“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” Elie Wiesel link
What it's all about
Oh good night! Just when I thought Mark Driscoll was settling down, he is being quoted all over the news media for his comments on "nagging wives." It appears he just cannot help himself. He reminds me of Doug Wilson who seems to like Driscoll link.
On April 15, 2013, we presented an overview of a debate between Thabiti Anyabwile and Doug Wilson link. Wilson, rightly or wrongly, has been accused of latent racism. To be fair, he vehemently denies such a claim. While reviewing this fascinating back and forth dialog, I noted the following.
To compare the horrors of racism to TD Jakes Trinitarian theology (or lack thereof) is insensitive to Anyabwile's discussion. To make matters worse, TD Jakes is also an African American which could lead some to think that Wilson just might have a problem with racial animosity. There are a thousand white preachers he could have quoted to make his point but, no, he had to quote a black guy.
Wilson knows he has a widespread problem with the public's perception of his views on racism, slavery and the Civil War. It would seem to me that anyone, with an ounce of common sense, would be most cautious in how he presents his viewpoints to a watching world. Instead of going after TD Jakes in that conversation, he could have made his point by picking any number of white pastors who have doctrinal problems: Joel Osteen, Ed Young Jr., etc.
At times, it appears to me that he is deliberately goading his audience. Such tactics will only draw the ire of those who already find him off-putting. The old "Do not cause your brother to stumble" would seem like a good approach in this context. I am willing to bet that he disagrees with my usage of this verse in this context. But, then again, maybe he doesn't give a hoot. And that could be the real problem.
In the same way, many people find Mark Driscoll's expressed views on women, along with his perspectives on other subjects like punching his elders in the nose, intimating that Queen Esther was a slut and making fun of British clergy cassocks which he calls dresses, irritating. In other words, it appears to some that Driscoll has both a gender and anger management problem. Now, deep down inside, he may be a loveable little bunny but he externally projects Rottweiler.
Now, let's say Mark suddenly realizes that he is perceived as a misogynist. He truly believes that he is not and he wants to change that perception. (I know, it is a very big assumption but play along). How do you think the following sermon helps his cause?
Here is an article from the Huffington Post titled Mark Driscoll, Megachurch Leaders, Says Nagging Wives Like Water Torture link. If he is concerned that the world does not understand what he means, he should want to clear things up in the following 7 minute video. You can skip the video and still read the controversial comment but the video puts it in perspective.
Here is the targeted comment from the post.
Women who are quarrelsome, who are nags, they are not submitting in accordance to the Bible, Driscoll says.
"Being married to [nagging wives] is like a life sentence, and the guy’s just scratching on his wall every day," he told the congregation. “Proverbs talks about certain women—they’re like a dripping faucet. You ever tried to sleep with a dripping faucet? Plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk. It’s what we use to torture people who are prisoners of war."
So much for jumping back into the fray in a thoughtful fashion. I would say this is just one more epic fail. In fact, he appears to have irritated the writer for the Huffington Post who goes on to quote (and remind us) some of his other more recent controversial statements.
- Obama is most likely not a Christian.
- Masturbation is a form of homosexuality if one's wife is not present.
The article end with a quote that called his recent sex book:
evidence of Mark’s pervasive obsession with sex and a degrading view of women
This proves my point. Driscoll could have been sensitive to his past controversies and carefully treaded these waters. He didn't. So, it would be reasonable to speculate that he is deliberately goading his audience. If so, he violates 1Corinthians13:1 (NIV-Bible Gateway)
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
That is what some of us are becoming to our culture: big, clanging cymbals. Is it any wonder that people are not listening? We have met the enemy and it is us!
**********************
To end this post, I want to share an email that we received. This has been a particularly hard few days for me. I read this email prior to an unexpected conflict involving my participation in this blog. The folks involved do not understand what this community is all about and what you all mean to Deb and me. I put this note here with the hope that those few people will read and understand. Can God use atheists as prophets? The timing of this email was incredible since I received it about 24 hours before learning of the conflict. I have no doubt that this note was sent to encourage me and it did. I send thanks to this dear reader. You helped me to remember what is important.
Dee, my name is ******* and I have spent some time at your great website Although I'm no longer a Christian in any sense of the word and would part ways with your religious belief system, i admire the work you have done on your website by exposing the charlatans, con men and abusive cult leaders in contemporary American evangelical Christianity.
I know Christianity, per se, doesn't have to be oppressive and cult like. If many evangelical Christians were like you, this world would be a better place.Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet you receive your share of abuse from "Christians" for daring to expose these people, but know this unbeliever appreciates what you're doing.
Lydia's Corner:1 Samuel 20:1-21:15 John 9:1-41 Psalm 113:1-114:8 Proverbs 15:15-17
One reason he’s doing it is for attention and publicity. A radio host recently suggested that Driscoll is “manufacturing controversy.” It doesn’t help to advance the cause of Christ. It’s all about Driscoll.
1 Corinthians 13:1 says it all.
Regardless of the complementarian issue, I think it’s a bit unhealthy to keep focussing on one area of human behaviour under the Bible. An old missionary once said he was advised by an older man to “preach the whole counsel of God”. Do all the Christian men in Seattle really have a problem with nagging wives?
Dee – You are so dear to me. Not many people will understand what it feels like to look at a $500,000 lawsuit and feel helpless. You reached out to me when I was in very dark days and continue to walk in the trenches with hurting people on the blog and off the blog. I know this because you did this for me. You are the real deal. You provide hope. You have compassion with shoes on. Don’t let the turkeys get you down. You are doing amazing work here. That dear atheist has it right. Truth is truth and it’s always amazing when atheists can call it faster than those who are supposed to be in The Light. hugs to you, friend!
We were taught in law school that sometimes a case can be won with the following approach, relevant here to people who criticize you (and Deb) for TWW. WHAT JOE says about MARY, often says more about JOE than about MARY, including when, where, and to whom JOE says WHAT.
That people who should be considered learned Christians diss you over the forum you provide for people struggling with faith issues due to abuse display their ignorance and lack of love when they criticize you. Jesus chose to hang out with the outcasts and the sinners and not with the religious elite, and vice versa, because the former received grace and the latter refused to recognize that they might need it, and so rejected his gift of love.
Another application. What Driscoll says about women speaks volumes about his own unloving spirit and little about women. It seems as if God’s love has bounced off his hard heart and had little effect on it.
@ Julie Anne:
@ An Attorney:
Thank you so much. I love you guys and your support mean a whole bunch. Besides, we rejects are a lot more fun than the Pharisees!
MD nags women and seems to enjoy doing so.
there, I said it.
@ dee: Let’s break out the chocolate, Dee!
– Abbess Numo
“This proves my point. Driscoll could have been sensitive to his past controversies and carefully treaded these waters. He didn’t. So, it would be reasonable to speculate that he is deliberately goading his audience. If so, he violates 1Corinthians13:1 (NIV-Bible Gateway)”
Driscoll has always been about headlines, being a shock jock, getting attention any way he can. It is just that now, more folks are catching on. Amazing how many young men fell for it in the YRR and even the SBC NAMB, run by Mohler’s former pastor, Kevin Ezell, who helped fund Acts 29 plants with donor money. Think of all the little old ladies who helped fund Driscoll wannabes!
Actually, I think the men in Seattle have a problem with a nagging pastor!
Every time I read one of Driscoll’s comments about women, I can’t help wondering how they impact his wife.
Dee, I have no idea what problems you have run into (it’s hard to keep up with the volume of what is said here when I’m busy), but, from where I stand, all I have seen is 2 blog owners who consistently manage things with a careful blend of truth and love. You are doing the job God has called you to do
Never doubt that you are needed. I greatly appreciate what you two do. Even when the material causes me to have difficulty, it is still good. I come here every day – it is a…hmmm… a friend’s living room or kitchen table. It is necessary. I have / am benefitting from your work. Thank you.
dee wrote:
Which group did Jesus hang out with?
Julie Anne wrote:
Often it takes an outsider to see the problem. Insiders are so used to the elephant in the living room they see it as a normal part of the furniture. Or it may only be visible from the outside.
Wow. You think Piper and Driscoll could get a group discount at Dr. Freud’s office?
Masturbation is a form of homosexuality if one’s wife is not present.
I can’t help but wonder how many bouts with “homosexuality” he has experienced in his many years (wink, wink).
Honestly, why do people listen to or read this guy? I’ve never understood the fascination with Driscoll, and I have had plenty of Calvinist friends admit the exact same thing to me.
Driscoll could have been sensitive to his past controversies and carefully treaded these waters. He didn’t.
Exactly. He often reminds me of the fool written about in Proverbs: rash, thoughtless, careless, stubborn . . . I could go on. I realize that is a harsh statement, but, in all honesty, that’s not my problem, it’s his!
@ Argo:
I really did lol (laugh out loud) — too much.
