"I see things"-Mark Driscoll
Naked Pastor link
I grew up in a nonChristian home so I have no recollection of the story of Esther from my childhood. I remember reading it shortly after my conversion and found it to be an amazing story of God’s provision and Esther’s strength.
However, one of the greatest Sunday school lessons I ever attended was presented by my friend who, with great flourish, recounts the story in the book of Esther, which he called “The Whole Megillah.” Devout Jews also do this every year at Purim in remembrance of these events. Although, traditionally, everyone is supposed to drink to the point of getting drunk, our rather conservative group decided to just stick to the boos and hisses at the mention of Haman’s name and raucous cheering at the mention of Esther. (Memo to friend who is reading this: I still think I am right on the Nephilim issue).
Megillah means “in Yiddish -a long boring tediously detailed account – a long involved story and in “Judaism- the scroll of parchment that contains the biblical story of Esther; traditionally read in synagogues to celebrate Purim. " Link
Recently, Mark Driscoll weighed in on the Esther situation. He is becoming painfully predictable. His name is increasingly synonymous with sex, in a negative fashion. This time, couched in his promise of prayer and study, he has determined Esther to be a whore. Yep, that Esther, the one who was made a sex slave of a king and, in spite of her painful circumstance, risked her life to save her people.
Before I begin, I once again ask, “Where are Driscoll’s advisors hiding?” This man has issues and it is readily apparent to a whole boat-load of observers. When he starts perverting Scripture to buttress his rather pathetic views on sex and women, it is time for the adults and medical professionals to weigh in. They must be too busy attending cage fights and drinking micro brews.
Esther and Purim
For those who do not know the story of Esther, please refer to this synopsis found on the About Judaism website. Link
"This book of the Old Testament spurred the festival of Purim. From the above link we learn that Purim: “A festive Jewish holiday that celebrates the deliverance of the Jews from their enemies in the biblical Book of Esther. Purim is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the Hebrew month of Adar. Purim is so-called because the villain of the story, Haman, cast the "pur" (the lot) against the Jews yet failed to destroy them.”
It “is the story of a young Jewish heroine called Hadassah meaning ‘myrtle and who became the Queen of the Persia because of an intra-court intrigue and in order to hide her Jewish identity was given a new Persian name, Esther meaning ‘star.’”
One note: King Xerxes is the same person as King Ahasuerus.
Mark Driscoll’s ludicrous statement on Esther link
““She grows up in a very lukewarm religious home as an orphan raised by her cousin. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed. She’s simply a person without any character until her own neck is on the line, and then we see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.”
“Esther has been grossly misinterpreted.” (Mark , of course, will interpret it correctly)
“Feminists have tried to cast Esther’s life as a tragic tale of male domination and female liberation. Many evangelicals have ignored her sexual sin and godless behavior to make her into a Daniel-like figure, which is inaccurate. Some have even tried to tie her story in with modern-day, sex-slave trafficking as she was brought before the powerful king as part of his harem.”
“ What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying.”
Where did Driscoll get these ideas?
I have spent some time looking through various theology texts to see if I could find something comparable. I finally found one source which might buttress Driscoll’s weird analysis in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, by Walvoord and Zuck, 1985.
P.699 Isaiah and Jeremiah had told the Jewish people to come out of Babylon (the Persian Empire) and return to Palestine to rebuild the Temple and set up the sacrificial system. Apparently, Mordecai and Esther did not leave, along with others.
P.704 Here is where it gets interesting. The authors claim that Mordecai and Esther were not living according to the Law. They jump to Esther whom they claim sinned by marrying a pagan and having sexual relations with a man who was not her husband. She apparently also ate unclean food. The authors indicate she should have been like Daniel and refused to do this.
I deeply disagree with their “trajectory” and believe that it could serve to transform an heroic Esther into Driscoll’s slutty queen. For well regarded seminary professors, they have sadly overlooked the implications of their analysis for victims of rape and coercion. I will deal with this shortly
Here are a few thoughts from the blog The Paper Thin Hymn link.
- “Without any action of the King, Esther would not have been in the position she was in. Rather, because she was a beautiful virgin with a beautiful figure, probably between the ages of 13-16 years old, she was “sought”, “gathered” and “taken” by the Kings officers and put into the palace under the custody of Hegai, the eunuch in charge of the harem. “
- “From a historical perspective, women did not have a choice in the matter, and there was no right of refusal. The king took what the king wanted, and there was nothing she could have done about it, and would probably have had herself and Mordecai executed if she refused.”
- “Esther is taken into the harem where she would spend the next year going through an intense beauty regiment. She did not have a choice in this matter”
- “After a night with the King, he would typically not call on her again. She was not free to go home, or back where she came from- to her family and loved ones, but would be relegated to a different harem, where the women who were “used” went, and would have to remain there for the rest of her life unless the king called on her again.”
The despicable, unbiblical view of coercion, rape, and the worth of a woman’s life
Driscoll and the quoted authors seem to imply that Esther had some control over her situation and that she should have stopped the whole thing. Could they be insinuating that she should have fought the soldiers who came for her and died, rather than be taken into custody to have sex with the king?
In blessedly bygone days, during court trials involving a raped woman, the defense attorneys of a rapist would try to establish that the woman wanted to be raped. They would “prove” that she had no defensive wounds on her, intimating that she should have fought to the death to maintain her honor.
Today, we would never blame a woman, let alone a young teen, who, while held at knife point, was raped. Yet, that is precisely what these authors and Driscoll appear to be advocating. This is sick and shows a low view of the life of a woman. It also overlooks, or negates, the hideous problem of sex slavery. (A topic that I want to write about in the near future).
Finally, do these men realize that, had Esther fought to the death to defend her virginity, she would not be in place to save her people? What a hill to die on!
God is not mentioned in the book of Esther but God was, and is, clearly recognized by Jewish people.
God is absolutely present in Esther and the people of Israel, who knew their Scriptures, would easily recognize it. God told His people that, one day, such an encounter would happen.
It is we who have the problem of not seeing God in Esther because we do not know our Old Testament very well. Here is a synopsis of the background from Bible Searchers link.
Haman was an Amalekite also known as an Agagite. This was a race of people God told King Saul to destroy because they were a nation utterly bent on destroying the Israel. Instead, Saul disobeyed and allowed their king, Agag to live and even brought him back to Israel as Saul’s prisoner.
“If King Agag had been killed by King Saul , Haman the Agagite would never have lived and the story of Esther may not have been written. The actions of one king of Israel may have cost the annihilation of the Jewish race, except that it was not God’s will.”
Deuteronomy 25:17-19 – “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear rank, all the stragglers at your rear, when all you were tired and weary: and he did not fear God.
Therefore it shall be when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.”
God had destined Esther to pick up the pieces for King Saul. That’s right. He sent a woman to do what a man didn’t! She was the fulfillment of the promise in Deuteronomy that a battle would, once again. be fought with the Amalekites and this time, the Jewish people would prevail.
An analysis of Driscoll’s contemptible statement
1.”Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions.”
Driscoll shows an abysmal lack of understanding about the role of women in this culture. She did not “allow” men to make decisions for her; she was forced to do so. She would be forced to do so if she was beautiful or ugly.
2. “She spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women.”
Let’s get something straight. Being taken to a harem by a bunch of the kings’ men is not a day at the spa. This was about one thing for everyone involved and that was making the king happy. If the king wasn't happy, everyone involved would die. She had ZERO right of refusal unless she wanted a straight ticket to eternity.
3.”She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite.”
Once again, Driscoll demonstrates his unremitting fixation with sex. He assumes that she was some sort of sex machine that serviced the king in such a way that he made her his queen. How does he know that? Could Esther have been kind, thoughtful, smart, or humorous? I guess it doesn’t matter because, in Driscoll’s world, it all boils down to sex. So that was, is and ever more shall be, his final answer.
4. “Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor.”
Driscoll’s attempt to bring this into a modern context shows a bizarre reinterpretation of the historical nature of that culture. Did he ever take a history course? If he did, I want the name of his professor. Today’s reality shows are based on freedom of choice. One does not have to be Kim Kardashian, although Deb comes pretty close. (Let's see if she is reading this). But, from what I have read about Driscoll’s needs, his wife better be on her "A" game or another book will be forthcoming, bless her heart.
5. “She’s simply a person without any character until her own neck is on the line, and then we see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.”
How does he know that she lacks character? Character is revealed, not when things are going well, but when things are going dreadfully wrong. In fact, from my observations of Driscoll, he needs to spend some time in study and prayer on the issue of character. Mark Driscoll is certainly no Esther when it comes to this virtue.
Secondly, did anyone read any verses in Esther about her conversion? How does he know she didn’t have a real faith in God? When it came time to save her people, she requested that the Jews fast for three days. Fasting is one of those biblical things, last time I checked. So, did she just get lucky and guess that they should fast or was she just a quick study?
6. “Some have even tried to tie her story in with modern-day, sex-slave trafficking as she was brought before the powerful king as part of his harem.”
Now, I am really irritated. This is sex slavery in all of its debauchery and pain. Yes, Mark, this is the real thing.
7.“ What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying.”
Driscoll has already demonstrated that he does not have a basic understanding of Jewish history or the issues surrounding slavery or rape. Frankly, the average church attendee could probably approach the truth of this book more accurately than this apparently sex obsessed “pastor.”
