When Will TGC and Friends Admit That Mark Driscoll Taught Tacky Theology ?

“In a Christianity Today article titled, ‘A Jesus for Real Men’, Driscoll is quoted as saying that ‘real men’ avoid the church because it projects a ‘Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ’. However, according to Driscoll, ‘real men’ – like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists – are ‘dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes’. The article states this is the sort of Christ men are drawn to – what Driscoll calls ‘Ultimate Fighting Jesus’.  link

Recently, The Gospel Coalition posted Seattle Reboot: Life After Mars Hill  written by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra.

     

I was pleased to see that a woman wrote this article, erroneously believing that she would get the gender/sexuality problems with Driscoll's ministry. I was wrong. His misogynistic views on women were legendary. She, on the other hand, wrote a mediocre, *it's all good*, post. But, then again, TGC wouldn't let her really describe what happened because many of the boyz were complicit in letting an abusive and sinful situation last for a long time.

Most anyone who followed the Driscoll fiasco knows of the incredible number of problems which he caused. No walking in the footsteps of the loving Carpenter for this dudebro.

Lots of people were hurt.

I totally agree with the following statement.  

The collapse of Mars Hill released a tidal wave of hurt, disillusioned people. Many quit Mars Hill; some quit church or Christianity altogether. Hundreds limped into other area churches, asking about church bylaws and pastoral pay structures before even introducing themselves.

This part of the post was helpful. It discussed how former Mars Hill members who showed up at other local churches had suspicions about how churches are run. They asked questions about pastors' salaries and church bylaws. TWW hopes they never, ever stop asking questions like this. Driscoll made a lot of money in his time at Mars Hill and very few questions were asked about where all the money went.

Some local pastors believe that Mars Hill attendees were taught well.

This is deeply concerning to us. Here is one pastor's take on it.

Folks coming from Mars Hill have been well taught,” Sinnett said. “They have a basic understanding of the gospel and what it means to live on mission. They have a real heart for their city, and what it looks like for a husband to lead his family spiritually. A lot of those big rocks were in place.”

Think about this, folks. These poor people, who were taught by Driscollm understand the gospel™?!  This probably means that they are Calvinists and complementarian which is defined as a husband leading his family. The women, as usual, is not worthy of being mentioned. Forget about single people as well. 

Janet Mefferd and I were discussing some of the so called *teachings* of Driscoll and had a good time remembering lots of issues.

1. These people learned that their leader had visions of people having sex, aka pornovision, and they were told that this was gift of discernment.

Seriously? 

Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill-A Tutorial on Spiritual Abuse

2. They learned that Queen Esther of the Bible was a slut because Driscoll's teen daughter told him she was.

3. The infamous Song of Solomon sermon.

Folks, this was so bad it was removed from the websites. We even did Scriptural analysis of his ridiculous exegesis

4. Christians who want to do word studies of thee Bible are rebellious.

Mark Driscoll: Only Rebel Christians Do Word Studies. So, Rebel!

5. Driscoll's strange applications of prophets, priests, and kings in today's church

Mark Driscoll – Prophet, Priest, and/or King?

6. Brother Marks' obsession with sex.

A number of people claim that Driscoll did not leave due to sexual sin just some mistakes. In certain circles, sexual sin is limited to adultery. However, sexual sin can involve a lot more than just the act of sex.

The first times the Deebs heard about Driscoll was in 2009 when he decided to do a lecture for Campus Crusade at UNC, Chapel Hill. During this lecture he discussed all sorts of things including anal sex. Debs daughter was present. for the talk which we wrote about in Brother Mark’s Traveling Sex Show just after we started blogging. Driscoll had a tendency to joke about sex as well as talk about it incessantly. Read about his Song of Solomon sermon in Edinburgh, Scotland. It was so risque that it was removed from a website.

Here is a post 4 Awful Things Pastor Mark Driscoll Has Said Besides Calling Women “Penis Homes”. I contend that Driscoll had, and may still have, a problem with sex. Sadly, he made his problem the problem of his congregation that had to listen to him.

7. Driscoll plagiarized quite a bit of material. Janet Mefferd called him on it and The Gospel™ Coalition boyz called for a boycott of Mefferd. They have never apologized even though Mefferd was 100% correct.

The sad part of this is that Justin Taylor of TGC told people to boycott Janet because she confronted Driscoll.  You can find lots of posts on the myriad of citation problems with Driscoll's books at Warren Throckmorton's website here.