Now that I’ve listened to that video, I honestly think Driscoll has a problem communicating with women. That whole bit about disagreeing with your husband in public putting him in a lose/lose situation made no sense to me. Why can’t a man talk about things with his wife the way he would with another man? Does he believe that women are incapable of rational discussion? my husband and I have never had this problem! The same goes for the examples he gives of a wife telling her husband she thinks he’s wrong. Every one of those examples was an “I feel” statement. Huh? If I think my husband’s wrong about something I’ll give him a rational reason, not because I don’t get all sorts of intuitive feelings about stuff (I do) but because rational argument is the language he understands and pays attention to.
Also, what is the crazy cycle? I thought we’d had some things to work through in 36 years of marriage, but I honestly don’t know what he’s talking about .. but then neither of us is a wildly volatile person
@ William Birch:
@ William Birch:
🙂
I just about moaned out loud in distress when I heard Driscoll say that two men can talk out their differences, but husbands and wives can’t.
Can you hear that? That is me banging my head against the brick wall!
I want to be civil, but this drives me out of my mind!
Jenny Rae Armstrong has an interesting blog post about this same nagging wife thing…
http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2013/05/01/dripping-faucet-wives-and-internet-reactivism-a-defense-of-mark-driscoll-sort-of/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JennyRaeArmstrongFreelanceWriter+%28Jenny+Rae+Armstrong%2C+Freelance+Writer%29
Well, that link looks weird. I hope it works.
Lynne T wrote:
Yes!
What I hear when I listen to this mantra is that Driscol, and men like him, are so insecure they can’t have a normal relationship with women like they do with men when it comes to sharing ideas, challenging one another, resolving conflict or making decisions.
What is it about women that frightens him so? Are they going to reveal his weaknesses because they are not enamored with him like his male followers? If he lets his wife speak her mind, will her comments reveal his ignorance? Seriously, what is it that he fears so?
Does Driscoll ever give his definition of nagging? I’ll be he considers all of the following nagging: reminding a husband to do anything that he agreed to do (or that he is better suited for than the wife), telling him he needs to stop drinking/get off drugs/go to the doctor/eat healthier/start exercising, telling him he’s a jerk/rude/disrespectful to anyone (especially the wife or kids), etc.
In short, I’m predicting that he thinks a wife telling her husband anything he doesn’t want to hear, especially more than once, is nagging. She’s supposed to shut up and take it.
Dee,
Excellent post! Just got home from the Angus Barn where hubby and I celebrated our silver wedding anniversary. 🙂 I seem to recall that you dined there fairly recently. 😉
When the Driscolls reach that milestone, I hope they will be as happily married as we are.
William Birch wrote:
I think it has something to do with age and inexperience. :o) My guess is that he has been around long enough many have simply outgrown him. He must recruit new 20 somethings constantly to stay afloat.
@ Katie:
I’ve decided that guys like Driscoll are both attracted to and repulsed by women’s bodies.
“Greek medical writers differ in their ideas about male and female bodies. The Hippocratic school presented men and women as separate species (what we might call a “two sex” model), whereas Aristotle considered women imperfect or defective men in what has been termed a “one sex” model (Laqueur: 8). While men’s bodies were hot, dry, and compact, women’s bodies were cool, moist, and spongy (Dean-Jones: chap. 1). Further, women’s bodies, being more porous than men’s, were thought to be more open to outside influences. Thus, women lacked the firm control of bodily boundaries that men had. Women changed shape during pregnancy, and they leaked: blood, tears, and emotion. “Since woman does not bound herself,she must be bounded. This is achieved by organization of her space,
prescription of her gestures, ordering of her rituals, imposition of headgear, attendants, and other trappings” (Carson 1990: 156). “Women are pollutable, polluted, and polluting in several ways at once. . . They are intimate with formlessness and the unbounded in their alliance with the wet, the wild, and raw nature. They are, as individuals, comparatively formless themselves, without firm control of personal boundaries . . .” (Carson 1990: 158-59). The Greeks thought that women were especially unable to control their sexuality and natural body processes and so affected the world around them, potentially “polluting” it.
The Greek word for pollution, miasma, has the basic sense of “defilement” or “impairment of a thing’s integrity” (Parker 2005: 3).”
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Whenever there is a gender restriction at my church, I’m the first to annoy someone by mentioning that my moist tender lady bits prevent me from offering any help. It’s the best way to make someone fall silent and leave.
@ Deb:
Angus Barn? I celebrated my 10th there! Good steak!
@ Deb:
Happy Anniversary!
@ Argo:
Here's what we ordered: http://www.yelp.com/menu/angus-barn-raleigh/item/chateaubriand
We highly recommend it!
“Masturbation is a form of homosexuality if one’s wife is not present.”
Well…no. It’s not. Whatever else it may be, it certainly isn’t that. Also he seems unaware that it isn’t just a guy thing in many cases.
“making fun of British clergy cassocks which he calls dresses”
He really should go look at some portraits of his Puritan heroes, because I’m seriously starting to think they all must have been crossdressers. I mean, just look at those girly, sissypants falling bands! ; )
Mark Drisoll is an embarrassment to the word Christian and the church at large.
I don’t know where I’d be today without TWW and SSB. I’m so thankful somebody “gets it” about spiritual abuse. I believe it’s because of these blogs that I’ve been able to retain my faith. I now know my faith is not dependent on any particular church or denomination. Had it not been for Dee, Deb, Julie Anne, and all the wonderful, insightful commenters, I probably would have scrapped Christianity by now and not looked back.
@ numo:
Looking for some chocolate right now.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Your comment really touched my heart! I'm so grateful you have been able to keep the faith despite the nonsense that is masquerading as Christianity these days.
Skip the chocolate, I need cute new summer shoes. That’s something to put my faith in!
Dana & Katie,
I think some men greatly fear the raw and elemental power of women. That’s why I think they’d just as soon cover it up, whether it’s with stretched Holy Writ in the Christian world or burquas in the Islamic regimes. I’d pay money to see a Bene Gesserit sister use the power of voice to make Driscoll get down on all fours, howl at the moon, lift his leg, and pee on a fire hydrant.
@ Muff Potter:
I’ve only ever read the 1st book and it’s partly due to them. They scare the ….. out of me – talk about manipulative!
@ VelvetVoice: I just got a cute pair of Riekers
@ Anon 1:
On a rather serious note, I think you’re very right. He’s like a little fad for the hipster neo-Calvies. I’m quite sure his “five minutes” are up — like four minutes ago.
@through a glass darkly:
There is a site called TinyURL.com which takes big links and makes them manageable.:^)
Here is your link shortened: http://tinyurl.com/chw5qle
Dee:
Illegitimi non carborundum. Blog on!
I just want to say that I’m not married to my teacher or my political leader. I’m married to my best friend. And I don’t know about you guys, but when I had best friends growing up as a kid, we didn’t have to decide who would lead and who would follow.
I’m really not trying to snark on Mark Driscoll in particular here, but rather on that whole brand of thinking. I do NOT understand why it is hard to grasp the concept that marriage is equal like friendship is equal. I do NOT understand why some people assume that marriage HAS to be like a different type of relationship (teacher/student, president/citizen, police officer/damsel in distress) other than friendship.
I don’t think I can listen to that video. The few quotes both here and in the HuffPost article are bad enough.
Also, maybe it’s just my unmarried female naivety, but I’d have thought a man who was comfortable enough to hear and respond to criticisms/questioning/disagreeing by his wife would be a heck of a lot more respected than a whiny manchild who’d rather have an obsequious and mostly-mute cheerleader bedroom toy than a flesh and blood woman with opinions and independence of thought.
As a Christian Seattlite I have been hearing about Driscoll for years and unfortunately so have a of lot the non-Christians up here – just pick up a copy of The Stranger. I have had a lot of friends leave my church and others for Marshill and now many of them are condescending Calvinist jerks. Considering the number of very public and very questionable statements about women Driscoll has made it is still shocking to me that so many smart and independent ladies that I know have started going there.
There are a few odd behaviors I have noticed from Marshill. They interpret the Bible as saying that you can drink, which I don’t dispute, but it seems like an unspoken rule that because you can drink then you must drink. MH events get kind of creepy if beer is available as everyone desperately tries to make sure they are observed with a beer in hand. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say that you can’t get tattoos, again I don’t dispute this, but it seems like if you want to fit in you need one – the more meaningless the better it seems. There is a lot of social pressure to look like a hipster which means everyone looks the same. The most important thing as far as I am concerned is their obsession with predestination because I think most of their growth comes from recruiting from other churches and not from any sort of serious evangelistic outreach.
So if I could some up Marshill in a few words they would be Beer, Tats, Hipsters, and Predestination. I can only attest to what I have seen but there are a lot of folks up here that not very happy with Mark Driscoll and what hes preaching.