A Bit of Humor
One of the funnier comments I found on this sad example of Driscoll’s Biblical exposition is the following. The author at Kludt said that he had some points of agreement with Driscoll. Here is how he presented it.
[Esther] grows up
in a very lukewarm religious homeas an orphan raised by her uncle. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity withthe paganking like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that hechooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed.She’s simplya person with out anycharacter until her own neck ison the line, and thenwe see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.
Driscoll may be equivocating.
At Christ and Pop Culture link we learn the following.
"Thanks to the flurry of conversation, Mark Driscoll had this to say after his original post came out,"
“I have been researching a lot and have a lot of work left to do so any prayers are appreciated. I want to also sincerely thank my critics. They have brought to light some great insights that have further aided my studies and really got me thinking. I’m grateful to receive them before I preach the book as it helps me prepare. When I started the study of Esther and launched the brief blog post to get the buzz going, I leaned toward view #3 but now I’m reconsidering that and reevaluating some research.”
I have one comment-What research???? Is he having another one of those “prophetic pornovisions” in which he "sees things"? Link
A few final comments
Mara, at the Bitter Waters to Sweet blog link, had this to say:
“I was disappointed but not surprised to see Mark Driscoll whorify Esther. It is true, he believes that women ARE whores.He twists the Song of Solomon past the point of breaking to make women their husbands’ personal whores. And in their book, Real Marriage, Mark makes his wife, Grace, bear the load of guilt for the problems in their marriage while he slides through and uses the Songs to turn himself into a hero, a savior.Now Mark believes that he gets to decide that Esther is a whore, that SHE is the problem, rather than the pagan king who basically owns her and her exiled people.Way to go, Mark. Way to wrongly divide the Word of truth based on the darkness of your own perversions and insecurities… again.”
David at Naked Pastor link
I found Naked Pastor’s (David) response to a commenter right on the money
“Sorry David, I think you stretch a little too far here. Mark Driscoll is not my ideal pastor or Christian leader by a long shot. Not even in the ballpark. But, I’ve looked at the trailer and read what he has written about this series and I just am not yet reading it as negatively as you apparently are doing. I truly think that you are taking his remarks (that you lifted and reprinted) out of context Driscoll).
Naked Pastor responds:
“Hi Samuel. Ya, we can wait and see. But it is interesting to me that Mark Driscoll can NEVER be quoted. Have you noticed that? When one quotes him to critique him, one is always accused of taking it out of context. He should be more careful about what he says if he really doesn’t believe it.”
I agree with David. Driscoll has a whole contingent of apologizers, from seminary presidents to his “flock”, who spend in inordinate amount of time trying to explain away the multitude of Driscoll’s outlandish statements.
I believe that something is seriously wrong with Driscoll. We, along with many others, have documented his sermons, “pornovisions”, and statements ad nauseum. He has stepped away from Acts 29, quit the Gospel Coalition and is placing himself in a position to be answerable to no one but his remarkably silent “leadership,” pastor pals and seminary presidents.
Driscoll has not improved. If anything he is descending into peculiar territory. His friends and speaking circuit buddies clearly demonstrate the utter inability of the evangelical church to monitor and admonish one of their own. The Internet Monk had it right. We are living in a post-evangelical wilderness in which everyone is doing his own thing, including the back slapping cadre of the Calvinistas.
I believe there is a fall coming and I am sure some “leaders” will say, ‘But we didn’t know.” Well, they do and they refuse to do anything about it. Don’t worry, we will remind them in our “game over” analysis.
I leave you with a video recommended by Hester, a TWW reader. This viral video (over 10 million hits) contends that all songs are based on Pachelbel's famous Canon in D. It kinda reminds me of Driscoll who finds sex in everything he "studies."
Lydia’s Corner: Exodus 15:19-17:7 Matthew 22:1-33 Psalm 27:1-6 Proverbs 6:20-26
One of the bizarre aspects about this whole thing is MDs insistence that only he is brave enough to tackle this book even though its been pointed out by many people that lots of preachers, bible studies, kids programs, and even Veggie Tales use it. Narcissim? Maybe?
Yup, Driscoll will likely crash and burn sooner or later unless someone can really get through to him. He and others are already spending a lot of time putting out fires of his own making.
Mysoginistic and sex-obsessed for sure. But here’s the thing I don’t get: how does he get away with publicizing and starting a sermon series even though he’s still figuring out what he thinks and what he’s ultimately going to say about it. This is one step away from making it up as you go along, and certainly not the mark of deep prepration in advance. Sounds like he didn’t prepare but thought he could say what he wanted, then only started to backpedal when he got some push-back.
Driscoll once bragged that he wrote a sermon in 2 hours while watching a Seattle Mariner game. That is how seriously he take this. He should be ashamed of himself.
I almost embedded the Veggie Tales song of Haman. It is funny.
Yep, Driscoll is the only one who can help us understand Esther. Narcissism says it all.
“Did he ever take a history course? If he did, I want the name of his professor.”
We are working on that and we’ll get that name to you shortly, Rev. Bayly.
“I have been researching a lot and have a lot of work left to do”
Meaning: “I didn’t do any research when I first wrote this, I was just talking out of my arse while staring at the new Hustler magazine”
From the Jewish Virtual Library:
The story of Purim is told in the Biblical book of Esther. The heroes of the story are Esther, a beautiful young Jewish woman living in Persia, and her cousin Mordecai, who raised her as if she were his daughter.
1.”Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions.”
I thought that the men are supposed to be the leaders and make all the decisions, now we are saying that is not correct. I’m confused.
Who ordained Mark Driscoll? I think it’s time for whoever did so to have a serious conversation with him.
singleman – was he ever ordained?!
“What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying”
Doesn’t Driscoll spend months preparing for a sermon series? Does he mean a) he’s waiting on the Spirit to reveal something to him or b) he hasn’t figured out where he ultimately wants to go with this series?
“Who ordained Mark Driscoll? I think it’s time for whoever did so to have a serious conversation with him.”
We are working on that and we’ll get that name to you shortly, Rev. Bayly.
Oops! That’s right — I forgot. You think Driscoll’s a righteous dude
“Doesn’t Driscoll spend months preparing for a sermon series? Does he mean a) he’s waiting on the Spirit to reveal something to him or b) he hasn’t figured out where he ultimately wants to go with this series?”
You know, I’ve wondered the same thing, Brian. I suspect it just takes that long for his spirit to be exercised within him.
…but that’s just one man’s opinion.
Rev. Bayly –
Please add CJ Mahaney to the list of “who ordained?” I believe Eagle will gladly second that request!
The link you posted on Driscoll isn’t working.
Sorry about that. Try THIS ONE.
I fixed the original link in Sergius’ comment. I don’t know why it wasn’t working properly. It looked fine in the edit mode. Thanks for letting us know there was a problem.
Great comments, as usual!
“Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed.”
Hasn’t Driscoll said/implied that men should make women’s decisions (or at least their wives’ decisions)? And he’s definitely said that women shouldn’t “let themselves go” (i.e., stay pretty – spas help with that) and that they should be sex kittens in the bedroom. Aside from the context of the pagan harem, I really can’t see how Driscoll can call his version of Esther a slut at all. She’s only following his own advice.
“If King Agag had been killed by King Saul, Haman the Agagite would never have lived and the story of Esther may not have been written. The actions of one king of Israel may have cost the annihilation of the Jewish race, except that it was not God’s will. … God had destined Esther to pick up the pieces for King Saul. … She was the fulfillment of the promise in Deuteronomy that a battle would, once again, be fought with the Amalekites and this time, the Jewish people would prevail.”
That’s interesting, because this was on One Night with the King (a movie I hated) and I figured they made it up. If it is true, it’s pretty awesome/fascinating, but I still have to ask – is this just this one guy’s take on it, or is this generally accepted?
Driscoll’s general take on Esther is still not generally supported in Christendom. Even Matthew Henry (not exactly liberal) thinks that she was really married to Xerxes and didn’t sin by doing so. Even if a minority do think she sinned somehow, Driscoll’s stuff about her being “lukewarm,” etc. is completely made up, at least as far as I can see. Same with that commentary’s assertions that she wasn’t following the Law and automatically ate unclean food. I couldn’t find anybody who painted her as dismally as Driscoll did.
This and Driscoll’s take on Song of Solomon are just appalling. Who does he think he is? The Holy Spirit of God enlightens our understanding of scripture and nothing in his commentary on either book sounds like the Holy Spirit to me. The story of Esther is a beautiful story of the liberation of God’s people. It has meaning for the world today on so many levels. God’s annointing on this woman, on her family, on her people. The Israelites are spared, delivered. In Iran to this day is the tomb of the revered Queen Esther. The story means so much to so many. There are so many this day who need God’s deliverance! Will they hear the hip tale that misrepresents our Lord (or potty mouth if you prefer?) or the holiness that a girl forced to be the wife of this man receives honor and favor to be the instrument of God’s deliverance. God is our deliverer. He wishes to deliver all of us who will hear. How will he use us to bring his love and deliverance to those who need it? Whom will he choose in the midst of prison, or oppression? God is holy, his word is holy. We need him to open our hearts and minds to scripture and his purpose in our life. The people of the world need this. Who will have the courage of Esther? What has he chosen us to do? To whom will he send us? Scripture is given for inspiration…Stories like this have apurpose, a lesson. It is to further God’s kingdom, not Mark Driscoll’s. Interpretation like this almost seems like a sacrilege and at least a blatant disregard for God’s holiness, and the plight of truly oppressed people.