8. Driscoll showed a profound ignorance on the application of church discipline.

Here is one example. Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill-A Tutorial on Spiritual Abuse.
There are plenty more where that came from.

9. Driscoll demonstrated poor doctrinal understanding of demons.

Driscoll held demon trials in his church which were deeply disturbing to the people involved. 

10. Are these mistakes or are people afraid to use the word *sin?*

See what this commenter had to say. Mark didn't sin. He made *mistakes.* Those who exposed the *mistakes* are the real sinners.

Pastor Mark's teaching has greatly impacted my life. I am encouraged to see many positive things and spiritual growth come even from such a painful time for that church community. I would love to see a follow up story, showing God's healing and renewing based on what God is doing through Pastor Mark's church, Trinity in Phoenix. We serve a God that is far greater than our mistakes. 

We leave you with a number of comments that Driscoll made over the years. We put a lot of work into the "Did He Stutter" post. We think the words speak to the character, or lack thereof, of Mark Driscoll. There is so much more to write about like his threats to beat up his elders or driving his bus over those who were not on board with him but we would be here all night.

So why was this posted at The Gospel Coalition?

TGC has never acknowledged their role in propping up Mark Driscoll. Justin Taylor has never apologized for his rants against Janet Mefferd. John Piper was one of Driscoll's lap dogs, complimenting his theology and sermons. Sadly, it was those outside of TGC who stood up against the sinful goings on with Mark Driscoll. 

It looks like the people of Mars Hill know how to give money. Maybe that is why they are valuable to TGC and friends. It usually is about the Benjamins.

In addition, “you don’t have to persuade them that giving is a good, mature, and holy thing to do,” Braga said. “You aren’t fighting some funky theology. You’re fighting really good theology that went in weird ways in certain contexts.”

No, these folks have not been exposed to good theology and shame on those in the TGC who played along with Driscoll for years while insulting those who were trying to get the truth out there.


Comments

When Will TGC and Friends Admit That Mark Driscoll Taught Tacky Theology ? — 367 Comments

  1. My answer to the title of this post….Never. Because he gave their Brand of Neo-Calvinism a jump start into success. They owe him their gratitude for paving the way.

  2. And don’t forget how he despicably treated his wife, Grace, in Real Marriage – having the audacity to shame her while he did the same thing prior to being married. What kind of example is that of the way a husband treats his wife? Arrogant and selfish!

  3. plagiarism is not a “mistake”…. I would be fired for the level/amount of plagarism Mark Driscol did…… I have seen it happen..

  4. TGC is not a Gospel coalition … it is a Calvinist coalition. They will stick together to the bitter end. TGC leaders preach the same thing as Driscoll, albeit in a more civilized package. They might admit that Driscoll is tacky, but come up short admitting that his theology is. Bottom-line, they have to support his theology, lest they cast doubt on theirs. They can throw the man under the bus, but not his message.

  5. Darlene wrote:

    And don’t forget how he despicably treated his wife, Grace, in Real Marriage

    And then he drug her all over the country to help promote the book at marriage seminars. Driscoll is a sick man, and the church leaders who bring him to their churches to speak on “Real Marriage” are just as sick. I can’t believe New Calvinist women are putting up with this!

  6. Answer to the title question: No.

    ‘A Jesus for Real Men’

    Ugh.

    could we just all agree to stop talking about ‘real’ and ‘not real’ men and women? Because there is no such thing. There are women and men. They are all ‘real’. Whatever that means.

  7. What’s also interesting about this post from a TGC perspective is that they have actually put money behind it by making it a ‘sponsored post’ on Facebook. So not only did the commission it’s writing they want as many people to read it as possible.

  8. ‘A Jesus for Real Men’, Driscoll is quoted as saying that ‘real men’ avoid the church because it projects a ‘Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ’. However, according to Driscoll, ‘real men’ – like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists – are ‘dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes’. The article states this is the sort of Christ men are drawn to – what Driscoll calls ‘Ultimate Fighting Jesus”

    Insecure about his manhood. The childish little man protest too much.

    “had visions of people having sex”

    The angry unhinged brat pervert is having sex fantasies about his church members. He talks and acts like the type. If the men who went to his church were street smart men, (real men) and cared about their wives, they would have never gone back.

    I believe the reason some men get caught up with Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Jack Schaap, C. J. Mahaney, and John Piper is because they are scared of being rejected by women. Women telling them to hit the road, they are misogynistic perverts, and simply not worth it.