@ Bene D:
A very good article. I agree that the brouhaha over the water torture wording is overdone, as it’s not really an IDEA. There’s are plenty of really bad IDEAS in the sermon. This article http://tinyurl.com/cao9f3m focuses on Driscoll’s dissing “rebellious evangelicals” who do word studies. This one also on that same part of the sermon: http://tinyurl.com/d3x6fag
Bottom line, the sermon never gets into what “head” might mean in describing Christ or a husband. He simply assumes “head” must mean “leader”. Then he repeats, many times, “head of the home” or “head of the household”– assuming these to be identical to “head of the wife”. Also, Driscoll wants his audience to go to small group to hear what God says on the topic, rather than studying on their own.
Now one wild thought, late at night. MAYBE to Driscoll, complementarianism is simply a Schtick or gimmick to support the really important -ism— authoritarianism. In concluding the sermon, he says, “We make decisions together. I asked Gracie, “Honey, give me an example of a time when we disagreed about something, and I made the decision, and you had to submit to it.” I gave her forty-nine hours, she couldn’t come up with one. We’ve been together twenty-five years. It’s not like I’m pulling out the I’m-the-head-of-household card all the time. If you have to do that, you’ve got a real problem in your marriage. We pray, talk, work it out together as friends, and then I take responsibility for the decisions that we make together.”
IE: The super-duper-important Bible teaching makes his marriage no different than an egalitarian one. Except that he “takes responsibility”. What would that actually look like? “Honey, I’m sorry we decided totally and completely together to invest all our moolah in that there Ponzi scheme. It’s all totally and completely my fault alone, since I’m leader.”?
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Thank you so much for sharing this, BTDT. Stories like yours build my faith.
Mark Driscoll does not come off as pastoral, but as your macho pastor/drinking buddy next door than can relate and understand the insecure mind of a boy trying to be a man. That’s his “thing”. Hopefully people who listen to him will seen through the show and outgrow him. He’s the shock jock in Reformed circles. Sadly, since so many people come from broken homes, living without an earthly father, and have no sense in how to treat others in love, he has a place to thrive and be relevant. And sadly, this will be his legacy. I pity him.
Dave A A, that anecdote from Driscoll sums up why his variation of complementarianism doesn’t seem functionally different from egalitarianism.
Wasn’t Grace described as Mark’s “functional pastor” at some point? Sounds kinda like mutual submission when it’s put that way.
Has Mark Driscoll actually read about Jesus? There is a very telling parable about a corrupt Judge and a persistent (dare I say “nagging”) widow that he may want to re-read.
How Jesus dealt with the religious authority of the day (Mark says one of the ways wives can be like Jesus is to submit to authority): overturned tables at the temple, called pharisees “a brood of vipers”, said the young men the mentored became twice the son’s of hell that they were. So, there’s submission to earthly authority, Jesus style.
@ Dave:
I thought I read some story where he guilted Grace about cutting her hair the wrong way. This may not technically be a “disagreement,” but since he can’t exactly go order her to reverse the haircut, it’s the closest thing to an order he could have issued in the situation, short of telling her to go out and buy a wig until her hair grew back. So I’m not buying that his marriage is functionally egalitarian, though I agree that functional egalitarianism is the logical conclusion of saying that “pulling the trump card” means your marriage is in trouble.
Another thing I wonder: would it be going too far to say that not only can husbands not tell their wives to sin, but also can’t tell them to violate their conscience on a debatable issue (per Rom. 14)? I’ve never seen anybody go there before but it seems to make sense to me.
Pam wrote:
And this is it.
Driscoll claims to help men overcome porn by getting them to get married when all he really does is get pronified men to marry women and bring the porn attitude into the marriage. The porn attitude is what you describe, Pam.
Now as to why Driscoll would describe his marriage as mostly egal (not HIS words but our interpretation of his words). I can see two possible things at work here. Either Grace has been so reduced by his bullying that she never disagrees to begin with or, Driscoll does have a decent marriage with Grace but he teaches the men and women in his church a view of women that will please and pacify the men and keep them coming back because they are getting some at home, lots of it in a great many porno variations. It is a pretty sweet deal for a lot men at the expense of women. It is better for a woman than being part of the porn industry or otherwise trafficked. But it is still wrong to tell her that being a sex toy is her lot in life, that is what God made her for. That’s not a very good picture of who God is.
Wonder what MD would do with this verse:
1Tim. 5:14 I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household, give none occasion to the adversary for reviling
G3616
From G3617; to be the head of (that is, rule) a family: – guide the house.
Pam wrote:
Pam, oh wow, you described it perfectly. This is exactly what the wives of the Calvinista lay leaders in my church are like. In a one-year small group Bible study one of them spoke up only once. I don’t blame her. Her husband was rude, interrupted people, and wouldn’t listen to anything that didn’t agree lockstep with his John MacArthur-Master’s College beliefs. (Why did I sit through that?) Now I strong suspect that she is a verbal abuse victim.
MD insults me as a woman. And his smirking about it doesn’t make it more friendly.
Dee,
You and Deb have been the lifeboat that God sent out to rescue me. TWW & Wade have renewed and helped to strengthen my faith again in God. I do not have the vocabulary to express just how much you guys have helped me. And from what I read from others here, I’m not the only one. You irritate “them” because you are living out God’s love and concern for those of us who have been hurt by “them”. thank you from the bottom of my heart and don’t let them get you down. You have a WHOLE BUNCH of friends behind you!!! Love you guys.
Muff Potter wrote:
I’d pay a lot of money to see that. Thanks for the great visual that started my day with a good laugh!
Victorious wrote:
Hee Hee. yeah the Greek word used is where we get the word, Despot. :o)
@ Scooter’s Mom:
I have often thought that Dee and Deb have a pastoral gifting. True pastor/shepherds, that is – “poimen” (Gr.); literally, a helper, or feeder of the sheep. That describes them pretty well, don’t you think?
@ sad observer:
Me too. I don’t get it. I’m married to my best friend also and anything like “me over you” would be a real step DOWN in quality of relationship for both of us.
I was thinking the other day about the whole submission thing and while it’s true that I do submit to my husband the motive is never because he’s the man. It’s always a matter of preferring one another out of love. In the mean time he too submits to me in that he will defer to my preferences as often as I will defer to his.
In fact, submission is the wrong word, I think. I think the better word is simply love.
Marge Sweigart wrote:
Amen! Yes! Agree!
Dave A A wrote:
So, OK, wait. That time in the grocery store when he told her to walk ahead of him so he could watch her…you know, that was not something she had to submit to? She was fine with that? Really? She didn’t disagree with that? I mean, there was nothing inside that said “I kinda feel like a cheap piece of meat here?” That wasn’t degrading?
I don’t know what to do with that.
Why would any grown-up take advice from a loud mouthed man in a Mickey Mouse shirt?
Dee, Deb and Julie Anne, as Van Morrison so eloquently sang “Don’t let the ******** (ed) get you down.” You girls keep fighting the good fight! You have more friends in your corner than you could possibly know.
Marge Sweigart wrote:
Pastor/shepherds, Yes, I agree. And that is why “they” have their feathers ruffled!!!! hahaha
William Birch wrote:
It’s only a “homosexual” activity if the person doing it is. Hmm, maybe I should disembark this train of thought before it goes any further…
anonymous wrote:
So she agreed with him filtering her emails before she read them? Sorry but Grace has sounded like a doormat from day one. I don’t think Mark could handle an independent challenging wife.
Dave A A wrote:
Thanks for linking to my post on Driscoll smacking down those who have the temerity to actually follow the example of the Berean church and study the word for themselves. If it was good enough for Paul’s parishioners, it’s funny how Driscoll thinks it’s bad for his own.
Cheers,
Tim
Tim wrote:
Can I do a post featuring your blog post? Pretty please. I would love to post it next week.
I am absolutely flabbergasted. This stuff has to get out there.
Scooter's Mom, Marge S. and others,
Such encouraging words! We are in this together, and we so appreciate your support.
Anon 1 wrote:
It seems to me that she’s not even allowed the concept of disagreeing, so of course there’s no examples of when she was ‘forced’ to submit – when there’s never any other option but to do as you’re told, you can’t really single out one event, can you?
Why does anyone follow this guy?
Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus
Dana wrote:
“A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”
It’s great that the church is still blessed with teaching from the era that thought the world was made of four elements.
Though to be fair to the ancient Greeks, they came up with a lot of clever stuff as well. The penetrates/plants/conquers thing is actually akin to a lot of medieval stuff, when folks were wont simply to parrot Aristotle in order to look learned in matters they hadn’t themselves researched.
