomon didn’t have his brother killed because he and his father’s servant girl were carving their names in some nearby tree. It was a bluntly political gesture. Solomon knew his brothers had habits of forming insurrections to get power or were rapists. If he didn’t put his foot down in the sternest and most irrevsible way possible he’d lose the kingdom and it would divide. Thus the political assasinations of various people as advised by David’s final words.

    But in Driscoll’s make-believe Song of Songs Abishag is pretty much the peasant princess who won the heart of the king. Not the king who actually matters (Jesus) but Solomon. The trouble with this fantasy is the rest of scripture contradicts it, not in any obvious or direct way but indisputably to anyone who is seriously reading and attempting to interpret all the relevant texts Driscoll tries to bring together to make his Abishag fantasy come to life.

  155. Thanks, again W. the Hatchet.
    I love what you are saying.
    Would you mind doing a guest post on my blog concerning your understanding of Song of Solomon? Or even a short series so this information could be saved in post form rather than lost in the comments section of this thread?
    Unless Dee or Deb have already asked you to write one for them on this, I’d like to put this info up on mine.
    It’s a small, little known blog with a small but influential group of followers who might really like to have their understanding opened up to this.
    If you would like to do so, ask Dee or Deb for my email and we can get started. If not. That’s fine. Just know that I really do appreciated reading what you have written. It adds a lot to what I already know.

  156. I have needed to rethink SOS as it was intended to be written. Driscoll’s smut has had a hard time escaping my memory. For me, this has been a great way to help me think about how SOS points to an overwhelming and otherworldly love that Christ has for us. I can’t even seem to wrap my mind around the concept of love that is stronger than death. That’s a hard one.

  157. Last note: I also think it’s important and interesting how you talked about his inability to communicate the intimacy and passion of Christ’s love to the congregation. For me, as I have left my neo-Calvanist church on the Hill, I have realized this much and that is that I never really heard Christ’s love preached to that effect, but moreso, the continual focus on depravity and sin. Which is why I struggle now to believe how much God really loves me–not only because it’s an unfathomable love, but also because it’s a love that hasn’t been communicated as best as it could be from the pulpit.

    My friend walked out of church last Sunday night because the speaking was again on sin…

    It’s no wonder why we struggle believing how much God loves us. The church wants to convey a 5 minute exposition of the Cross and what Christ did, but they stop there. They don’t continue hard willed each and every Sunday to remind us, to get us to think about it and wrap our minds around it as much as we possibly could. Rather, they want us to think about how sinful we are… How utterly depraved…

  158. NLR, When I started meditating on SOS back in the mid to late 90s, long before I ever heard of Driscoll, one of the verses that I told God He needed to make me understand was the one where the Bridegroom told the Bride, “You have enraptured my heart.”
    How could God ever feel that way about me?
    I told Him straight up that, if He didn’t supernaturally open my heart to that revelation, I would never be able to believe it. I left it in His court.

    Upon meditating on SOS, I see more and more that it is the healing, strengthening, and lifting up of the Beloved by the Lover laid out in a strong, chronological, and upward poetic verse.

    When Driscoll made it all about oral sex and strip teases, declared that it WASN’T in any way chronological (otherwise he couldn’t support his oral sex verse), AND BLATANTLY MOCKED anyone who thought it might be allegorical, any respect that I could have ever had for the man as a pastor/shepherd of people’s souls flew out the window never to return.

  159. Two things:

    I went on an Emmaus walk and also later served on the team. We used a catholic retreat center and in the chapel there was a life size crucifix on the wall. The knees and elbows were bruised and bloody, showing evidence of the falls Jesus took on the way to Calvary, in addition to some marks showing from the flogging. It made a huge impact on me that we knelt and prayed under that crucifix.

    In Paul’s writing, when he speaks of a wife being submissive to her husband as to the Lord, he follows that with the husband should love his wife as Jesus loved the church. A husband should love his wife enough to climb on a cross and pass out nails. And a husband that loves to that extent will never, ever ‘rule’ over his wife in any way that is to her disadvantage or dismay.

  160. NLR

    So, are you negating Driscoll’s exegesis that the Song Of Solomon is the Kama Sutra for evangelicals? 😉

  161. NLR

    The Noe Calvinists are responsible for the authoritarian sin focus in today’s “cool” churches. They looooove the word “discipline” totally ignoring that all of us have been forgiven by the grace of Jesus. Funny thing in all of this-the pastors get the grace and the congregation gets the discipline.

  162. Mara
    Driscoll is merely presenting his version of things because I believe he has deep seated issues that will one day be revealed. And, if it is, as I suspect, embarrassing, his “elders” will also bear responsibility for allowing this to go too far.

  163. Arce
    If only some ministries and Calvinistas would read what you have written here about submission. It is a darn sire harder than these guys claim as they lob statements that women are gullible and easily deceived. So are they. Once again, the playing field is leveled.

  164. Oh, absolutely dee.
    The problem is, he isn’t the only one with deep issues, so are those swallowing his teachings hook, line, and sinker. They either had the issues before they heard his teachings and latched onto them because their itching ears were sooooo happy to hear that God sanctiones their issues, or they developed the issues as a result of listening to Driscoll’s teachings.