    They are very paranoid about their feeble manhoods and are consistently trying to convince themselves and everyone who will listen that they are real men. No, they are not. I have known real men, they did not have to talk about it, it was obvious.

  9. “Folks coming from Mars Hill have been well taught,” Sinnett said. “They have a basic understanding of the gospel and what it means to live on mission. They have a real heart for their city, and what it looks like for a husband to lead his family spiritually. A lot of those big rocks were in place.””
    ++++++++++++++++

    i’m sure there’s enough there for a bullsh|t bingo win. is “big rocks” a thing? maybe he just coined that one. wait….. i think i can hear it melding into the christianese vocabulary at this very moment…. kind of an alka seltzer sound….

    sounds like center square material to me.

  10. I’m from the greater Seattle area. All the injuries named here are valid. I will add this one: Driscoll was “famous” around here and many people heard his teachings. The resultant hurt is one of the deadliest of all: people think they have heard the “gospel” and have (as a completely sensible response) rejected it. For good. So many words of the faith have been destroyed/twisted that it is almost impossible to have a conversation without detailed discussions defining the terms. It’s ground zero of a false-gospel bomb and the radioactivity lives on.

  11. Pastor Mark’s teaching has greatly impacted my life. I am encouraged to see many positive things and spiritual growth come even from such a painful time for that church community. I would love to see a follow up story, showing God’s healing and renewing based on what God is doing through Pastor Mark’s church, Trinity in Phoenix. We serve a God that is far greater than our mistakes.

    It’s definitely back to the sidewalk. I want Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition and the rest of the ignorers and enablers to know that Mark Driscoll is completely unacceptable and they are part of the problem.

  12. Max wrote:

    TGC is not a Gospel coalition … it is a Calvinist coalition. They will stick together to the bitter end. TGC leaders preach the same thing as Driscoll, albeit in a more civilized package. They might admit that Driscoll is tacky, but come up short admitting that his theology is. Bottom-line, they have to support his theology, lest they cast doubt on theirs. They can throw the man under the bus, but not his message.

    I agree with Max. As long as the gospel equals Calvinism, the TGC and NeoCalvinist leaders will not criticize Driscoll’s theology. They don’t see his downfall as a result of his theology. A lack of accountability due to the idolization of church leaders is an inherent issue. Having “yes” men as handpicked elders doesn’t mean accountability. We all need people in our lives who will speak the truth to us in love, especially when we are going astray.

  13. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    plagiarism is not a “mistake”…. I would be fired for the level/amount of plagarism Mark Driscol did…… I have seen it happen..

    I LOVED how he used the passive voice. Not “I made mistakes.” Not “We made mistakes.” Not even “Somehow somebody somewhere made mistakes sometimes.” No siree. “Mistakes were made!”

  14. Driscoll is quoted saying ” ‘real men’ – like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists – are ‘dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes’”

    and then we scroll down to the picture of the smiling person in the plaid vest looking for all the world like a little fat boy

    what exactly IS his message???

  15. @ Darlene:
    I wonder if he ever considered that his own children will someday read what he wrote about their mother?

    This is supposed to be a ‘real man’?

    His behavior towards Grace and his children just goes to prove that there are more horses’ asses out there than there are horses.

  16. Driscoll is twisted, sick. In a way, I feel sorry for Grace, but otoh I can’t help but wonder about her, too. How does she put up with him???

  17. Re:

    Forget about single people as well.

    He kind of did occasionally remember us lowly single folk.

    To the single women who are unable to find a Mr. Right, his attitude is, can be summarzied (as expressed on one blog post), “sucks to be you.” Not much empathy for those of us who pined for Mr. Right and never got one. Thank you Driscoll!

    In another post, as I’ve mentioned before, Driscoll basically feels singleness is an aberration, that God will make most be married (the Bible doesn’t teach this, btw),
    and so, he says singles were designed to be, or will inevitably, end up serving God by living in some far off, remote, village in some third world nation, where they may end up giving their life in service to the Gospel

    As if to say God does not demand or expect married people with kids to sacrifice as much. Only singles are expendable. We don’t really matter because we have no spouse and no kids. We are the canon fodder of Christianity.

    But I’d say more or less, he probably did ignore singles in his time at church – most complementariains do.

    Complementarians are only concerned about marriage and parenthood, because they want to ensure that women get the message they exist only to birth babies and kiss male hiney.

    (Is it “hinney” or “hiney”, one N?, LOL. Too lazy to Google it, apologies!)

  18. Max wrote:

    I can’t believe New Calvinist women are putting up with this!