Katie wrote:
Katie, Driscoll NEVER said that a husband and wife can’t talk out their differences. Driscoll explicitly states that a wife should express her thoughts and feelings to her husband. She can disagree, but do so respectfully. She shouldn’t pick a fight – picking a fight is not talking out your differences. She shouldn’t cut him down (disagree) publicly. Why? Driscoll explains that the husband is placed in a lose-lose situation. If he responds to his wife, he is perceived by the public as being mean. If he doesn’t respond, then he is perceived as weak. Nothing gets accomplished in resolving the differences. Thus, the public is simply the wrong venue. However, the public doesn’t perceive two men having a disagreement in that way. At worse, it might think they are both jerks.
Joe wrote:
To which public are you referring?
@ dee:
Of course have at it, Dee, if you think it’s interesting enough to hold anyone’s attention. You are welcome to re-blog my post or to write about it within a post of your own here. I figure that’s the nature of the blogosphere anyway.
Cheers,
Tim
Dee and Deb, you have created a place of authentic community here at TWW. It is what I always longed for in a church but never found – a no holds barred truthful, welcoming, loving, real, open, grace-filled, safe community. I learn so much from so many people here and I am very thankful for every one of you.
To me the existence of TWW is an amazing demonstration of God’s love for us all.
“WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A WIFE TO SUBMIT AND RESPECT LIKE JESUS?”
in red 800 point font, all caps, center stage… making a serious point with a raised hand & a serious expression for such an oh-so serious topic…
this freeze frame looks like a Far Side. Complementarianism at its caricature-of-itself finest.
Pedantic punctilious supercilious maximums
(see? a play on words — “supercilious” and “super silly”… get it?)
Joe wrote:
I actually agree for the most part. Better to disagree behind closed doors unless there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed immediately.
But doesn’t it cut both ways? Shouldn’t a husband not disagree with a wife publicly for all of the same reasons?
“She shouldn’t cut him down (disagree) publicly. Why? Driscoll explains that the husband is placed in a lose-lose situation. If he responds to his wife, he is perceived by the public as being mean. If he doesn’t respond, then he is perceived as weak.”
Who made all these rules and innuendoes? Why is “disagree” equalled to “cut him down?” Why can’t the husband and wife have a discussion about a disagreement in love and respect?” Why would the husband be perceived as “mean” if he responds in public? What does public or private have to do with a husband and wife having a conversation regarding a disagreement unless, of course, they are being unkind to one another in the process. The reasoning you give, whether yours or Mark’s, makes no sense. Can you explain further.
@ Bridget:
You articulated my thoughts about Joe’s comment. Is he supposing that the husband and wife cannot be mature adults in their conversation?
Did anyone see Naked Pastor’s cartoon about this?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/04/mark-driscoll-and-dripping-faucet-wives/
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I saw it. I would have spit it out all over my laptop!
On a serious note, to Dee and Deb, thank you, again, for all that you do. I can’t imagine how many hours you spend reading, writing and communicating with people. I know that you have encouraged many people through your blog and that many people appreciate you so much. We’ve all got your backs!
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I suppose the words do need a little definition here. I mean, if you are at a Bible study or talking politics, why wouldn’t disagreement be OK if we’re just talking about thoughts and ideas.
But if we’re talking about a rebuke- a “you ought not to have done that” kind of thing, then I think if possible it is better handled behind closed doors, for the wife OR the husband. But heck, I would think this is true in ALL relationships. Praise in public, correct in private . . .
anonymous wrote:
I don’t know why it doesn’t stand out in the same way to everyone – obviously, MD seems to think it’s not degrading and it’s not voyeuristic – but to me it’s extremely disturbing to even mention something like this in public, the way he did. It helped everyone else think of his wife’s bodily parts in a way which is anything but modest and godly. Voyeuristic is what it is to me. I’d have been highly offended. And this is supposed to be wise and fitting for a pastor?!
@ Jeff S:
I agree with your portrayal. I think that’s the way a loving respectful relationship should work. But, I don’t think, as Joe seems to be implying, that that’s what Driscoll really meant.
By the way, I really admire and respect all you do for victims of domestic abuse. Your experience resonates with me, because my mother was, and is, the abusive one in our family. She was ugly to my dad in private and in public. She was NOT a mature adult about anything.
Monica wrote:
I like to think that when I am at the grocery store, the other shoppers are looking at…groceries! The idea that there is a person, a pastor no less, that goes to the grocery store and checks out behinds is creepy!
Jeff S wrote:
I completely agree with you Jeff, but I have a hard time believing this is what MD was saying. Really, Grace Driscoll ok to OPENLY disagree with Mark on the Bible? Or politics? I don’t think so…
@ Tim:
I agree: it was an excellent response! I’m glad to have found you. God bless.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Thank you for your kind words. It means a lot.
And I agree that MD probably does not mean it the way I said- but that’s the rub- people will hear stuff that sounds kinda right and accept the lie. It seems to me that’s why MD gets away with saying a lot of nonsense that people should know better to not accept.
“He has great soteriology” is not a valid defense for preaching a sermon about wanting to punch his elders in the face.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff – once again, we’re barking up the same hymn-sheet.
@ Jeff S:
I agree that if the issue can’t be discussed with level heads then it should be resolved later in private. Even private disagreement may need a “time out” occassionally until calmness prevails.
The issue with Driscoll, and some others, is the ambiguous nature of their remarks. This allows false ideas and beliefs to ferment into a reality that isn’t necessarily what God intends.
@ Tim:
Good article about “rebellious” word studies. So reading and studying the Bible in its original language, the language in which God saw fit to inspire it, is “rebellious”…?
@ Bridget:
The ambiguous nature of remarks, spoken by a pastor or Christian teacher, are detrimental to those who hear. These types of remarks are then open to the said speaker returning later to say he was misunderstood, or those listening didn’t hear correctly. The onus is on the speaker to make himself clear.
As you said, Jeff, the issue being discussed is not just a female issue but a “believer” issue. Both men and women should respond in kindness to one another. It isn’t just a wife/female issue. I hear just as many men speak to their wives (or men to women) unkindly as I hear women do it.
I guess it is hard to keep hearing from pastors and teachers (some female teachers included) that it is somehow “worse” for this scenario to play out in public to a husband/man than for it to play out in public to a wife/female. It’s always as if there is some kind of “otherness” belonging to a man than to a woman.
@ Bridget:
Quite frankly, the more you hear MD, Piper, and others talk, the more you get the impression that it’s a man’s world and women should just be glad they are allowed to participate at all.
Another thing I hear frequently from conservative evangelicals, not necessarily of Calvinist bent, is that men like the physical side of marriage and women the emotional.
Only.
Like women have no sex drive and men have no need for emotional closeness.
drivel
One thing to consider is when Driscoll uses the word “respect” is he is most likely using with the connotation of “respecting authority/position” as opposed to the basic “common decency as a human being.”
I think everyone would agree that wives shouldn’t be rude to their husbands. But that’s not what Driscoll is talking about. Why else would he interchange the idea of “disagreeing” with “disrespecting.”
Jeff S wrote:
A little “truth” mixed in with the leaven works its magic.
“But I actually agree with much of what he says.”
“You have to understand the context, he’s actually in that godless city full of unchurched liberals.”
“I have actually heard him ‘repent’ from the stage many times.”
“He’s trying to reach the men because the church has become feminized.”
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
To eddectively kill rodents only a tiny bit of poison is mixed into an irresistible morsel of tasty food.
They take the bait, run off looking for water, and die.
unshaken wrote:
Amen!
Jeff S wrote:
That’s the problem. It does cut one way for him, IMO.
@ Anon:
The problem is, almost every teacher gets it wrong on some points. They key is figuring out whether ROOT is corrupted at a very basic level. And I think a really good question to ask of any pastor we might consider following is, “Does this person display an attitude of entitlement?” THAT is the sure sign of a teacher who does not just get it wrong, but is offering truth laced with poison.
Jeff S wrote:
LOL
@ Hester:
And, hence, when in his study of Scripture he references the original languages, is he not, then, betraying his own confession? Honestly . . .
Anon wrote:
Yes, and this is why MD scares me FAR MORE than John Piper, even though the latter’s teaching has done a lot more destruction in my life (in fact, I’ve felt no ill effects from MD’s teaching at all).
Jeff S wrote:
Can you help me understand what you mean a little more? By “entitlement” do you mean they think the ministry is set up to serve them?
@ Kristin:
I’m always intrigued about this issue of changing terms and meanings. Is it intentional? Is it an issue of parroting what has been heard? Is it simply ignorance of the meanings of words?
Take this quote for instance:
“He’s trying to reach the men because the church has become feminized.”
I’ve heard this often. But is it true? What does it actually mean? Why would someone take such a statement and preach an entire sermon responding to it? (It’s been done.) It makes women seem like the perpetrators of “something” upon men; as if feminization has the power to cause men to do or not do what God intends. Why don’t men just be what God intends them to be, which will vary by individual? Maybe the Church is becoming more balanced, as in not “tipped” toward maleness. A struggle to keep some kind of “man power” is what I really see. And it’s a “false power” at that, just the same as “female power” is false.