The thing about the Pachelbel rant is that he’s right. The same can’t be said of Driscoll. 🙂
Driscoll says his critics are making him think? Could it be that some of them are women?
I listened to his first sermon of the series this morning. He says it’s going to take several months to get through the series. I can see why because he spent the entire sermon setting up who king Xerxes was. He didn’t say anything about Esther yet. He just yelled a lot at any guys who party like the king’s parties and treat women like they did at those parties. This is how Mark seduces females into following him. He does a great job yelling at abusive men and men who haven’t grown up who need a sermon about that.
@ Sergius – Driscoll’s getting a bit pudgy, maybe his spirit needs to do some more excercising.
Non-snarky comment now: The fact that he seems to have not done much preparation for this series before writing that original blog post is seriously worrying. It’s one thing to have not completely refined the exact words he’s going to say a week before starting, but he seems to suggest he hadn’t come up with the content. And that makes it seem like he doesn’t take the responsibility of preaching very seriously at all.
Driscoll: “What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying.”
Well, that settles it.
Since no one can discern it, we need to wait until Driscoll pronounces what the truth is.
We are glamorous, are we not?
With the recent debacle concerning Jack Schaap in Independent Fundamental Baptist circles, I listen to Driscoll and say to myself, “There goes another one.” Schaap was as obsessed with sex as Driscoll is, to the point of explaining the Lord’s Supper was sybolically having intimate relations with Christ! I can easily see that Driscoll could follow in Schaap’s footsteps. I hope not if only for the sake of his wife and any potential victims.
No doubt, but I don’t put Kardashian in the glam category.
Great post BTW!
“Haman was an Amalekite also known as an Agagite. This was a race of people God told King Saul to destroy because they were a nation utterly bent on destroying the Israel. Instead, Saul disobeyed and allowed their king, Agag to live and even brought him back to Israel as Saul’s prisoner.”
In I Samuel 15:33, Samuel ends up putting Agag to death before the Lord. So how could the Agagites in Esther be the descendants of this King Agag?
I did a Beth Moore study on Esther a number of years ago. She, thankfully, didn’t take the position that Driscoll is.
I noticed that Rev. Bayly loves Driscoll… I am most perplexed that many of the Bayly’s, Mohler’s, and Mahaney’s of the world love Driscoll but, if the average parishioner of their churches talked or behaved as he does they would tell that guy or gal (especially gal) that they were not regenerate and although in theory they could be the elect, they clearly aren’t now and are headed to hell. Yet Driscoll is somehow bringing droves into the kingdom. How is this possible? Could it be a hyper masculine calvinist who says we need to put women in their place trumps everything else so although Driscoll may act like all the unregenerates these men preach about, he isn’t because he has the hyper masculine calvinist ace in the hole.
King Agag probably had many children before he was put to death.
It only take one to escape and make descendants.
Two quick points:
1. What bobson et al have pointed out. By MD’s logic, Esther should be a model of complementarian virtue.
2. The “tendency” of evangelicals to view Esther as a female Daniel is neither baseless nor inaccurate. In an Old Testament class at, yes, SBTS, we learned that the Hebrew canon, which tends to be organized more by themes than chronology, puts the books of Daniel and Esther next to each other, as examples of a man and a woman who lived righteously during the exile. Admittedly, I haven’t read this anywhere else, but it seems to me that Jewish interpretations of the book are exactly where those seeking “the truth” about it should start. And as Dee points out in the post, the story of Esther is much loved by Jews. If MD is so eager to cast aside the book’s traditional Jewish interpretation, perhaps he should throw in his lot with the Jesus Seminar…
The original comment of his was gross. The second showed more humility than I’ve seen from him before (yes, this is damning with faint praise), but still misses the point of the book by a wide margin. To be honest, I’ve never really thought much about whether Esther was Godly at the beginning, middle, or end of the book. I think she was a scared young girl who God used to deliver her people. But the point of the book is God’s providential work to save His people.
As for Driscoll being all impressed with himself that he dares preach this book, my pastor 10 years ago preached on Esther and it was an amazing series. So much so he turned it into a Bible study I would highly recommend:
Yes, the congregation was only around 300 people- far too small for it to “count” to Driscoll.
I honestly think Driscoll purposefully reinterprets the text in such a way to “spice” it up for his “young” flock. He promotes it, ironically, like Rob Bell promotes his “new” teachings..Stir in some controversy, drama, sex, etc…call it new, “no one has seen it this way before,” and people want to listen…
The scary thing is that this “spice” that Driscoll uses in his sermons usually reminds me of some sleazy sex gossip column painting unfounded truths on someone….
She performed well? Chose to get dolled up? She simply has no character?? Really??
Might as well publish his sermon series on Esther in the same despicable magazines with the photos of Kate Middleton..
I have seen preachers stretch the text many times before…but this…this is just sad.
Reading Driscoll’s more recent entry leads me to suspect that most of the people who have been reacting to the first entry have been played like a cheap fiddle.
I’m with Tikatu about the comparison with Schaap.
Dee, when you asked where his advisors are, I couldn’t get Schaap’s white-coat advisors out of my mind from Schaap’s How to Polish a Shaft video. (http://youtu.be/Tr0UpQXYkGs)
Either the “advisors” are mesmerized, sexualized, brainwashed or brain-dead. I’m not sure which.
It’s intriguing to see how many comments here concern Mr. Driscoll and his advisors, mentors, ordainers, et al, if there truly are any. Part of what is so fascinating is that, if we look at both Testaments, we see a rather dramatic pattern in historical accounts of most key teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings. If their names are given to us, we are also introduced to their older-generation mentor. For instance, Esther with Mordecai, David and Nathan, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and (at least via his writings) Jeremiah, Mary and Elizabeth, Timothy and Paul. The mentors invest in their proteges with significant input, role modeling, and/or challenging. Hmmm.
So, from the quotes here, the rather odd implications about Esther seem to be that (1) Both Mordecai and the King are making all her decisions for her, and (2) that she is sinning. I haven’t had Hebrew since college, but just a simple reading in English seems clear enough that Mordecai helps frame the issues, suggesting both context and solutions, but leaves the decisions to Esther. And how is it, then, that Mordecai suggest such a dastardly (apparently to Mr. Driscoll) thing as the very idea that perhaps Esther has “providentially” come to the exact place she is in so that deliverance may come for the Jewish people through her actions? If she’s sinning, then he’s evil for even suggesting God could use her – am I understanding you aright, Mr. Driscoll? However could such a “sinner” as Esther ever be used by a holy and righteous God? Isn’t that contrary to the laws of providence in YRR “theology”?
I guess Esther would be under discipline and disfellowshipping quickly, were she alive today and signed the membership covenant at Mars Hill Church. I have a harder time believing that God is more significantly present and at work for good there where He is mentioned, than in the book of Esther where He is not.
“Building buzz” with bizarre statements – even with reflection and course adjustments later – seems rather just “trash theology.”
If Thomas Nelson is Mr. Driscoll’s mentor, I hope they’re listening. Some responsibility for all this folly falls on their shoulders for perpetuating his platform in print …
A point I meant to mention about the whole “Godless” book thing- I write music, and one of the things I’ve noticed about my own songs is that the more intimate the song, the less prone I am to mention the object of the song. I tend to write songs about God and most do mention Him somewhere along the line, but the one that deals with Him and His work in my life in the most personal way doesn’t. It wasn’t intentional; I didn’t event realize it until years after I wrote the song- it just wasn’t needed. If you read the song and know God, you’ll know that it’s about Him and there is no confusion that I might be singing about a human relationship.
Now I’m not suggesting Esther is the most intimate of books in the Bible, but it is a book where God is known by His works. You aren’t told God is moving, but you don’t need to be. I guess it’s more sensational to say it’s “Godless” though- since even if this point was lost on Driscoll I’d assume he’d read enough of other people’s work to get this point.
just one note of dissension here. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with micro-brews. I must confess to being rather partial (and Seattle has some very good ones) and am not a pseudo-patriachialist, sex-obsessed idiot. So please stop stereotyping those of of us who believe beer should taste of something.
Obviously the rest of what you said is right 🙂
Dee: Interesting addendum?
“Since last summer, we’ve seen over 1000 people baptized and now have 14 churches in four states. ”
“We now have some 8000 people in over 600 Community Groups, where people have been able to grow in their faith in and through community, and hundreds more work through the hard issues of life in Redemption Group. ”
“We rejoice in that we were able to help anyone.”
“Even if it were just one person who met Jesus, one person who grew in him, one person who was served on behalf of him—we would rejoice. ”
“But that it’s so many people in so many locations across so many states, it’s absolutely amazing.”
“For those of you who call Mars Hill Church home, thank you.”
“This has been the best year we’ve ever had in our 16 years as a church, by a long shot.”
“And we believe that God has only begun what he’s purposed and planned for us.”
“With the fiscal year concluding, we’d ask you to give generously, pray faithfully, and serve vigilantly as we regroup and get ready for more growth in the fall, when we start the Esther sermon series, which will be followed by an Ephesians sermon series at the beginning of 2013.”