    History teaches that fear is a powerful motivator. Fear of the lash, fear of the rack, fear of the stake… Theirs is a fear based religion, fear that if you haven’t been chosen before the foundation of the world to go to ‘heaven’ upon expiration from this world, there can be only one other fate for you.
    What better way for neo-cal women to ‘persevere’ (and thereby show that they’re elect) in just about anything that comes down the pike from the chieftains and shamans in the upper levels of their hierarchy?

    “Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

    — Bertrand Russell —

  19. So maybe some of the pastors around Seattle thought Driscoll’s were “well-taught” because they came pre-indoctrinated to open their wallets? That’s very possible. I would imagine that the local neo-cals would also appreciate new members that were well-versed in neo-cal doctrine and pastoral submission at any cost.

    I still think the CT higher-ups had a reason for assigning this puff piece to Ms. Zylstra that goes beyond CYA for the gospel dudes and TGC. I smell marketing. [And I know what marketing smells like!] I know the TWW crew will be watching for the next stop on the Mark Driscoll image rehabilitation tour.

  20. BTW, for the “Wartburg Whiner” blog doofus who lurks here and runs back to his blog to say nasty things about myself, Velour, or Deb and Dee…
    I’m not a feminist, dude. Never have been one.

    I’ve been a right winger my entire life, have disagreed with left wing, secular feminists on lots of things.

    I do think the secular feminists are partially correct on a few topics here and there, but I do not give them a full-on, carte-blanche endorsement across the board on every issue.

    Also, I rejected complementarianism from having gone back and re-read the Bible and seeing that the complementarian manner of interpretation makes the Bible contradicts itself.

    (My rejection of comp initially had zippo, nothing to do with feminism.)

  21. Daisy wrote:

    BTW, for the “Wartburg Whiner” blog doofus who lurks here and runs back to his blog to say nasty things about myself, Velour, or Deb and Dee…
    I’m not a feminist, dude. Never have been one.

    Do tell. Link, please.

    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.

  22. Velour wrote:

    Do tell. Link, please.
    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.

    It’s kind of hard for me to parse what went on.

    I did this blog post on my Miss Daisy blog, and someone with a feminine-sounding screen name (who has posted there before) said,
    “Oh, it looks like this guy at this Wartburg Whiner blog is talking about your blog post.” Then she pasted in the link, so I could go read the post myself.

    I went and skimmed the guy’s blog post, but as I told the lady (or guy??) who left me that comment, I’m not sure if the Whiner guy was blogging about my post,

    or if he was commenting on your and my posts on a thread from THIS blog a few days ago, where you mentioned Soviet women sharp shooters, and I mentioned other women who were in the military and so on.

    I wasn’t quite clear if the guy (in his post) was referring to you only, me only, to you -and- to me both, or to my blog post, titled, “Examples of Girls and Women Being Assertive at Work, in Life, Women as Rescuers and Heroines”

  23. @ Daisy:

    Thanks, Daisy.

    I noticed that he confused various comments, including from men here about the capabilities of women, with a comment I made and a youtube video (a Chinese woman cop taking out a man in 1 move).

    He was back to the harangue that John Piper was right and women shouldn’t be cops etc. Apparently neither he nor John Piper have a clue about law, including federal anti-discrimination laws that passed years ago.

    That blogger conveniently omitted the PA. woman S.W.A.T. team member, the best shooter in her group who scored the highest — including above the men. She passed all of the physical agility tests as well, the same ones the men get.

    The world is changing and these guys don’t know how to handle that. Their loss.

  24. Velour wrote:

    …He was back to the harangue that John Piper was right and women shouldn’t be cops etc.
    …The world is changing and these guys don’t know how to handle that. Their loss.

    Yes, that was one of the points I made here to “Brent” who was in that thread that day who was complaining, and also on my Daisy blog.

    Piper and the Whiner Blog Guy can complain all they want to, but the world has moved on, regardless of what they think.

    It’s a fact that women are already working as cops, in military combat roles, etc, and so on. It doesn’t matter if Piper thinks so or not, that’s not the world we’re living in.

    I’m an ex-complementarian. I no longer live my life by their rules. Complementarianism doesn’t inform me, the choices I make, or how I live my life.

    I think even more and more Christians are abandoning complementarian views.

  25. Daisy wrote:

    It’s a fact that women are already working as cops, in military combat roles, etc, and so on. It doesn’t matter if Piper thinks so or not, that’s not the world we’re living in.
    I’m an ex-complementarian. I no longer live my life by their rules. Complementarianism doesn’t inform me, the choices I make, or how I live my life.