@ unshaken:
I didn’t write that, I only quoted it from Anonymouse, and then added my own comments.
Monica wrote:
Sorry, that is Anonymous, not Anonymouse. 🙂
Monica wrote:
That works too! 😀 I even like cheese. 🙂
Katie wrote:
Can you help me understand what you mean a little more? By “entitlement” do you mean they think the ministry is set up to serve them?
Sure- I think this quote from the blog “A Cry For Justice” (http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/ full disclosure, I am an editor for the blog) is a little more clear. The context is domestic abuse, but the abuse mentality obviously extends beyond marital relationships:
“Abuse is fundamentally a mentality. It is a mindset of entitlement. The abuser sees himself as entitled. He is the center of the world, and he demands that his victim make him the center of her world. His goal is power and control over others. For him, power and control are his natural right, and he feels quite justified in using whatever means are necessary to obtain that power and control. The abuser is not hampered in these efforts by the pangs of a healthy conscience and indeed often lacks a conscience.”
Joe wrote:
This first statement by MD seems to assume or “predestine” that a husband’s response to a wife disagreeing with him will be harsh or sinful. Isn’t the power of the Holy Spirit able to help us act and respond in love when we may feel disrespected or cut down?
The second choice of “not responding”, again seems narrow. I absolutely believe that for most men it takes far more strength to NOT respond when we feel disrespected in public then to lash out or get mad at someone.
I know when my wife disagrees with me or puts me down I have a choice to get mad or, by God’s grace respond in Love, wait until I’ve had some time and the situation is appropriate, and then, if needed talk to her. ( and yes, i’ve done both)
Saying a wife has to follow a set of “disagreement rules” because men aren’t able to navigate the situation in a loving, redeeming way is what, in my opinion makes men look weak.
This one’s an oldie but a goodie, for those of you who didn’t catch it the first time around:
Mark Driscoll kicks his own ass:
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/driscoll-kicks-own-ass.html
I must admit that I am tired of MD. He is a broken record. We know what he thinks and says and I’m beginning to wonder if many people haven’t caught on and started to ignore him by now. Or does he still have a large following?
At what point can we just ignore him and not give him the publicity that he craves? We should make him really work for our attention.
Eagle wrote:
You might like my response to Piper’s call for a more “masculine” church: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/friday-rewind-11912/
Cheers,
Tim
@ Tim:
Good article.
Jeri Massi has also written a response to Piper’s comments, and placed them in the context of the IFB movement’s views, and Piper’s connections to that movement: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=10396
@ Nicholas:
Thanks for the link to Jeri’s post. (What’s “IFB”, though? I couldn’t find it in that post.)
Jeff S wrote:
“Abuse is fundamentally a mentality. It is a mindset of entitlement. The abuser sees himself as entitled. He is the center of the world, and he demands that his victim make him the center of her world. His goal is power and control over others. For him, power and control are his natural right, and he feels quite justified in using whatever means are necessary to obtain that power and control. The abuser is not hampered in these efforts by the pangs of a healthy conscience and indeed often lacks a conscience.”
Thank you, this clearly describes my last pastor.
I always felt like we were trying to be careful in how we handled or reacted to issues, while he seemingly was not restricted by his conscience. The playing field was not level.
Maybe someone here has already said this, but Pam @ 12:22, “the whiney manchild”. LOL, I’ve wanted to say this for years, I think there might be a lot of arrested development, shall we say? that is being covered up with the whole MD, Piper, SGM men. Their attitude towards women as a whole certainly comes across that way to me.
I’ve noticed that for Mark Driscoll, the longsuffering, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus is for chicks only. He has openly stated that the Jesus of the gospels is too wimpy for him — he can “beat him up” and therefore can’t worship him. But how convenient — suddenly that Jesus makes an appearance when MD wants to nag women about being more submissive and obedient.
MD uses Jesus for his own purposes. When he wants to scare his followers, he says Jesus tells him about their secret sins (cf. “I See Things”). When he wants to be tough, or cool, or “manly,” he summons his own personal Jesus who just happens to endorse violence and vulgarity. But when he wants to shame and control women, he invokes gentle Jesus meek and mild.
BTW, of COURSE spouses who are spiteful and unkind should change their ways. But Mark Driscoll even talking about publicly respecting one’s spouse is rich. Why do I know so much about his wife’s sexual history? Because she’s so open and comfortable with her sexuality? Or because MD has a pathological need to talk about the squeamishly intimate details of his sex life in public all the dang time?
@ Tim:
IFB stands for Independent Fundamental Baptists, often referred to simply as “fundamentalists”.
@ Tim: Jeri is also the head of the fan club for Dr Who. There is life after the IFB.
Caleb W wrote:
Stupid new media picks him up. he supplies them with great fodder for articles on stupid evangelicals. Once he hits the Huffington, I am stuck having a hissy so that I can reinforce that many Christians believe he is bizarre.
Fair enough, Dee. It looks like I need to get the Huffington to have an MD blackout for one year.
lilyrosemary, did MD actually say he couldn’t worship Jesus in regard to his perception of Him as wimpy? SOOOO glad we’re out of SGM, I know a pastor who idolizes MD. All these guys are wrapped up in self absorbed arrogance.
RB wrote:
Sure did. Visit our post on Mark Driscoll: Did I Stutter?
Tim wrote:
Sorry for so long to reply. You’re very welcome!
From Tim’s blog:
“Not only does that sound odd coming from a pastor, but its very presence in the middle of his Scripture reading is ironic in light of what he said to them just before he began the passage:
… should we be God’s messengers or should we be God’s editors?
Going by the number of times he interrupts the Scripture reading to give what he considers to be necessary insights, clarifications and emphases, I’d say he thinks the passage needs a lot of editorializing. And apparently figuring out what the Bible means takes nothing more than listening to him tell you what it means.”
One of MD’s interruptions of the Scripture is, “…washing with water with the word”—the Scriptures—“so that he might present…”
So MD clarifies that Paul means “the Scriptures” when he says “the word”. I immediately ask, Does Paul really mean this? So, Rebellious Evangelical that I be, I took 5 minutes and did a word study on “the word” in Ephesians, as well as Colossians and Philippians. 8 other “the word”s, and none referring to written Scriptures! All referring to personally spoken (or sung) and applied Good News!
Conclusion: MD sounds like he respects the Scripture, but by inserting”the Scriptures” into the Scriptures, he disses the Scriptures.
Hi there. I don’t know if it’s alright for me to comment here, since I seem to be a bit outside of your target audience (in my early twenties, university student, atheistic-leaning agnostic), and while in my younger years I did attend a church with my family that left me extremely wary, I’ve not gone through anything as drastic as most of what you guys post. But I am very interested in religious fundamentalism, and have been lurking around here for a while. I also have a very strong personal moral conviction against child abuse (and while I’d like to think most people would, it seems that it’s not always the case, unfortunately) So I’m sorry if I overstepped my bounds, I just thought I would comment because this has been on my mind recently.
I’m going to come right out and say it: Mark Driscoll sets off my creeper-dar like mad, and unfortunately, I’ve noticed my mom getting into some of his writings, along with some more other sketchy stuff from some of the other guys who get posted on this blog. It is really alarming my father, as well as myself, since until recently my mother never seemed to really care about this “Biblical living 100% of the time” thing, although she tried to live by Jesus’ teachings throughout my entire life.
Anyway, thanks for documenting all of this crud, it’s been helpful to me to help formulate arguments against it when it comes up in my own life, and maybe I can help prevent my mom from getting too involved in this stuff to her detriment.
Cheers.
@ RB:
Here is the whole quotation, for context:
“Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
It’s from a Relevant Magazine article that’s still online but I’m not sure if the link will work if I post it here.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Even if MD’s anecdote is accurate, Inquiring Minds want to know about: “I gave her forty-nine hours, she couldn’t come up with one.” Why on earth would he ask her this and give a 49 hour deadline? And, if she did think of a time he’d played the “headship” card, would she feel free to share it?
Joe wrote:
This is bovine ploppy. If the people you hang out with think a man is weak for listening to his wife, or ‘mean’ for responding (I’m wondering why he’d necessarily be ‘mean’ in response, but that’s a whole other issue), then you’re hanging out with people who are arrogant and insecure and, frankly, not worth anyone’s time.
Dave A A, if we reframe the nature of the discourse to ask if there were any times when Grace advised Mark not to tell a certain joke or certain kind of joke from the pulpit and Mark did it anyway the story might be different. 🙂
At one point, by Mark’s account, Grace had no problem at all telling him that the person in the book he’s most like was Elimelech.
@ lilyrosemary:
I still don’t understand where he got the idea that Jesus is a “prize fighter.” Prize fighters go out and fight people for money…which is kind of the exact opposite of Jesus…?