“To our church family, we love you, appreciate you, and thank God for you. Remember your church this summer, and pray, give, care, serve, and love it.”
Pastor Mark Driscoll, Sr. Pastor, Mars Hill Church, June 27, 2012.
His wings clipped but not his spirit?
I think Mark is saying generously (through out this Mars Hill Esther sermon series, started September 16th), that if God can work in an ordinary person’s life like the Bible character Esther, he can work in yours.
Not by miracles, but by his quiet divine providence!
That the ‘average individual’ can take hope and comfort in this: that he does, and that he is working in your life. Even in these ‘troubling times’.
“Every day is a winding road”?
I eagerly await the conclusion of ‘the better angels’, of his nature, and his sermon series.
With God, ‘anything is possible’, right?
June 27, 2012; On Youtube, Pastor Mark Driscoll gives a “review” of Mars Hill Church’s last 12 months as they approach the fiscal year close, and introduces the Esther sermon series.
As you state in the article:
I once again ask, “Where are Driscoll’s advisors hiding?”
You might rephrase that question thus: How does someone so lacking in understanding of what the Bible says, and of why God gave it to us in the first place, gain such a devoted following as a great “bible teacher”? Bear with me a moment here – and apologies in advance if all this is merely a verbose statement of the obvious.
When researchers a few years ago analysed the genome of smallpox (strictly speaking, of the variola virus), they found something that surprised them: it shares many of its genes with us humans. This was thought to be a major reason why smallpox is so virulent and so contagious; it is able to produce proteins that are familiar in the human body, thereby evading the immune system and binding to the cells themselves. You might say that, while smallpox is anything but human, it imitates a few crucial elements of the “technical specification” of humanity at the molecular level.
In the same way, our friend from Seattle is loud and effusive in his profession of support for a number of crucial doctrines that are beloved of conservative Christians. To name a few: the authority of scripture; penal substitutionary atonement; total human depravity. And one more: an implicit faith in the primacy of doctrine over, say, character or fruit.
Now, all these could be said to have come under attack, in the last two or three generations, from liberal theology and “higher criticism”. I don’t doubt that a proportion of liberal theological academics were, and are, secular intellectuals with no particular resonance with the gospel or kingship of Jesus, who instinctively reduce him to one more specimen to be studied and labelled to fit their anthropological theories. (The same is probably true of some conservative theological academics. And it could be that the same is true of me – in a way, I hope that never ceases to scare me.)
In this context, someone who comes in and makes a big thing about defending traditional conservative doctrines is ticking some very important boxes. He’s defending true Christianity against those evil liberals, after all. Thus, he gets a free backstage pass into the inner circle, with or without Christ-like character, and regardless of what kind of fruit his ministry produces.
As long as you bang on, and on, and on, and on, about how you’re just teaching the biblical bible according to the scriptural scriptures, and keep ticking a few important doctrinal shibboleths, then you must be “sound”. Few will look behind the curtain to observe that the bible is a mere ventriloquist’s dummy in your hand, speaking only with your voice and saying only what you tell it to say. And it seems that very few evangelicals accept that, as per Mark 3:11, you can have (some) accurate doctrine but an unclean spirit.
Belief in “PSA” is no test for whether I am a genuine disciple of Jesus. The question is: Does my belief in PSA move me to self-righteousness and pride, or to worship?
“King Agag probably had many children before he was put to death.
It only take one to escape and make descendants.”
You are right. That may be what happened.
I have no problem with micro brews, only when they become more important than more important things-like reading the Bible.
And, I did fail to mention coffee. I spent a couple of weeks rolling around your beautiful area. I have never seen more coffee shops in my life! No wonder everyone drives so fast-they are jazzed. Also, allow me to compliment the State of Washington for the finest fruit on the planet-Rainier Cherries. May you find a way to make them avaliable year round.
if what you say is true, then this is no man of God, merely a jerk.
Whoops, made a mistake. he already is a jerk for how he treated Bent and Paul. if you are correct, then he is a @#*&^%$@@#*^#-I can’t say it!
i am not so sure he is brining droves into the kingdom. he has lots of people attending but not so many as he would have everyone believe. Do we assume they are all saved/elect/ regenerate or whatever the latest buzz word is?
There are a couple of theories. Agag had kids who were not destroyed.Also, one is assuming that Saul killed all of the Amalekites in the battle. Remeber, the Amalekites were desert dwellers and the Negev is a harsh environment, filled with nooks and crannies to hide. It is highly likely that Saul, not following God’s commands, did not pursue them into the harsh environment.
An addendum: ” Herod was a descendant of the Edomites. The Jews could well have made capital of the fact that Herod was kin to the ancient Amalekites through his Edomite ancestry” http://askelm.com/star/star011.htm
The problem with some of these evangelical scholars who compare her to Daniel is that Daniel was a good boy-followed the Law. They then compare Esther, who, according to some, disobeyed the dietary laws and had sex with the king. Some view her as vastly inferior, which may be the direction of Driscoll’s ridiculous statements.
Driscoll really does believe that he sees things very differently and in a vastly superior way. So long as he toes the doctrinal Calvinista line, the weak leaders of this movement will applaud him.
I believe that Driscoll is worse than Schaap and more dangerous since a wide swath of Neo Cal leaders support him. I fear this will end badly.
I think we share about 47% of our DNA with bananas as well.:)
I really loved your analysis. I believe you hit it dead on. Due to an extreme reaction to liberal theologians, the church lurched to retake the doctrinal ground. So long as one states the correct doctrine, one is in the club. Their behavior does not matter, only doctrine. I enjoyed your terms “scriptural scripture” and “biblical bible.”
i wrtoe about one of the rising stars, Andy Davis, from this area, who called two of my friends wicked and unregenerate. These are godly people who spend their days serving God in many, many Christian organizations.They minister in jails and in many other tought circumstances. Their crime? They didn’t buy his “theology” that women could not be deacons and they were not Neo Calvinists. So, according to the Neo Cal doctrine, they are screwed, fit for hell.
Talk about wicked….
And what percentage of our DNA is shared with Cheetos?
You wrongly worded the question. As you know, bloggers are not humans. Therefore, the question should read, “What percentage of blogger’s DNA is shared with Cheetos?” The answer from the Calvinistas is probably @ 99%.
“…And one more: an implicit faith in the primacy of doctrine over, say, character or fruit.” – Nick
The problem is that as far as they are concerned when doctrine is primary fruit and character just happen. Of course they define both fruit and character by how strictly one performs the correct behavior – an outward evaluation based on reputation.
While reputations have their place, I learned in college that if I was more concerned about my reputation than I was about the people that my actions affected, then I was lacking in character. Reputation is not always indicative of character. It can definitely be indicative of a good performer.
I think WTH is correct. The first thing I thought when I read Driscoll’s introduction to his Esther series is CONTROVERSIAL, SENSATIONALISM, SEXUALIZED, ADVERTISING. This was a mere commercial to get people to watch his show. Reading the introduction was like watching a Carl’s Jr. commercial. Carl’s loads their commercials with sexy women to get the men to come eat the food. Driscoll does the same thing to get men to listen — uses women. It’s not very respectful of men or women to appeal to them in this way. But the ploy is ancient.
Cheetos: Corny, cheesy, puffed up, seems substantial but nothing much really there to chew on, dissolves quickly on contact with Living Water. Sorta kinda like fluff with spray-on bronzer, only it’s with a veneer of theology. Hmmm, yeah, the DNA overlap with junk theology is at least 99%.
Here’s the thing. I’m glad Driscoll is listening to the critics etc. and admitting that he still has research to do. That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t take away the fact that his first, baseline reaction to women seems to be so negative. Even if he sometimes backpedals away from things later, how does that change the fact that his “automatic setting” is to see women in a negative light unless proven otherwise?
I am getting seriously tired of this whole refusal by many in the YRR movement to admit that Driscoll might have some problems. Truth be told, I don’t think he’s evil or devoid of any motives to spread Christ’s word, but I ALSO think some of the things he teaches are very, very worrying. If you keep a continual pattern of teaching worrisome things, you need to step back to be examined and held accountable. It does no one any good to pretend that Driscoll’s good theology somehow nullifies the parts of his message that are damaging and scary.
Sorry. I shouldn’t have dissed cheetos …
“Mighty To Save: God Can Still Move The Mountains?”
Not unlike Pachelbel, Driscoll has carried his distinct methodology and compositional message to others far and wide., abet in this case apparently a negative one. One must grieve for all those who are subject to the many who digest his (Driscoll’s) methodology and carry his slanted compositional message to others. His infinitely inventive creation of immoral invectives stresses the importance of doing ones own diligence in studying the scriptures for oneself.
But I likz dis here part: “It’s All, Only, and Always about Jesus…”
Cantabile, he is not; as far as clarity, he may well be still working on that.
“Time changes things, and people too?
“Shine Your light and let the whole world see, we’re singing
For the glory of the risen King, Jesus.”
I thought it was funny . . . but I’m not a Cheetos fan either!
@ Bridget – Me too, … but I AM a cheetos fan!
Seems each time I read ANYTHING about Driscoll on this site, I come away feeling dirty, in need of a shower. Can’t imagine what his parishioners feel like after listening to a whole sermon. Yuk!