    +1

  26. Daisy wrote:

    I do think the secular feminists are partially correct on a few topics here and there, but I do not give them a full-on, carte-blanche endorsement across the board on every issue.

    I agree with you, Daisy.

    I do, however, consider myself a proud feminist in the tradition of my Scottish Presbyterian grandmother, a scientist and educator who graduated from a prestigious university in the 1920’s, and helped get women the right to vote in the United States.
    She and other women fought so long and so hard for the rights that we have today.

    Much still needs to be done.

    But I won’t let the conservative NeoCal boyz tell us, yet again, how we can define ourselves and the “F” word (Feminism) is somehow a bad word. It’s not. Being hateful, however, is bad no matter what the political persuasion.

  27. Daisy wrote:

    It’s a fact that women are already working as cops, in military combat roles, etc, and so on. It doesn’t matter if Piper thinks so or not, that’s not the world we’re living in.
    I’m an ex-complementarian. I no longer live my life by their rules. Complementarianism doesn’t inform me, the choices I make, or how I live my life.
    I think even more and more Christians are abandoning complementarian views.

    Just a comment on your own blog post, but I would add that complementarian Bible translators have translated the Bible wrong intentionally just to force a complementarian view. From what I can tell, most popular Bible translations translate the NT passages about women more wrong than other passages, but the ESV 2016 controversy kinda took that to the extreme, and even conservative scholars outside the New Cal camp were horrified by it.

    And I wouldn’t worry about that other blogger. The posts are poorly done in general, so I think people probably would rather read here even if they think we’re wrong than read that.

  28. __

    “All In A Dayz $ermon?”

    Re: Réflexions minuté sur la disparition de Mars Hill Church?

    hmmm…

    This ‘church’
    had a chance to survive
    and thrive
    but it was fear’d
    some of its members
    were seen
    as the enemy of filthy lucre (1)
    and those who stealthy kept its purse,
    so under the bus
    went the church,
    bump, bump…
    ___
    1. Lucre: money or profit (from the biblical expression “filthy lucre,” meaning “ill-gained money”
    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-slang-terms-for-money/

    🙂

  29. __

    “Why They So Abuse Anyone Who Loves Him?”

    Maybe they are angry
    that the ‘God’ Jesus reveals
    is not the hateful wrathful Being
    they have sold to their followers?
    so they take Our Lord down
    and belittle Him,
    making fun of ‘Red Letter’ Christians who
    hold Our Lord’s words and actions
    in sacred Scripture
    as central to its meaning,
    who decide that the Christ of the Holy Gospels
    is not ‘manly’ enough for their gang of bullies,
    and who place Our Lord ‘lower’
    in the Holy Trinity in their creation
    of the ESS doctrine,
    or as some do,
    call the Father ‘God’
    but not the Son.
    Painful to witness.
    Must such people always
    attempt to create a ‘god’
    they can ‘control’?
    Because once they have done this,
    then the sacrficing of victims to their ‘god’,
    who is made in their own image,
    can begin in earnest (?)

    –Christiane © (circa June 3rd, 2017)

  30. Driscoll taught a false gospel; tacky, foul-mouthed, pornographic, vulgar, sexually obsessed drivel and pervert, for sure. Then again, it’s a cult we’re talking about, IMO. What else to expect?

  31. On the Healing Journey wrote:

    As long as the gospel equals Calvinism

    They would still reject him if he didn’t get the ‘men are the boss, women are just ‘helpers’ and things to be used by men’ part “right”.

  32. Perhaps these men hold to the adage learned at their mother’s knee – People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    Then can [ and perhaps have ] always call Mark Driscoll up on the phone and dissent or they can take to the internet and try to shame him publically – but if you’re doing that, are you really a friend?

  33. ishy wrote:

    From what I can tell, most popular Bible translations translate the NT passages about women more wrong than other passages

    I wish i had known as a kid that ‘elder’ used for men and ‘older’ used for women were the same word. And the junias/junia stuff. And all the women Paul gave major props to in the NT regarding their ministries. Somehow, none of this stuff made it’s way into sermons that I can recall.

  34. PaJo wrote:

    I’m from the greater Seattle area. All the injuries named here are valid. I will add this one: Driscoll was “famous” around here and many people heard his teachings. The resultant hurt is one of the deadliest of all: people think they have heard the “gospel” and have (as a completely sensible response) rejected it. For good. So many words of the faith have been destroyed/twisted that it is almost impossible to have a conversation without detailed discussions defining the terms. It’s ground zero of a false-gospel bomb and the radioactivity lives on.