@ Kaboom
Welcome to TWW! Please tell your mom that Dee and I are Christian wives and mothers who are extremely concerned about what is going on in the conservative corner of Christendom. Our children are now grown (in their early to mid 20s) and all of them are pursuing their faith.
Perhaps you could encourage her to read some of our posts, especially about Mark Driscoll. Just search his name on our blog. We hope you will continue to read and comment.
Hester wrote:
I know! MD is always slamming people for being weak, lax, unorthodox, whatever, but he’s allowed to make up whatever he likes. The rules don’t apply to him.
Tim wrote:
It is even more funny when you consider that for about 1,000 years anyone trying to translate the Bible beyond Latin or Greek was executed. Out of one legalistic pit and straight into the opposite pit. Or, is Mark trying to make 21st C. American English the new Latin – and condemn anyone who dares to move it beyond “his” language?
A well- publicized Barna Research study shows a sharp decline in church attendance among women since the early 1990s–significantly more of a decline than men. This would seem to counter the perception that churches are overly feminized and that we have to “masculinize” them in order to bring the men back. (just Google “Barna research church attendance women”). It makes sense–why would a smart, capble woman want to be part of an organization where she’s a second-class citizen?
@ Val:
“Or, is Mark trying to make 21st C. American English the new Latin – and condemn anyone who dares to move it beyond ‘his’ language?”
It’s like KJV-Only folks, updated. I can see it now – the Texting Bible. LOL-Onlyism.
@ Deb:
Thanks! 🙂 I’ve been lurking for a while, trying to decide whether or not I wanted to bring this up, but it seems like everyone here is pretty nice and at least willing to listen. I will definitely be sending this article to my mom, although I can’t guarantee she’ll read it (she seems to check her email about once a week). I’ll also forward it on to my dad, since he’s been a bit concerned about my mother’s sudden obsession with these different factions and ideologies as well.
Anyway, thank you for responding, I appreciate it! :3
@ Deb:
kaboom,
i hope you do come back and comment. As Deb has already said (who co-owns this blog), you are indeed most welcome.
@ Kaboom:
“Mark Driscoll sets off my creeper-dar like mad”
Oh, trust me. You’re not alone.
RB wrote:
This is perfect. Thanks.
Hester wrote:
Hee hee. Love it.
Anon 1, I didn’t pen that one, Pam did.
Dee, and lilyrosemary, thanks for the quotes on MD. Yuck.
I think I might know a different Jesus than MD does. God knows.
This tactic of “goading” people to hype up controversy and thus the fame of the “goader” is really pretty common in numbers of these types. Wilson, Driscoll, and you will see it in Piper as well. These guys love to put it out there and present themselves as “on the edge.” And they do it all for self-glory and attention. It is actually very, very childish and self-serving. Like naughty little brats, they need to have their posterior chastised and be sent back to their rooms until they decide they aren’t the center of the world.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“The penetrates/plants/conquers thing is actually akin to a lot of medieval stuff, when folks were wont simply to parrot Aristotle in order to look learned in matters they hadn’t themselves researched.”
*************************
this sounds like my church, unfortunately. My pastor (as much as I like him) parrots John Piper & CBMW, some staff and members parrot the pastor.
Also sounds like many a comp/pat blog commenter.
None of them have done due diligence on the topic of “wifely submission” / gender roles / headship. Let alone the simple exercise of thinking things through logically on one’s own.
The fact that they casually throw in complementarian cliched rhetoric into their talking indicates they don’t see the absurdity, the indignity, and the danger of it all — which is evidence that they have not thought things through. “Why do that? What’s the point?” they must have been thinking in the back of their minds.
Very lazy, very simple-minded, extremely naive. So foolish, especially when it concerns something that affects half the world.
Dee wrote:
I was referring to the public that may be forced to listen to the discussion. Here are two examples, in an office situation a wife and husband may meet to go out for lunch and continue a discussion in the elevator. The other coworkers in the elevator are forced to listen. The husband doesn’t want to come across as mean or weak to his coworkers. He is in a lose-lose situation. At a restaurant, the people at the next table want to enjoy a pleasant dinner and not listen to the discussion. Again, the husband is put into a lose-lose situation because he may be perceived as mean or weak.
Jeff Crippen wrote:
yes, and their “market niche” of young guys, often pastors or wannabe pastors, eat it up.
Dee wrote:
Regarding two men – two male coworkers can have an argument about sports in the same elevator I mentioned above. The other coworkers in th elevator may think the two having the argument are over reacting or being jerks, but definately not weak or mean. Its a matter of perception – especially by the non-Christian world. I think that’s all Driscoll was trying to say.
This article from October shows that Doug Wilson’s father, Jim Wilson, was a practioner of this type of “counseling”: http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/abuse-and-the-wilsonian-theology-a-survivors-story/
Here is a video of Jim Wilson and his son Doug: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnSGzjW7v2M
@ Joe:
I would beg to differ with your comment here, especially the section that I bolded…
Sorry, I posted the above comment on the wrong article.
@ Joe:anyone can be mean, and men and boys are very often mean, petty and bullying toward other men and boys.
I’ve seen this too many times to believe otherwise. We humans – regardless of gender – can be cruel or kind. It’s *not* about physical sex at all, imo.
All you need to do is sit unobserved by a school playground and watch who bullies whom during recess, for starters… or even take a gander at the old Charles Atlas ads where a bully kicks sand in another man’s face and proceeds to steal his gf.
If men and women can’t relate as equals, then I’m gonna throw in the towel and go be a hermit(ess) in the forest!
Joe –
Why is the scenario put forth all about the perception surrounding the husband/man? Driscoll is making the assumption that the man has to look a certain way in the eyes of other people/men. The man is not at the mercy of how his wife first treats him. If replying in kindness to his wife during a disagreement in public makes him “look weak,” then Driscoll’s problem is with the Bible and how it says we should respond to others. The problem is not the wife. There are more options than looking “mean or weak.” What about being wise and “winsome” by responding in love and NOT worrying about what it looks like to everyone else?
Joe wrote:
Leaving aside the hyperbole of ‘forced’ to listen, my mind still boggles at people who have such simplistic views of ‘manliness’ that any man publicly responding to his wife disagreeing necessarily has to be put into the either/or categories of weak/bully. It’s so ridiculously shallow, so ridiculously black and white. More to the point, it assumes that disagreement/differences of opinion are necessarily arguments. It assumes that it can’t simply be a discussion of different views, it has to be taking sides.
That’s one of the big problems with how Driscoll presents it: he’s presenting everything that could fall into the category of ‘public disagreement’ as equating to ‘argument’. Arguing in public is likely to make both parties look bad (and for more reasons than making the man mean/weak), but it’s easily possible to have a disagreement without having an argument.
Oh, and on your conversation about sport hypothetical, visit Melbourne one day. Aussie Rules football is a religion down there, so nobody in an elevator is going to bat an eyelid at a man and a woman debating about it – instead, they’d join in!
@ Bridget:
This is a great response. What the wife thinks, how she’s perceived, even how to relate to her with kindness, none of this is covered – or apparently considered worth caring about – by Driscoll. The focus is so completely on the importance of the man and how his image trumps her voice. Then again it’s Driscoll, so that’s par for the course.
Pam wrote:
Great point. when you start with a faulty premise the answer is always wrong. He sets up a false dichotomy as a foundational truth. But no one around Mark challenges his faulty premises.
@ Pam: +1
@ Bridget: You got it. This is all pretty mind-boggling to me, and makes me very glad that I’m single. (Seriously.)
Joe, if the other two are co-workers that would be an intra-company dispute and not something public unless there were other people in the elevator. I’m failing to see how that example illustrates the point you seemed to be trying to make. It would not be a matter of who appears to be mean but who is making the best case for the way to deal with something in the business.
The restaurant example is too vague to have much comment about. Moments in which wives will disagree with husbands in public settings of the sort you’re describing are so inevitable that it seems useless to try to give those kinds of examples. If people learn how to disagree respectfully then what some imagined “public” may perceive about the couple seems far less important than how the husband and wife relate to each other in any given context.
numo, I have often considered that if things have to go the way Driscoll describes them as having to go in married life that a life of celibacy can’t be that bad.
modern America isn’t the ancient near East or contemporary far East, either. It’s not like a guy like Mark would really lose face if Grace differed with him on something. They already publicly differ in how to interpret Vashti in the book of Esther anyway.
Deb wrote:
They have to follow because if they got in front of him, his bus would roll over them.
*pa dum dump*
(please leave a tip on my tip jar) 🙂
I see that on the screen behind him (in the video cap at the top of this page) are the words, ‘What does it mean for a wife to submit and respect like Jesus?’
That so many of these pastors are fixated on messages about wives and wives submitting to me says something. Occasionally, I will see a male pastor who then later gives a related sermon, but one titled, “How men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church,” but still, it seems a lot of these guys are a little too interested in the “wife submitting” stuff.