    And the issues that Driscoll has are robbing the Word of God of its true power and robbing people blind of true understanding of God and His love and healing of others.
    If he weren’t so dang influencial and taking in other influential men, I’d write him off as the wacko that he is.
    But since he’s been deemed one of the top 50 pastors in the U.S. I’m always looking for new ways of pointing out his false teaching.

    I just really like WTH’s angle of dealing with it.
    I want to add it to my arsenal.

  165. I am open to the possibility of a guest blog entry, Mara, but I should probably take a rain check in the short-run. I have agreed to do a ton of writing for Mockingbird about the DC character-based cartoons Paul Dini and Bruce Timm worked on. I committed to a huge project and this month I’ve got more of that work to do and what should be final details to work out for getting one of my musical works published.

    I ALSO just found out I need to have cataract removal surgery so between agreed upon writing for Mockingbird and having to get cataract surgery I may have to compile my thoughts for a guest blog entry at some point down the road. In lieu of finishing such an entry I’ve got a sloppy, preliminary entry I wrote back in September of 2008 just as the Peasant Princess series was starting:

    In October, though, we can touch base about a guest blog. I’ve got a blog entry I posted this month about stuff I’m already committed to and if you post a comment there with some contact information that will let me get back in touch with you when I think I’m better situated to write a guest blog.

  166. W The Hatchett/Mara

    This sounds really cool. Do you both have a blog? Do you both do guest posts? If so, would you consider doing one for this blog?

    W-Hope the cataract surgery goes well. They have that procedure down pat these days and here are best wishes for a clear sailing.

  167. Dee: “And, if it is, as I suspect, embarrassing, his “elders” will also bear responsibility for allowing this to go too far.”

    Driscoll’s “elders” long ago abdicated their responsibility to him, and to the church, when they allowed him to bully them into voting for new bylaws which stripped the elders of their right to vote on any major church business, and also took away their authority as the legal directors of the corporation. The elders are “elders” in name only, and have no legal authority whatsoever to hold Driscoll accountable. The all voted for the new bylaws to prove their loyalty and “trust” of him. They will never gain that legal authority back unless Driscoll voluntarily delegates it to them. Do you believe that is likely?

    The elders who questioned what he planned to do before the vote actually happened were fired from the church staff and subjected to ecclesiastical trials presided over by Driscoll and his hand-picked inquisitors. When horrified church members begged for explanations, Driscoll accused them of “sinfully questioning.” There is an article in The New York Times, January 2009, about what happened. The rest of the elders fell in line with Driscoll’s demands and acquiesced by voting for the new bylaws which stripped them of their legal authority and installed Driscoll with a lifetime tenure, accountable only to his hand-picked duo of two men, his “Executive Elders,” one of whom just resigned a couple of days ago.

  168. Ted S

    You have such a good grasp of the history. Would you be interested in writing a post, anonymously if you wish, in which you look at the history of the issues of Driscoll and his church? You can contact us via our email links.

  169. dee, I’ve been blogging at Wenatchee The Hatchet since 2006.

    The general link is …

    I figure a cataract removal surgery has got to be a simple, low-key affair compared to a scleral buckle to fix a macular detachment (had one of those when I was 21). The main trouble is the part where I haven’t had a job in two years and have no money. I got laid off by a non-profit that was hit hard by the recession and so have been ineligible for things like unemployment. So things have been pretty rough in the last two years. One upside, I guess, is that when I’m not dealing with medical issues like cataracts I have time to write.

  170. Hmmm… Ted S…. That sounds like what a pastor just did at

    (wait for it…)

    (wait for it….)


  171. NLR

    Insert scream!!!!!!!!!! We shall momentarily hear from Jerry who will decry any and all references in the negative to Calvary Chapel.

  172. Dee—

    Bahahahaha~!!! I am laughing my butt off.

    Jerry needs to get over it. CC is a SGM in the making! You know, a friend had recommended one over in Maryland recently, wanted me to check it out. So I went on their website. It was all this ish about yhow they only believe that the pastor is the decision maker, the leader of the church. They believe this because they want to protect pastors for being overran by congregations, etc… But they don’t believe that congregationalism is a biblical church model, blah blah blah… I was like whatevs… This is a BLANTANT way of saying we dont give a ish, the pastor rules. If you dontl ike it, go elsewhere. They were not hiding their blatant disregard for the fact that congregations should be the ones deciding the doings of the church.

  173. Let me add: That is akin to saying that we dont believe in democracy because we fear the overrunning of the president by the will of the people. So in order to protect HIM, you stupid Sheeple, we have decided on a totalitarian authoritarian government… just so that we can protect the President. Because if you are not getting that HE is the most important person to us, then this should let you know where we stand. It should be apparent also that we believe he is the most vulnerable to injury, but it’s not apparent because we really dont believe that. We REALLY believe that his plan to take over the world is most vulnerable to injury, and because we have some stake in that, our Glorious Fuhrer, shall lead with an iron fist. God save him (whispers: and only him). (Ahem…) I mean, the pastor of Calvary Chapel.