    Driscoll and company have degraded the Great Commission, poisoned the gospel message for decades. It’s bad enough some Christians were hood winked into following this clown’s nonsense, worse still is the horrible witness it was is to a non believing world.

  35. ishy wrote:

    The posts are poorly done in general

    Ha, just found it. Wow, that conversation really made this guy freak out. I especially like that he complained about having to go back 2k years ago (actually more) for examples followed immediately by a reference to wwii. Um…

  36. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Driscoll is twisted, sick. In a way, I feel sorry for Grace, but otoh I can’t help but wonder about her, too. How does she put up with him???

    Money? Not all women care what is said or done if the money is good. Whether that’s true for Grace or not, who knows. Still, she has to have made choices for herself and the children…some women are complicit.

  37. Mae wrote:

    Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
    Driscoll is twisted, sick. In a way, I feel sorry for Grace, but otoh I can’t help but wonder about her, too. How does she put up with him???
    Money? Not all women care what is said or done if the money is good. Whether that’s true for Grace or not, who knows. Still, she has to have made choices for herself and the children…some women are complicit.

    I have always worried for Grace’s safety with Mark Driscoll. When she was in college, he drove hours to college to challenge other men in the dorm that she was “his”. Ok, that crosses the line into the control issues of a stalker. Ditto his phone calls to her and checking up on her.

    He reads her emails and doesn’t let her respond. He controls everything about her it seems.

    Can you imagine the danger she’s in when she tries to leave?

    As violence expert Gavin de Becker said in his book The Gift of Fear: “Men who can’t take ‘no’ choose women who can’t say ‘no’.” Seems like the case with the Driscolls.

  38. @ Velour:
    Maybe….I’m not ruling it out. I just don’t always agree that highly visable women are without​ resources to escape.

  39. Pingback: TWW’s Reflections on Driscoll at Mars Hill | 1st Feline Battalion

  40. Guest wrote:

    The angry unhinged brat pervert is having sex fantasies about his church members. He talks and acts like the type. If the men who went to his church were street smart men, (real men) and cared about their wives, they would have never gone back.

    Great comment.

  41. PaJo wrote:

    . The resultant hurt is one of the deadliest of all: people think they have heard the “gospel” and have (as a completely sensible response) rejected it. For good

    Well said.

  42. Dave A A wrote:

    I LOVED how he used the passive voice. Not “I made mistakes.” Not “We made mistakes.” Not even “Somehow somebody somewhere made mistakes sometimes.” No siree. “Mistakes were made!”

    Good pickup.

  43. Dee , Deb oh my word! I never knew Driscol said those things about Queen Esther. I would say to this man “Get thee behind me Satan”. His teaching or whatever you want to call it is straight out of the pit of hell. I could care less where he got his information that is not a study on Esther but a direct attack against the Word of God. Esther was an amazing beautiful example of a Godly woman who perseveres through a situation where most would deem as hopeless. Her bravery and love for God is present throughout the book of Esther. Her love and respect for her uncle is clear and without a doubt this young girl had the hand of God on her life. She sought counsel from her uncle who was a man who honored the Lord. He stayed close by her despite her being in the harem which could have meant death to him. Through her and mordachi the plot to assainate the king was faltered there by Esther and mordachi were able to gain the kings favor. God is never mentioned in the book of Esther yet it is clear He is present through out the book. I’m not fond of our former pastor and what he teaches but I have to say the study he did on Esther opened my eyes up to the bravery of her and her uncle the obedience to the Lord and the fact that God uses the most unlikely people to carry out His will. I am so disgusted with Driscoll him peverting the Word and his direct attack on a woman who should be recognized as a woman of Godly character. Anyways the obsession with sex today has infiltrated the churches and even Christians who attempt to use it as a platform for the sins they struggle with. God has it right whe he says whatsoever things are pure whatsoever things are good think on those things. Thanks for this post today ladies. I want to now go back and do a more in depth study on Esther again

  44. Tacky is a great word, if you understand some of the unspoken connotations. It is used to mean done up like a circus clown (caricature) and selling yourself cheap on the street corner to all comers, or more specifically doing something that reminds one of such a picture.

  45. dee wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Tacky? You are so demure. I would have used stronger language.

    Actually, I did have a stronger word. I had to use a Thesaurus to tone it down.