I don’t recall any of these “wife submit” pastors ever addressing the Eph 5:21 verse, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” I guess because that’s not as fun as driving home a one-way submission, where submission is to be understood as being a slave or servant to.
Original post:
I’m very sorry you are having a bad time lately, and that you’re being harassed for the blog. I appreciate your blog.
You are helping a lot of people who have been hurt, are still hurting, and some of whom don’t have a local church body to lean on, or not one they feel they can go to.
I bet you have a lot of lurkers too, people who are being helped by your blog, but they are just too shy or busy to jump in and comment themselves.
Joe wrote:
etc and so forth. None of that is in the Bible, (maybe only the “be respectful” comment, but that could apply to both genders and regardless of marital status). It’s Driscoll’s personal preferences as to how he thinks a wife should interact with her spouse.
About every thing you’re saying he said can be true of the husband as well – husbands should not pick fights with their wives in public, should show respect to their wives, etc.
lilyrosemary wrote (quoting Driscoll):
Christ had a blend and balance of traits most of us would consider male and female: he could be tough and gentle, compassionate and confrontational, there are numerous examples of these traits in the New Testament.
Same can be said of God the Father in the Old Testament.
It does bother me how some Christians try to depict a 100% masculine or manly man God.
@ Patricia Hanlon:
That point was also raised in the book Quitting Church (by Julia Duin), that more and more women are no longer attending a church.
There were some books released in the 1990s that claimed that male participation was down because churches were too feminine in decor and/or preaching a touchy feely Jesus that does not appeal to most men.
Duin surmises, after visiting a lot of churches around 2005 and later, that since so many of them (including Driscoll’s Mars Hill) resembled sports bars (masculine in feel), that churches seem to have swung the pendulum the other direction. They are now trying very hard to appeal to men in the decor and sermon content, which may make some women feel alienated.
(She also gave other reasons why women have stopped attending, that was only one.)
There was another book written on the subject of why women are not going to church so much any more. It’s called The Resignation of Eve.
@ Kaboom:
Kaboom, if your mom is getting into the gender role teachings of these guys, you might be interested in the free articles on Christians for Biblical Equality.
@ Daisy:
$ 🙂
I find it interesting that the church decor and sermon content of the average church would be considered “too feminine” to appeal to men when most churches are lead by men. Wouldn’t it be men who are writing these “feminine” sermons and approving the “feminine” decor?
Since men in leadership and women taking on the more service roles (childcare, cleaning, taking meals to people, etc.) leads to a “feminized” church, maybe it’s time to switch things up?@ Daisy:
Daisy wrote:
His personal preferences may be why he doesn’t want others to look beyond his explanations of what is in God’s word: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/mark-driscoll-smacks-down-rebellious-evangelicals/
Sad way to preach a sermon.
Blessings,
Tim
Leah wrote:
Leah – churches may normally have a male “pastor”. But that doesn’t mean they’re all led by men – especially the congregationally-governed ones! They tend to have very complex and subtle decision-making politics, the practical upshot of which is that they may well be run by women.
Bizarrely enough, though, I do get what the yob pastors mean about “feminised” churches, of which Mars Hill is simply the photographic inverse. But this isn’t actually because they’ve been taken over by women! It was a male friend/elder who recently argued that God’s love for us is directly comparable to a mother’s love for her still-born baby, and that this proved that unconditional love was all we needed (where does “well done, good and faithful servant” fit in?). And it was a male author I’ve recently read who described a typical encounter with God as “like being in a womb of liquid love”.
And it’s not just me that’s put off by this kind of language; it creeps my wife out too!
@ Nick Bulbeck: I agree that often churches, especially congregational ones, are not necessarily male run, but where I live (North Carolina), a woman preaching a sermon is not typical (not that it never happens, there are women pastors here, but not typical). There are even congregations that don’t think women should speak at all in a church service, so I find it ironic that anyone would feel the need to masculinize the church.
I think there are times in Scripture where God reveals Himself with attributes that we would consider to be more motherly and other times more fatherly. I relate to Him as my Father, but I’m not bothered by imagery that may be considered more feminine (although you could definitely go overboard with that to the point of unbalance.) Those good traits of both male and female all come from Him anyway. What bothers me is trying to make the church be either all one way or the other. We’re a family made up of women and men who all need to love others and treat each other the way we want to be treated. A family that should be run or dominated by neither gender.
Daisy wrote:
I have noticed this myself. I have some theories but would love to read the books you list to see if we are on the same page with them. One thing I noticed in the mega world is they hire staff to do everything. There are volunteers on weekends but they are micromanaged in detail to the point there is no room for any creativity at all. You wear a badge and everything is prepackaged for you to do. I think part of it is there is nothing for women much to do at church anymore except teach kids. So many churches have signed on to gender roles even if subtle. It was only a matter of time before they would drift away. When I was growing up, the women did everything in church just as the men did. There were tons of places to serve including teaching mixed gendern classes. And I grew up SBC. But most of that has changed now.
~Extreme Irony Alert~
Mark Driscoll tells pastors to be sensitive to people.
Pastors Mark Driscoll and Andy Stanley: Preach With a ‘Sensitivity to the Lost’
But you see, once you go from a “seeker” to a Christian, and if you join Driscoll’s church, he is fine throwing you under the bus if you displease him in some way:
Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus
Another irony alert. Within that first link (Christian Post), Driscoll is quoted as saying:
It’s up to you and your church to educate and explain those terms, guy.
Trying to be relevant is one thing that is driving mature Christians out of the church. It’s dumbing down the faith or trying to make the faith trendy to attract frat boys, which has no value to people who are looking for serious answers to serious problems in life, or just wanting to learn more about God.
@ anonymous:
Oh – was that a tip for me? Thank you. 🙂
Leah wrote:
I agree.
I’m a woman, but I’m put off by churches where the decor is hyper feminine, with mauve colored carpets, flowers everywhere, etc. I do like flowers and stuff, but some churches look like Hallmark gift stores.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to go to a church that looks like a manly-man, he-man biker bar.
Either extreme seems ridiculous.
Your other post above that one raised a good point, too. Maybe the males of male-led churches consider interior design to be a feminine enterprise, so they let the ladies choose wall paper, carpet color, etc.
Anon 1 wrote:
Out of the ones I mentioned, I’ve read the one by Duin (Quitting Church). I would like to read Resignation of Eve eventually.
One of the painful and frustrating things to read in some of these books about women leaving church is the staggering waste of talent and skill.
You have all these bright, (usually college educated) women, sometimes they are CEOs of corporations, or they are lawyers, or some like me who have tech skills in other areas (and little interest in typical girly things or in babies), but churches have nothing for us to do.
Churches will generally try to place women into some baby / child / secretary type position, even women who aren’t interested in kids per se, or they will ask a woman who might be educated and trained as a brain surgeon to be a receptionist.
(There’s nothing wrong with the occupation of receptionist, I’m just saying it’s under- utilizing a woman’s education if she has training / skill beyond that.)
@ Daisy:
This combination of careful sensitivity to the lost, and cold contempt for the “found”, seems to be a common factor in organisations that are set up to provide a platform for an ambitious man to preach to large numbers.
I think there are varied reasons for this. For one thing, these men are – at least to some extent – salesmen looking for a “close”. Once they’ve got it, the object of their ambition has been hooked and, like a fish pulled off the line and thrown into the basket, no longer matters to them. They become the responsibility of a cell-group leader once the great evangelist has “led them to the Lord” in a big meeting.
For another thing, there’s a weird but pervasive idea that once a person has professed a belief in the correct theology, they’re “saved”, and that’s it. Praying the sinner’s prayer (not found in scripture, of course) solves all their problems and anything remaining is their own fault.
For another thing, being “sensitive to the lost” who aren’t even in “your church” takes no real love or Christ-like character; just a bit of shrewd strategic thinking which can then easily be presented as “love”. The lost are outside, after all; you don’t spend much time with them and you have no responsibility for strengthening or supporting them other than by persuading them to buy your story – that they’re sinners in need of the sinner’s prayer. On the other hand, being sensitive to the complex needs of people in the church is much harder. You have to demonstrate submission by example not diktat; you have to learn to put others’ needs ahead of yours in a wide variety of ways. That’s much harder to counterfeit if you’re a gifted, but spiritually empty or even unregenerate leader.
There are others, but this post is long enough already…
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“and anything remaining is their own fault.”
Very true, a lot of Christians do have that attitude.
Dr. Carlson made a comment similar to that in his book explaining why so many American Christians mistreat Christians who have mental health problems.
How after someone has been converted, the rest of the church gives them two weeks to two months maximum to get their act together (I guess on their own, or Jesus is supposed to instantly deliver the person of all his issues), but if they are still having any kind of problem after the 2 wk/ 2 month mark after conversion (drug addiction, depression, whatever), it’s their fault.