Wade Burleson > The Beauty of Loving a Husband without Needing Him
Dee, when you asked where his advisors are, I couldn’t get Schaap’s white-coat advisors out of my mind from Schaap’s How to Polish a Shaft video. — Julie Anne
By “advisors” do you mean Hand-Picked Yes-Men? Like Courtiers at Versailles, high noblemen whose only reason for existence was to hand the Sun King his socks in the morning?
I can’t remember what all Driscoll has said about Mordecai’s character, other than his comment comparing Esther’s home to a lukewarm Christian one. But if Mark could picture Esther in such a whorish way, then he should picture her cousin in a pimpish way, making him the bad guy. Jesus came down pretty hard on those who lead others to sin. Oops, I hope I didn’t give him any more raunchy ideas for his stories.
i am not so sure he is brining droves into the kingdom. he has lots of people attending but not so many as he would have everyone believe. — Dee
Just like Scientology’s official membership numbers?
These are godly people who spend their days serving God in many, many Christian organizations.They minister in jails and in many other tought circumstances. Their crime? They didn’t buy his “theology” that women could not be deacons and they were not Neo Calvinists. So, according to the Neo Cal doctrine, they are screwed, fit for hell. — Dee
Purity of Ideology. Just like Comrade Lenin, Comrade Stalin, Comrade Pol Pot, and Comrade Dear Leader.
Thanks for sharing Wade Burleson’s blog post, that is SO good!
All I can say about Driscoll is “I thought MY head had a bad case of Virgin/Whore Dichotomy…”
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I appreciate TWW so very much. It has been a source of encouragement and clarity in my own journey. Reading about Driscoll’s atrocious exegetical approach to Esther reminds me of many issues I had with the preaching at an A29 church of which I was a member at one time.
I suppose this is a good a time as any to briefly come out of the woodwork and introduce myself to you all. I feel like I owe it to you guys, since I have been reading this site and feeling so supported and encouraged by your honest, thoughtful reflection and your strong, courageous advocacy for the spiritual and emotional safety of the Lord’s flock.
I joined an Acts 29 church a while back without knowing much about it other than that they seemed committed to Scripture, to Jesus, and to community. Mark was popular. Re:Lit books were everywhere. I thought “Reformed” just meant “not-Catholic.” (Don’t get me started on the co-opting of the term ‘reformed’ by Calvinists).
Over time, however, little things consistently came up in the course of church life that bothered me, but were of such a nature that it was hard to nail down what was going on. My go-to phrase during this time was “This is weird.” The church didn’t teach heresy, and they said they were committed to the gospel, so it was hard to pin down what exactly was setting of my internal alarm bells.
As I saw more of the systemic patterns at the church, I developed more insight and understanding into the myriad of issues at this church. Finally, the situation at the church reached a very explicit breaking point and many things that were implicit suddenly became very explicit.
I don’t want to go into specifics, but suffice to say that this site played a crucial role in helping me more clearly understand many of the underlying problems. During my time at the church, I consistently saw what I thought were problems, or hints that there may be problems, but every time I voiced my concerns, I was reprimanded and told to search my heart for how I might be sinning in my questioning/doubting/critiquing. When I providentially arrived at this site, I saw many, many comments from people that HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. They could have been describing my church, and my pastor/elders! It was a watershed moment. I finally felt like I could let go of the default setting of “If I feel like something is wrong with the church & the elders, I must be sinning.” I also felt like I was finally able to breathe a giant sigh of relief and say, “I’m not crazy! Other people think these things are wrong!”
I look forward to continually benefiting from this site as I move forward and grow/heal. I also hope to helpfully contribute to discussions here and there, as I am able, rather than simply “lurking.” 🙂 It seems to me that much of the discussion (rightfully) centers around Mars Hill and Driscoll, but I have a feeling that we will (tragically) begin to hear increased rumblings out of A29 churches. They are birthed out of Mars Hill and Driscoll, and, at least in the case of the A29 church of which I was a member, the A29 movement is spawning little Driscollites who adhere to the basic theories and methods of Mars Hill and the Calvinistas.
Thank you again, Deb and Dee and all the rest, for creating this space. I apologize for the rambling post that doesn’t actually address Esther!
– Mr. H
But if Mark could picture Esther in such a whorish way, then he should picture her cousin in a pimpish way, making him the bad guy. — Patti
Mordecai is MALE/MANLY.
Esther is FEMALE/WHORE.
i am not so sure he is brining droves into the kingdom.
Oh sure he is! He is brining droves and droves and pickling the gospel day and night!
I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Driscoll and his confederates suffer from virulent cases of vagina envy. Why else would they feel so threatened by brave and courageous women?
I think it may be partly because they have no hope of ever matching the exploits of the Biblical heroines, and in order to compensate for it, they have to maintain an aura of macho swagger and bravado.
I’m also convinced that you’ll find this ethos in virtually all tribal cultures ruled by an alpha male kingpin.
483 BC: Extending the golden scepter?
Xerxes, King of Persia, called Ahasuerus , ordered a search was be made among all the beautiful young virgins of his kingdom for a young woman to become Queen in Ex-Queen Vashti place.
2:5–7 As potential young women were brought to Shushan, Esther, one of the capital’s maidens, joined them. She had been adopted by her cousin Mordecai after the death of her parents. Mordecai was a Benjamite, whose ancestor, Kish, had been carried into captivity with Jeconiah (2 Kgs. 24:14–16).
2:12–14 The course preparing the young ladies to be brought into the king’s bedchamber lasted for twelve months. They went through a ceremonial purification program with ointments, spices, and cosmetics. Then, when the turn of each one came, she could request anything in the way of apparel, adornments, or jewels. She then spent one night with the king, and would never be with him again unless she so pleased him that he asked for her by name.
2:15–18 Instead of making lavish requests for outward adornments, Esther followed Hegai’s advice. Perhaps he suggested that she depend on her natural beauty. In any event, the king loved Esther more than any of the others, chose her as his queen, and made a great feast in her honor.
2:19–23 A second gathering of virgins took place, perhaps to add to the king’s harem. Esther was still keeping her nationality secret, and Mordecai was still positioning himself strategically at the king’s gate.
It was at this time that he overheard a plot to assassinate King Ahasuerus. He reported it to Esther, who in turn notified the king. The assassins were apprehended, tried, and hanged. The incident was routinely recorded in the official chronicles of the kingdom.
*Reference: “Believer’s Bible Commentary”
I see no impropriety on the part of Esther what so ever. Actually I see the opposite. Exemplary behavior. Proven character.
Pastor Mark Driscoll has perhaps stepped on his, Ahem!, bible.
I finally felt like I could let go of the default setting of “If I feel like something is wrong with the church & the elders, I must be sinning.”
I’m glad you were able to let go of that default setting. If you are not allowed to ask questions without feeling like you are wrong for doing so, how can you possibly evaluate anything to see if you agree with it?
I would love to hear more from you on how they created this default setting and how you came to see it for what it is.
Mr. H – I appreciate your comment and “rambling”. The reason why discussing this is so important is because these Calvinistas are spreading their form of gospel through media, books, and it is infiltrating even small podunk churches like my former church. I originally thought my defamation lawsuit was about a spiritually abusive pastor who was mad at me for telling my opinion publicly. Now I am looking at who influenced him and see a wide pattern of abuse from the pulpit – to the extent that even pastors at Grace Community church addressed their disagreement with the lawsuit publicly, but REFUSED to address spiritual abuse.
These influential guys are in bed with each other sharing book endorsements, sharing the podium at expensive “gospel” conferences around the nation and they look the other way when it comes to abuses in their own church, including distorting the gospel message. This should be alarming. I, too, have learned much from Deb, Dee, and the community here. My eyes are opened. Thanks for your comment and sharing your story. I think a lot of us are in the same boat.
The revised version of that paragraph by the guy from Kludt is right on the money. I wonder if he can be hired to dig back to the actual text in MD’s other Bible Studies…
Welcome, Mr.H! So happy you have decided to comment! This blog has been a blessing to many and I’m grateful for Dee and Deb’s ministry also.
My heart goes out to all of those who experienced, maybe what you have, but never made the intellectual leap, but dis-continued going to any church. Many are ‘still’ in this condition today.
I am sure many of us would welcome hearing more, should you feel comfortable sharing.
Welcome to the community. Please understand that we walked your path just a few short years before you and decided to start a blog. It is the testimony of many folks here that validated our perceptions. We are truly a Fellowship of the Wounded who are helping one another through the post-evangelical thicket (with a nod to the Internet Monk).
Prediction: Within a few short months, you will be advising others due to your experience. Be at peace. You were being played by your former church. Thankfully, you are far more perceptive than some and got the heck out. Standing ovation for your smart move occurring in Raleigh!
I always shudder when Mark Driscoll begins to see things.
I’ve written over ten Purimspiels – musicals (I change the lyrics of songs from Broadway shows) which freely adapt the story of Esther. By “freely,” I mean add a lot of comedy (although the “original” is subtly funny), use modern references, etc., but keep to the basic story and characters. So I know something about this Book, and about how far one can take liberties with it for the sake of this tradition.
What Driscoll writes about it is truly repulsive, though I’ve little doubt that many (not all) in the Islamic world would applaud. He is simply inserting his pathology into his “interpretation.”