    LOL

  46. Esther is a revered name in the Jewish faith. Purim is a celebrated holiday still.

    So now a daughter of the house of Driscoll is said to have the power to declare a Jewish biblical heroine ‘a slut’?

    something about the neo-Cals reminds me of the terrible misogyny of the witch-hunt times of old; when innocent women were targeted, tortured, and killed on the say-so of some very malevolent people and yes, sometimes of children who accused them.

    With the rise of a very public misogyny in our land and the neo-Cal version of misogyny involving its children in the process, I wonder if we are seeing a new wave of publicly acceptable discrimination directed at the females of our species?

  47. Guest wrote:

    Driscoll is quoted as saying that ‘real men’ avoid the church because it projects a ‘Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ’.

    This from a guy who looks like a Kewpie Doll. Or maybe the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Yes, I’d say he has some real issues with his own masculinity.Christiane wrote:

    Driscoll is quoted saying ” ‘real men’ – like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists – are ‘dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes’”

    and then we scroll down to the picture of the smiling person in the plaid vest looking for all the world like a little fat boy

    what exactly IS his message???

    Yes, this from a guy who looks like a Kewpie Doll. Or maybe the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Yes, I’d say he has some real issues with his own masculinity.

  48. @ Deb:

    he seems on the clear-headed side, for a TGC person (TGC Australia). I saw this comment on his About page:

    Hi, Stephen. I appreciated your blog post today, “Driscoll and The Bogeyman Narrative”. A few thoughts.

    To some degree, I think you are confusing the glee of the ‘the gospel-less Schadenfreude’ with what is actually a sigh of the collective consciousness’ sense of right, wrong, and the need for justice. Sighs of dismay, sighs of relief.

    About that book…. I think many are waiting for such a book. A comprehensive study is needed. For the sake of the present and the future. The repercussions & consequences are deep and far-reaching.

    You mention that whoever writes it is going to have dig the knife a little deeper than Zylstra was able to. If it is done fairly and honestly, and published as such without the bullying control of the shadowy powerbrokers of Evangelical, Inc., what will be turned up is this: the role of The Gospel Coalition.

    You say, “This thing was not done in the dark, let alone swiftly. The sheep had been bleating – and loudly for some time.

    The problem with church leadership in such lofty settings – and it’s not exclusive to Mars Hill’s set up – is that it is not until the brand reputation is threatened that anything is ever done.”

    TGC enabled Mark Driscoll and used him to further their own pursuits. When he became a liability, when their brand reputation was threatened, they dropped him. Indeed, “The welfare of the broken and bleeding sheep never seems to be the decisive factor in bringing things to a head.”

    However, upon TGC distancing themselves from Mark Driscoll, was anything beyond that ever done? I don’t recall observing The Gospel Coalition taking any responsibility for the consequences of having promoted Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. The consequences: lives and relationships ruined, destroyed by degrees.

    But it seems the brand name(s) [“TGC”, and the names-in-branding of its contributors], pet doctrines, and the rewards of revenue streams and personal significance and power are the deciding factors. The human lives at ground zero bearing the brunt of the impact of these things don’t seem to matter at all.

    The influence of TGC and some of its celebrities is huge. Because so many christians and leaders are impressionable minus critical thinking, ideas and methods which Mark Driscoll generated – things which harm people but protect power at the top — have spread far across denominational lines like a virus. Like a disease.

    The Gospel Coalition and the celebrities it champions have been very irresponsible. They are culpable.

  49. Velour wrote:

    But I won’t let the conservative NeoCal boyz tell us, yet again, how we can define ourselves and the “F” word (Feminism) is somehow a bad word. It’s not. Being hateful, however, is bad no matter what the political persuasion.

    I kind of expanded on my own view of this on my Miss Daisy blog here:

    Complementarian Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings of Non-Comps and Feminism
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/complementarian-misrepresentations-and-misunderstandings-of-non-comps-and-feminism/

    That post is somewhat long and rambling, but I was starting to get pretty sleepy as I was composing it.

    But this whole assumption that anyone who rejects complementarianism is a liberal feminist who hates all men and supports abortion is deeply entrenched among gender comps and a lot of Republicans / conservatives (and I am a conservative and used to be a Republican).

    I do distance myself from the word “feminism” for reasons I explain on my Daisy blog.

  50. Brent wrote:

    Perhaps these men hold to the adage learned at their mother’s knee – People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    “Glass houses”? You mean that these men are — like Driscoll — mean-spirited, power-hungry, misogynistic bullies? And therefore have no right to criticize him, until they renounce their ways? If so, then I agree.