According to these types of American Christians, being a Christian is supposed to instantly, magically heal you of all problems once and for all. So if you still have a drug addiction, depression, (and in some denominations, physically illness), financial problems or whatever, you are to blame.
You did not pray enough, read the Bible enough, or do ‘whatever’ enough. (Because if you were a good Christian, you’d not be facing any problems in life.)
When Christ said the opposite. He said even if you follow Him you will face persecution in life, and you will have trials. He never said people who are perfect Christians who read their Bibles daily will never suffer.
In American culture particularly, you’re expected to rough out all life’s problems all alone. You’re not even to admit to other people you have problems.
Unless you happen to go to a super supportive church, you will be discouraged or shamed by other Christians for going to them to get your needs met, to admit to needing encouragement or help.
Where there again the Bible says the opposite: the Bible says Christians are supposed to turn to other Christians for help/ support in times of hurt or crisis.
Paul Burleson wrote an excellent post on sarcasm that I highly recommend for anyone who doubts the purpose of using sarcasm.
http://www.vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/
April 22, 2013 post “Using Sarcasm”
According to one page Driscoll also compared husbands and wives to police and speeding motorists, where the husband is the cop in the analogy and the wife is the motorist getting a ticket.
I’m not sure I understand his example. Sometimes women are police officers and they write tickets. What if a female police officer pulls her husband over and gives her husband a ticket?
Excuse me! But why are Mark Driscoll’s comments even controversial to you folks. First, the 7 minute clip about women is part of a much larger hour plus sermon; which indicates the disingenuous dissembling going on by taking only part of a person’s balanced message.
Secondly, women, being members of the fallen human race are just as capable of being the cause of marital problems as men are. There are high maintenance Princesses, who tear down their husbands, often unjustifiable, when the husband’s way of doing life is contrary to the protagorean arrogance of their Lilliputian minds; just as there are control-freak men, who bully their women into shells of their former selves.
Stop being unbalanced and moronic fools. It is no wonder that churches have a 60-40 to 65-35 tilt toward women in attendance, when secular men have to listen to this type of claptrap against their legitimate concerns, by even the Effeminate Church.
@ John Hutchinson:
You emulate your esteemed leader extremely well. Driscoll would be so proud!
Deb wrote:
I’m not sure John is a Driscoll follower. I read the May 8 article in his blog, “An Alternative Interpretation of Woman’s Desire in Genesis 3:16” and found it to be very well thought-out, well-expressed, and Biblically sound. I agree with his conclusion. In short– non-Driscollesque. I also skimmed a couple other articles and saw nothing overtly Driscollesque. The Driscollesque things I see are in his comment “stop being unbalanced and moronic fools” and the phrase “Effeminate Church” (Led by Effemiate Worship Leaders?). But I’ll take those things up with John.
Dave A A
Don’t know anything about John. He doesn’t come across as someone I would want to spend my time getting to know.
John Hutchinson wrote:
Whoo hoo! Another name for what the world is saying about TWW. Moronic fools! Love it.
@ John Hutchinson:
I’d love to talk with you further about your first and second points, and about what you see as the “Effemiate Church” but your insult “unbalanced and moronic fools” must be dealt with first. You refer to Deb and… Who? Some or all of us other commenters? A larger group in church or society? Specific examples might help fools see specific ways to “stop”. Or are you only trying to provoke emotional reactions, to support your other points in a roundabout way?
@ John Hutchinson:
Maybe you think the writers and readers here have only been exposed to Driscoll via the 7 minutes on the clip? Most of the readers here have read or listened to other teachings and interviews by Driscoll. They are able to come to their own conclusions regarding Driscoll, or any person and ideas, beyond what TWW writes. You seem to think that people blindly follow other peoples’ writings and perspectives. Please give everyone here more credit than that.
Bridget wrote:
Yes Bridget, I have been following the trajectory of the vulgar, porno divination Driscoll since Donald Miller mentioned him as his “cussing pastor” in Blue Like Jazz back when Driscoll was emergent and before he found out Reformed was where the money/fame was. I have read a lot of Driscoll’s words and heard many sermons that have either been deleted, edited or redacted over the years. :o)
The only thing that blows my mind about Driscoll is how long and how many people actually took him seriously.
“Stop being unbalanced and moronic fools. It is no wonder that churches have a 60-40 to 65-35 tilt toward women in attendance, when secular men have to listen to this type of claptrap against their legitimate concerns, by even the Effeminate Church.” John Hutchinson
I don’t believe that it is the “secular men” who are having the problem and/or contributing to the discussion (afterall they are not even saved). It is instead some “male Christian leaders” who are bringing it up.
Seems the majority of the blame for men not receiving Christ and being part of “A” church is being laid upon women by Christian men . . . interesting.
I do agree with this:
“Secondly, women, being members of the fallen human race are just as capable of being the cause of marital problems as men are. There are high maintenance Princesses, who tear down their husbands, often unjustifiable, when the husband’s way of doing life is contrary to the protagorean arrogance of their Lilliputian minds; just as there are control-freak men, who bully their women into shells of their former selves.” John Hutchinson
John Hutchinson wrote:
I don’t recall anyone here saying otherwise. You have created a straw man argument.
You also said,
Churches have actually become more masculine in look and feel, probably in reaction to books that were published in the late 1990s declaring that the church was “too feminine.”
I’ve read that Driscoll’s church looks like a sports bar, it’s dark and meant to appeal to males.
If you read more recent books about the decline of church attendance, female participation has gone down quite a bit.
The concerns of never-married, childless women, (such as me), are not addressed by most churches, so we feel unwelcome, as do single men.
Most churches also ignore the concerns and problems particular to the divorced and the widowed, and those with mental and physical disabilities.
I’m not unbalance, moronic, or a fool.
@ Dave A A:
“A woman’s moralist propensity toward stab-the-corpse chastisement of her husband’s failings will push him away. ”
IDK, a bit Driscolesque to me. Which sounds like a ‘who cares about woman’s legitimate concerns?’ the silly nags that we are.
@ Deb:
Since John H’s small flag by his posting name is Canadian, and this blog doesn’t get tons of Canadian visitors, and you can compare I.P. #s behind the scene, and in light of the fact that Wayne B (from Canada) was on here the other day stirring up a little trouble, might John H. be the same guy as Wayne B? I’d definitely compare their IP#s.
Of course, one can get around the IP # situation, but it still might be worth a look.
Dave A A wrote:
If it’s the same guy, too bad he can’t express himself as maturely and eloquently on this blog as you are saying he writes on his blog. (I don’t think I have the nerve to go read his blog.)
@ Bridget:
That is true, I’ve seen other people on other sites discuss Driscoll, review his comments and sermons, and I’ve listened to a small number of Driscoll’s sermons/lectures on You Tube. I’ve read a couple of Driscoll’s blog posts.
Chris Rosebrough, who hosts “Fighting for the Faith,” critiques Mark Driscoll on occasion; here’s his link:
Mark Driscoll discussed on ‘Fighting for the Faith’ podcasts
This blog is not the only one that on occasion critiques Driscoll’s views and comments. There are many, many other blogs out there who have discussed Driscoll’s teachings.
–
@ Daisy:
Indeed. My first exposure to Park Fiscal was listening to every word of a complete sermon series with some younger Christian friends who asked us to join them in the exercise. Prior to that I knew nothing of Fiscal other than the name. In fact, the person who’d mentioned him to me thought highly of him, so I was predisposed to like the sermon series in question. This predisposition lasted until it collapsed under the sheer weight of basic inaccuracy in Fiscal’s logic, explanation of contrary views, Greek translation, and overall exegesis. And all of that was before I discovered about the sacking of Petrie and Meyer, or the boasts about bodies under the bus, and other things that I simply cannot reconcile with a strong and gifted leader who nevertheless has imbibed a Christ-like character.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I don’t recall exactly when (probably about a year, or two years ago) or where I first heard of Driscoll, but I don’t believe it was at Wartburg Watch.
I don’t remember what I was looking for online exactly, maybe articles about gender roles or singleness, and Driscoll’s name kept turning up, along with Piper.
I did eventually find this blog (TWW) from looking up more stuff on Driscoll and Piper, because I was horrified by their views and wanted to find out if they were really teaching/saying this stuff, and what others thought.
This may have been among one of the earliest blogs I found when I was looking up Driscoll, but I had already seen several other blogs cover his antics, and watched a few of his sermons.
@ Patti:
Maybe I should say, “It doesn’t sound like he LIKES Driscoll, but he does sound LIKE Driscoll.”
@ Nick Bulbeck:
What Nick says is true for me, as well.
Pingback: Mark Driscoll and the Song of Songs | Meanderings of a Christian Mind
Pingback: Betrayal of Men by the Evangelical Mind (Part 2) | Just and the Justifier
Pingback: Betrayal of Men by the Evangelical Mind (Part 2) | Meanderings of a Christian Mind