The post and comments have pretty well detailed his absurdities. I’d like to point out one: “She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite.” I think it’s pretty clear what Driscoll means, heh-heh. Inconveniently for him, however, the Scripture says that Esther and all the other women brought to the palace were still virgins at the time of her marriage to the King. (2:17) But Driscoll insists that she was “without any character” (clumsily put, but Driscoll doesn’t know English much better than he does Scripture), so it’s probably more exciting for him to imagine that she’s great in bed.
A relatively minor point – Driscoll recommended the movie, “One Night With The King,” which is filled with extra-Biblical speculation to pad out two hours. Maybe that’s what he’ll “research.”
His thank-you to his critics is meaningless. He always does that before perpetrating his next outrage.
I think the concept of “defining deviancy down” is relevant here. It’s how we got to the point of so many, who should know better, not only tolerating, but defending this idiot. I don’t mean just the Calvinistas, who do so for ideological (and financial) reasons.
Thank you for your comment. You have confirmed our suspicions that A29 pastors are mimicking Mark Driscoll. I hope you will continue to comment because we appreciate your input.
I have so many angry, ugly things I’d like to write about MD, but I’ll stop with this is just outrageous. Pray for his wife and the women in his “church”. Barf.
To Mr. H.: Welcome!
As for MD, one of his most astonishing “gifts” is the ability to find a new low, no matter how subterranean the previous bar had been set.
It is astonishing that of all the pastors in New Calvinist circles, only John MacArthur has publicly declared the man unfit for office. The rest are busy trying to make appearances with him…
Mr. H, welcome.
For Acts 29 training of pastors, last I checked Driscoll wrote they plan to keep using Scott Thomas’ Gospel Coach materials to train Acts 29 pastors.
From Driscoll’s February 6, 2012 letter to Acts 29
“We are not changing coaching—Gospel Coach, created by Pastor Scott Thomas, will continue to be used to help ensure our pastors and their families are holy and healthy.”
Who’s Scott Thomas? He was an executive elder at Mars Hill, and the guy in charge of the Elder Investigative Taskforce during the 2007 firings of Bent Meyer and Paul Petry. He also served as President of the Acts 29 Network.
Thomas is currently Pastor of Pastoral Development at Darrin Patrick’s church The Journey.
Joyful Exiles would be a good place to start for a snapshot of Thomas’ role within both Mars Hill and Acts 29. It’s obviously not a comprehensive portrait of his activity in either institutional context but people who are interested in a snapshot of Thomas, the guy whose Gospel Coach Driscoll has said will remain the basis for pastoral training within Acts 29, is worth consulting.
Scheherazade, of 1001 Arabian Nights fame, is another heroine who shows that women need not rely on bedroom expertise to survive more than one night with the king but on character, wit and ingenuity. If she kept her head while all those before her had lost theirs, then I guess, by Rudyard Kipling’s standards, that makes her a ‘Man’ 😉
It is astonishing that of all the pastors in New Calvinist circles, only John MacArthur has publicly declared the man unfit for office. The rest are busy trying to make appearances with him…
Because he’s a CELEBRITY!!!!!
The Heathen(TM) have Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, God’s Predestined Elect have Mark Driscoll.
The marriage wars are going on down here in Australia. The Sydney Anglican Diocese recently decided to put the word ‘submit’ back into the marriage vows, and our archbishop Jensen 1 – Peter) has been popping up on TV at least once a week. Jensen 2 (Phillip) has been writing articles on his website, which a few people on Facebook have been linking to. Here’s the latest: http://phillipjensen.com/articles/the-devolution-of-marriage/
From what I can gather reading this, having ‘love’ as your biggest motivator for getting married is a bad – sinful? – thing. And it’s also bad and sinful for a husband and wife to equally promise to honour each other. But the strangest part for me was this quote –
‘Similarly, the 1662 service emphasizes the Biblical teaching on the differing responsibilities of husband and wife. Not only are the consent and vows different for men and women, but also it is only the man who gives a ring and his wealth.’
Ok,I get complementarians assert there are differing roles/responsibilities for husband and wife, but specifically raising the husband bringing wealth as of import? Um, Phillip, don’t you realise marriages were basically property transactions in the 17th century – the women being the property? Now we’re in the 21st Century and women have been allowed to work and vote and have rights for a pretty long time (Australia was the second country in the world to give women the vote, after all). So why bring up wealth, of all possible gender-specific responsibilities? It’s just bizarre.
I greatly respect both Jensens. Phillip ran the Christian group at my first uni, and he preached twice a week at lunchtime throughout semester, and i got a lot out of his sermons. But this increasing elevation of secondary issues (or tertiary – I mean, how much does the wording of marriage vows really matter?) is getting ridiculous.
Oh, and it doesn’t really need to be said, but as usual, singleness is again ignored/implied to be worthless.
Well, following on from my above post, I decided to stop being timid about these articles and posted a comment on the link posted. There’d been two comments, one asking “How did this happen?”, and the person who’s posted the link (who works with the Jensens) responded “Never let liberals take over the committees…” I thought that was an unfair and unnecessarily snarky comment, especially for someone who has a fairly high position in Sydney Anglican circles, so I decided to leave what I hoped was a clear, but gracious rebuke.
Stupidly I didn’t screenshot it or copy/paste it here like I’d thought to do, because it was deleted very quickly (as in, within at most 5 minutes). I’ll have to paraphrase what I wrote but it was along the lines of:
“I don’t think demeaning fellow Christians as ‘liberals’ is helpful in these discussions. We all follow the same risen Christ, even if there are differences on some issues.”
So I guess my comment being deleted means it’s fine and dandy to demean those you disagree with, according to at least one person fairly high in the church here.
From what I can gather reading this, having ‘love’ as your biggest motivator for getting married is a bad – sinful? – thing. And it’s also bad and sinful for a husband and wife to equally promise to honour each other.
Related to what you are saying, I was thinking yesterday about some statistics someone posted here once on marriage and divorce. I went looking for it online and found this:
One of the reasons I was thinking about it was because I remembered there was a significant difference between conservative and liberal churches in divorce rates, with the liberal churches’ rates being the lowest. My memory wasn’t quite correct, actually, as the group with the LOWEST divorce rates was the agnostic/atheist crowd and the group with the HIGHEST divorce rates were the fundamentalist/conservative Christians!
There was some attempt to explain this atrocity (ahem) by Tom Ellis and Anthony Jordan of the SBC who seems to think the problem is that 1) the people among the Christian groups who divorce are not really Christians, and 2) we don’t put enough of a stigma on divorce.
I doubt their reasoning is right. First, since the group with the LOWEST divorce rates is decidedly NOT Christian, and proudly so, that does away with reason 1. Second, I’m pretty sure most divorced folks in conservative churches would say the conservative churches usually do a superior job at making the divorced feel stigmatized. No such thing as problem #2.
Now, consider this explanation from atheist Ron Barrier:
“These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of ‘submissive’ nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage.” (Emphasis mine.)
The Christian community cannot bring itself to believe that this philosophy of relationship actually works. Worse, the admission that atheists are more ethical than Christians, especially conservative Christians is more than they can bear.
Though conservative Christian myself, I have quite a few ubber liberal and/or atheist people in my life and I have to concede that they are wiser, more ethical, and more compassionate in many ways than Christians are.
Barrier would probably take issue with this, but I believe the philosophy of mutual respect he espouses better reflects the moral and ethical intent of the “invisible monitor in the sky” he denounces than the teaching of those who stand as the “monitor’s” spokesmen does.
That Bad Dog
“As for MD, one of his most astonishing “gifts” is the ability to find a new low”-Well said.
I have been following the development of the marriage wars in Australia. I think it would be interesting if we could do a post on this. Would you be interested in writing a post? We could give you an award for the guest poster from the longest distance away from our home base in Raleigh, North Carolina. (Currently the home of The War of “Not Buying It” Aggression).
Calvinistas are the same, the world over. Thin skinned men who cannot stand the courage of their convictions and must pretend that everyone agrees with them.
You said something that I myself have have observed on many occasions. “Though conservative Christian myself, I have quite a few uber liberal and/or atheist people in my life and I have to concede that they are wiser, more ethical, and more compassionate in many ways than Christians are.”
My take on the YRR/NC movement and DRiscoll since all the publicity over his book, the wide dissemination of the Porno visions, church discipine issues come to light and Joyful Exiles goes something like this:
They are trying to pretend he never had much influence. I have seen young pastors take his books, etc off their sites. Piper removed his “I looooove Mark Driscoll’s Theology” video, Sojourn churches announced within weeks they are leaving Acts 29 and starting their own network. All of a sudden Driscoll is busy and stepping down from Acts 29 and Chandler is taking over. (never mind Driscoll had just said he had to come back and straighten Acts 29 out and Chandler had been on the board for several years and well aware of what Mark teaches)
These are just a few things I have seen. Now, if you bring his name up on any SBC REformed blog, you are deleted or told he never had much influence.
I literally had a Sojourn pastor tell me that Driscoll was never really very influential with them. (Seriously? His teaching over the years made them WANT to be involved with Acts 29? That says a lot about who they really are. They went to his boot camps and were trained by Driscoll, Mahaney and others who love this power over people)
Instead of taking stock on why they (PASTORS!!!) were so easily deceieved by Driscoll they are trying to distance themselves. See, the people in the pews who pay for these YRR church plants would not approve of Driscoll and they know it. Word was getting out about what folks were really paying for.
On Pastor Mark Driscoll introduction to the bible series of the book of Esther
I have a real problem with anyone interpreting Esther like that . . . . To be honest, words fail me when I even try to explain myself—when I try to explain how I just cannot even conceive of Esther like that. The dynamic nature of the book is entirely eroded when we assign such meaning to it: such specific meaning. I just … again, words really fail me here.
The King wasn’t looking for a concubine, but his new queen. He went to considerable lengths to do just that. Esther was biblically portrayed as chaste, honorable, nobel, decent, obedient, and of natural beauty.
Have you no shame Pastor Mark Driscoll?
Pastor John MacArthur said in 2009 concerning Pastor Mark Driscoll’s exposition of the Song Of Songs: “When 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all,” it is talking about elders in particular. Those in public ministry must be rebuked publicly when their sin is repeated, and public, and confirmed by multiple witnesses. Nevertheless, I have written Mark privately with my concerns. He rejected my counsel. As a matter of fact, he preached the sermon I have been quoting from seven weeks after receiving my private letter encouraging him to take seriously the standard of holiness Scripture holds pastors to. Here is a small selection from the six-page letter I sent him:
“[Y]ou can[not] make a biblical case for Christians to embrace worldly fads—especially when those fads are diametrically at odds with the wholesome speech, pure mind, and chaste behavior that God calls us to display. At its core, this is about ideology. No matter how culture changes, the truth never does. But the more the church accommodates the baser elements of the culture, the more she will inevitably compromise her message. We must not betray our words through our actions; we must be in the world but not of it. . . . . It’s vital that you not send one message about the importance of sound doctrine and a totally different message about the importance of sound speech and irreproachable pure-mindedness.”
Pastor John MacArthur continues: “Mark Driscoll’s response to that admonition and the things he has said since have only magnified my concern. Mark did indeed express regret a few years ago over the reputation his tongue has earned him. Yet no substantive change is observable. Just a few weeks ago, in an angry diatribe leveled at men in his congregation, Driscoll once again threw in a totally unnecessary expletive. A few weeks before that, he made a public mockery of Ecclesiastes 9:10 (something he has done repeatedly), by making a joke of it on national television. So here are two more inappropriate Driscoll videos being passed around by young people and college students for whom I bear some pastoral responsibility. In their immaturity, they typically think it’s wonderfully cool and transparent for a pastor to talk like that. And they feel free to curse and joke in a similar manner in more casual settings. It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.”
Pastor John MacArthur concludes: Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years. At some point the plea that this is a maturity issue and Mark Driscoll just needs time to mature wears thin. In the meantime, the media is having a field day writing stories that suggest trashy talk is one of the hallmarks of the “New Calvinism;” and countless students whom I love and am personally acquainted with are being led into similar carnal behavior by imitating Mark Driscoll’s speech and lifestyle. Enough is enough. Yes, I did inform John Piper and C. J. Mahaney of my concerns about this material several weeks ago. I itemized all of these issues in much more thorough detail than I have written about them here, and I expressly told them I was preparing this series of articles for the blog.To those asking why pastors Piper and Mahaney (and others in positions of key leadership) haven’t publicly expressed similar concerns of their own, that is not a question for me. I hope you will write and ask them.” John MacArthur, April 17th, 2009; “The Rape Of Solomon’s Song”
Is Pastor Mark Driscoll repeating the same error?
The call to be a faithful minister of Christ, and a preacher of the word of God, points to the error of highlighting one’s own experience over the word of God, over the clear instructions of the Bible. Embellishing the scriptures carries a very severe penally.
Driscoll never did explain what was “not right” at Acts 29 that necessitated him becoming president again and that for just a couple of months. Most of the plans involved branding and logo adjustments, things for which Driscoll’s visionary leadership would seem completely unnecessary. 😉
RE: Estelle on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM,
Rimsky-Korsakov’s ~ Scheherazade ~ contains some of the most hauntingly beautiful passages ever written for violin. One does not need to stretch very far to see that it could just as well have been written for Esther too. Definitely not written for dullards whose high points in life are defined by cage fights.
And Dee, thanks again for providing push-back against aberrant ideologies which put Christendom in bad odor with the world at large.
Yes, I love Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherezade as well.
Pam, thanks for your post re Sydney. I too greatly respect a lot of what the Jensens have done, but I feel that it is all getting a bit much now. Sydney has a huge influence on the Reform grouping in the Church of England in the UK. While 10-15 years ago I thought they were a great thing, now I am not at all convinced. They are at least however in favour of decent scholarship and haven’t gone for the celebrity minister thing.
Perhaps our convictions (or our rejection of other convictions) are sometimes coloured more than we know by opponents or proponents whom we come to personally know (and dislike).
MacArthur also believes in the elect. The question for me is does he believe that Mark is one of the elect or is he a wolf? From what it appears to be, he thinks CJ Mahaney and John Piper are part of the elect.
I’ll think about writing a post, although I’m not sure I know enough about what to write. I actually ran into an old friend on Friday and during our brief catch-up we were lamenting how in Sydney Anglican circles it’s becoming hard to hold a different opinion on things. I think that’s what is most problematic; not that the Diocese has an official position, but that dissent and dissenters are criticised too vehemently. That serves to inflate what could be much more minor issues into bigger ones.
On a lighter note, I laughed hard at the video. As a cello player I can completely relate – yes I’ve played Pachebel’s Canon, yes the cello part is horribly dull.
It also reminded me of this video, which is similar but in my opinion, a bit funnier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
(Warning, some occasional foul language).
My mother used to listen to Driscoll’s sermons, but stopped a few months back. When I asked her for her take on his planned Esther sermons, she said she’s really disappointed, and she has come to think a lot of the things he says are for shock value to hold the interest of his young audience. I’m so glad she’s not listening to him anymore.
Our bass player said the same thing to me! 🙂
My husband and i had a great bit laugh over that video. I may put it into a post one of these days (along with warning re. occ foul language-but point made).
Calvinistas are the same, the world over. Thin skinned men who cannot stand the courage of their convictions and must pretend that everyone agrees with them. — Dee
Or seize power and MAKE everyone agree with them. Whether they sieze power in a church or try for the entire country.
You said something that I myself have have observed on many occasions. “Though conservative Christian myself, I have quite a few uber liberal and/or atheist people in my life and I have to concede that they are wiser, more ethical, and more compassionate in many ways than Christians are.” — Dee
Probably because they’re NOT trying to be Holy(TM) or Godly(TM), so they can just be? Problem with being Godly(TM) is having to distinguish yourself from That Filthy Publican Over There, and the constant one-upmanship to PROVE you’re One of The Elect. And More Elect than the other Godly Guy.
P.S. …the constant one-upmanship to PROVE you’re One of The Elect. And More Elect than the other Godly Guy.
In a way, it’s sort of like that old joke about two guys being chased by a grizzly bear — “I don’t need to outrun the bear; I only need to outrun you.” Substitute Hell or Damnation for the bear.
And it’s also like the Zero-Sum Game, where the only way to rise up yourself is to push someone else down. Like you can only be Elect/Saved if someone else is Damned.
Problem with being Godly(TM) is having to distinguish yourself from That Filthy Publican Over There, and the constant one-upmanship to PROVE you’re One of The Elect. And More Elect than the other Godly Guy.
As soon as you’re in a situation where you feel you have to prove you’re “elect” you are in trouble.
I’ve had that happen sometimes. Most folks I’ve dealt with in my Christian life haven’t been this way but the ones that are do a number on you. You can’t quite put your finger on it but you feel somehow you are being measured against some invisible, unspoken standard and are more likely than not failing and you don’t know why. Every word you say is being assessed and evaluated. There is no fellowship, only measurement. Very Big Brotheresque.
Anonymous, It only works because we seek approval or to fit in with those types. This whole thing is about exposing what it is so people will know to look to Christ. And those people are not representing Christ.
The heartbreaking thing is that these guys really believe that living out strict patriarchy will somehow present a beautiful picture of Christ to the world, a picture that the world will recognize as being better than its current state.
In reality, the patriarchs that I know look like lazy little boys who let women do the hard work but then demand to get all the credit for being good leaders. They talk about being protectors and providers, but that really means doing the glamorous jobs and letting the women clean the house and slowly go insane from having no help with the kids all day.
Is it any WONDER that atheists would look at that and run a mile to stay away from Christianity?
It makes me so upset that I can’t even think about it most days.
Da Box Is Checked: Call Upon Da Heavenly-Roto-Ruter-Man?
RU confronted by the rabid-reformed? Prodigious Elect checkers?
It would seen the only way to win is not to play their game.
You will know them when you see them:
The Holy Spirit points to Jesus, those who sit at the master’s table, lift him (Jesus) up!
All else is snake-oil.
We all know who makes dat stuff!
—> if your happy in Jesus, and you know it, clap your hands…
clap! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap! clap!
“God has already declared His love for us and that will never change.”
Re: Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherezade
That’s one of my husband’s favorites too! 🙂
Thanks, IronClad, for posting the MacArthur quotes. I had heard about them, but had never read them. Good words.
It’s really sad that no one can seem to get through to Mark Driscoll before this all becomes very tragic. I don’t see it ending any other way if he isn’t willing to listen to other influential people around him.
And I feel extremely sorry for his wife. It’s just really, really sad.
Dee & Pam:
News from Down Under
Same Sex “Marriage” Proposal Overwhelmingly Defeated
Sad observer- you are completely right. The only people that that looks like abundant life too are immature men. It looks like death to most.
TedS – yes, two defeats, two further bills going before parliament, although they will both also be defeated for the same reasons. In our parliamentary system, political parties normally tell their members what vote to cast on any bill. One some issues parties will allow what is called a ‘conscience vote’, where individual parliamentarians choose what side of an issue to support. For gay marriage, one of our two main parties, Labor (the government) allowed conscience votes, but the other party, Liberal (despite the name they’re the conservative party), did not allow conscience votes but required all members to vote against both bills.
…did not allow conscience votes but required all members to vote against both bills.
Wow. I’d think that such blatant abuse of voting in a legislative system would be illegal, but then, I admittedly know little about the whys and wherefores of the Australian government.
numo – It’s not an uncommon thing in parliamentary systems, and exists in all Westminster systems of government. For most issues it isn’t a problem – although we elect our local MP, we really elect their party (or an independent if you want, but there aren’t many of those) and the positions the party represents. (As an aside, while being required to vote on party lines seems an abuse to you, I find the strictness of your two party system disturbing – and we don’t even have all that many politicians who aren’t in the main two parties, but we do have them at all levels of government. So I guess each others’ political system seems bizarre.) And while it might seem antidemocratic, the parties generally hold votes in their party room to decide their position on issues. It can be imposed from the top, but if there are enough dissenting voices, the opposing view will win.
Wikipedia’s article on conscience votes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote
Queen Esther did not have sex with King Ahaseurus before marrying him. Mordecai did not present Esther to the King as a sex slave but as a potential bride. Esther was never a sex slave. It seems that everyone is wrong about Esther today.
Esther was one of many women gathered together to become part of the king’s large harem, and in that day and age, women would not have had the ability to say no if they did not want to be part of that culling process. The text doesn’t tell us if Esther wanted to do this–maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but her wants had no bearing on whether it happened to her or not.
Considering that the king would have sex with each of these women once and then they became part of his harem, that is outside what Christians would consider the normal, healthy range of marital sexual activity, even if he was technically “married” to all of them. That is a situation in which he is “using” many, many women instead of sticking faithfully to one (or, in that day and age, a few) wife/wives. That is why people are using the term “sex slave.” It’s a much more accurate description of what was going on. It would not be accurate to say that the king was somehow being a faithful partner to that many different women, or that they were all benefiting from being treated as queens. They weren’t. They were concubines.
Esther became a queen, yes. But she started out as just one of many women who would probably be used like a concubine and then never be with the king again.
How are you so sure of this? I have read Esther and do not see that she married him unless you are assuming that all concubines, (hundreds of them probably), were all married to the king. Such sweet ceremonies of commitment those would be! Could you tell me where you learned this in the Bible-verses if possible. I would love to know where they are found.
As for sex slaves, I believe that one is a sex slave if a king tells his soldiers to go get good-looking females, gussy them up and have them come into him one by one to perform sex and then discards them (put into a “used” harem) to live out their lives. That is abusive and degrading to any woman.
I really want to know why I am wrong and you are right.
The text simply doesn’t say anywhere that the king lay with Esther. That’s all I got.
I was too quick to comment the first time. I agree with you though that Driscoll’s interpretation is absurd.
I just finished reading Driscoll’s second sermon of his Esther’s series, he still carried on from the first sermon most of time spent again giving everyone very clear images of the debauchery of the day. He even had a throne made for him that he sits in in the beginning of the service. His constant description of Esther’s beautiful nakedness is just plain cruel to his audience. As he rightly preaches some things regarding how we should view our spouses with attraction to whatever they look like, it just nullifies it when being so descriptive with the decadence of Xerxes kingdom. I don’t know how anyone in his churches could have had pure thoughts during he sermon. I’ve always likedcchurch to be an oasis from the world system even ifjust for 2 hours a week. Mark’s church is morelike going a raunchy comedy hour where you need to have a few drinks to even be entertained by the comic. I will give him credit though for this line, it made me laugh.
“Here’s what I believe. I believe that Vashti made a noble, courageous, brave, moral decision. She stood up to a guy who was never stood up to. Nobody ever told him no. I mean, they thought that the sun spoke through this guy. They thought he was god-man, and Vashti says, “No. He’s just nasty man and he’s asking me to do something nasty.” It’s in the Hebrew. “And that’s nasty, and I don’t want to be nasty, and I don’t want to do nasty, and just because he’s nasty, I’m going to say no to Mr. Nasty.” I believe she made a good decision. I believe she made the right decision.”
That’s interesting. Regardless of whether the queen was right to refuse the king’s command, I often felt that the king’s command on this occasion was frivolous and prompted (so I read in the passage) by too much wine and general merriment, and that he treated her less as a wife than an object to be displayed, like a hunting trophy.
So the Driscoll house would appear divided on whether Vashti made the right decision then?
Real Marriage=Grace says Vashti made a bad choice for a bad reason
Esther=Mark says Vashti made a brave choice for good reasons
For those who didn’t notice the significantly different interpretations the Driscolls have presented about Vashti in mass media this year.
Grace merely reflects Driscolls schizophrenic views. Driscoll decided it was about time for another splash and Esther was a good one Garce says and does precisely what Driscoll wants her to say and do. If she did not, my guess is brimstone would spew forth in that house.
I just finished reading Driscoll’s second sermon of his Esther’s series, he still carried on from the first sermon most of time spent again giving everyone very clear images of the debauchery of the day. He even had a throne made for him that he sits in in the beginning of the service. His constant description of Esther’s beautiful nakedness is just plain cruel to his audience. — Patti
Sounds like Schaap isn’t the only preacher who “polishes his shaft” in the pulpit. And how else can the Righteous(TM) get their porn fix?
Real Marriage=Grace says Vashti made a bad choice for a bad reason
Esther=Mark says Vashti made a brave choice for good reasons
For those who didn’t notice the significantly different interpretations the Driscolls have presented about Vashti in mass media this year. — WTH
1) And Oceania has ALWAYS been at Peace with Eurasia, Comrade.
2) Mark = MAN. Grace = WOMAN. As in “Me Man! Me Say This! You Woman! You! Shut! Up!”
Garce says and does precisely what Driscoll wants her to say and do. If she did not, my guess is brimstone would spew forth in that house. — Dee
Make that “YOU! (smack!) SHUT! (smack!) UP!” After all, this is the Man-o-Gawd whose whole idea of Masculinity is “I Can Beat You Up!!!!!” (Though I’d like to see just how I-Can-Beat-You-Up macho he is in a REAL situation where HE’s the one who can get hurt.)
The king on his throne….
Oh my! I am speechless!
“Here’s what I believe. I believe that Vashti made a noble, courageous, brave, moral decision. She stood up to a guy who was never stood up to. Nobody ever told him no. I mean, they thought that the sun spoke through this guy. They thought he was god-man, and Vashti says, “No. He’s just nasty man and he’s asking me to do something nasty.” It’s in the Hebrew. “And that’s nasty, and I don’t want to be nasty, and I don’t want to do nasty, and just because he’s nasty, I’m going to say no to Mr. Nasty.” I believe she made a good decision. I believe she made the right decision.” Mark Driscoll
Seeng how Mark COULD be describing himself above, maybe this is Mark’s subconscious speaking to him 🙂 Maybe he wishes his queen would say “NO” to him . . . maybe I’m dreaming.
Bridget: ‘Maybe he wishes his queen would say “NO” to him . . . maybe I’m dreaming.’
Yeah, I’d say you are dreaming about the above. Mark fires people for telling him no. I can only image the melt downs he has had anytime Grace has ever dared to tell him no.
Bridget: “Seeng how Mark COULD be describing himself above, maybe this is Mark’s subconscious speaking to him”
I don’t think you are far off on this one. Our subconsciouses are funny things. They are often honest with us even when our conscious minds are in complete deniel.
Explaining the contradiction is not important, simply noting that it is there suffices for me. I decline to propose a conspiracy when imcompetence is still an option. 😉
Eagle, HUG, this link’s for you two.
Then there’s this one by Mark Goodacre that summarily dismantles the plausibility of what is potentially the more Driscoll-worthy textual interpretation. I wouldn’t want to just leave things hanging with the first link without providing an alternative reading to one that might be construed as operating at a semi-Driscollian level.
The king on his throne….
http://instagram.com/p/Pp1He8MgqQ/ — Heather
No Skubalon, Heather?
HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED THIS FROM A GREAT GOLDEN SADDAM-PALACE THRONE?
WAS THIS IMAGE OF HIM ENTHRONED IN MAJESTY LIVESTREAMED TO ALL THE MARS HILL FRANCHISE GIANT TELESCREENS ONSTAGE?
(Note: Eastern-Rite Liturgical Churches place a LARGE icon of Christ in Majesty in their roof dome visible above and behind the altar, where Mars Hill franchises have their Telescreens.)
This podcast excerpt is worth checking out.
Driscoll’s teaching on Xerxes got Chris Rosebrough’s attention at Fighting for the Faith and he lays out a case that Driscoll is ironically denouncing Xerxes while showing through his vision-casting and leadership style that he IS a Xerxes leader.