    They can [ and perhaps have ] always call Mark Driscoll up on the phone and dissent or they can take to the internet and try to shame him publically – but if you’re doing that, are you really a friend?

    If it kept him from running over his own sheep (laughing and bragging all the way), then yes, they’d be true friends to him. At the very least, they’d be faithful shepherds, which is what these gospelly men claim to be.

  51. elastigirl wrote:

    I saw this comment on his About page:

    I just saw that as well. Thank you, Pam, if you’re reading here.
    There’s also an excellent reply by Mr Jesperson, beginning, “He had me until he put down “gospel-less Schadenfreude of those post-evangelical bloggers.” This is a clear judgment of motive, something the Gospel clearly tells us not to do. I do not know the hearts of the bloggers who, rightfully, went after Mark Driscoll for the evil he was doing.”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/05/31/mars-hill-church-final-distribution/
    Other great comments on WT’s article, including those by Muslin, not to mention WT himself, who never fails to follow the Benjamins.
    Signed,
    Your affectionate Uncle Satin, AKA Dave, AKA Apostle Appalled

  52. I trust this least eminent moniker isn’t already taken? Or should I go with Apostle Satin?

  53. ishy wrote:

    Just a comment on your own blog post, but I would add that complementarian Bible translators have translated the Bible wrong intentionally just to force a complementarian view. From what I can tell, most popular Bible translations translate the NT passages about women more wrong than other passages, but the ESV 2016 controversy kinda took that to the extreme, and even conservative scholars outside the New Cal camp were horrified by it.

    I was thinking about doing another blog post specifically about the Bible.

    I didn’t intend for the latest post on my blog (title: “Complementarian Misrepresentations and Misunderstandings of Non-Comps and of Feminism”) to delve deeply into complementarianism vis a via the Bible.

    I was thinking of doing another, new separate post eventually on how some of my views of the Bible have changed in the last few years… and in the midst of that, maybe explain how complementarians “get the Bible wrong.”

    Or maybe that should go into its own post, too. I don’t know. If I do such a post, I’d like to include your observations (if I can remember to).

    ishy wrote:

    And I wouldn’t worry about that other blogger. The posts are poorly done in general, so I think people probably would rather read here even if they think we’re wrong than read that.

    LOL. I didn’t find the writing at his blog that great, either.

    To be fair, my writing in some of my Miss Daisy blog posts isn’t really great, either. I sometimes have a hard time articulating my views. I wrote last night blog’s post partially asleep, too, and that didn’t help. 🙂

    The reason I even brought that guy up on my blog and on here: I did visit his “Whiner” blog over a year or more ago, and then stayed away.
    But at my own blog about 3 or 4 days ago, someone stopped by and left a link to his newest blog post on MY blog, saying, “Oh look this guy is talking about YOU on his blog.”

    I do wonder about the person (her/his screen name is “megs48”) who linked to his “Whiner” blog from my Daisy blog. That person is giving off a few red flags for me.

    Anyway, had “megs” not linked to his blog from mine with his latest, newest post, I wouldn’t have known about it. (That Whiner guy has posted in the comments at my Daisy blog a time or two, about a year ago.)

  54. Considering that The Gospel™ Corp has deleted two of my comments on that article, I’m afraid I don’t see them admitting the faults in Driscoll’s theology any time soon.

    My moribund comments (in case any are interested):

    (in response to Meg Watkins Ishikawa)

    You’re offering up Dever and his 9Marks schtick as a model of effective church government? I never would. There are churches affiliated with 9Marks that stand accused of abuses just as bad as any perpetrated at Mars Hill, and perhaps even worse.

    I’ve read Dever’s little pamphlet, and out of all the supposed “essential nine marks of a healthy church”, not one of them is ‘love’. They’re all about discipline and authority and power-power-more-power for the pastor and his buddies.

    (in response to Peter Mahoney)
    Piper was at the front of the line in holding Driscoll accountable…

    Since when? As far as I know, Piper still hasn’t offered a single criticism of Driscoll in public. And Chandler’s Acts29 group didn’t drop him from their network until a few months before the Mars Hill disintegration. Too little, and far, far too late to do any good.

    I can say accountability done rightly will not be done publicly.

    Because… why?

  55. Boston Lady wrote:

    Driscoll taught a false gospel; tacky, foul-mouthed, pornographic, vulgar, sexually obsessed drivel and pervert, for sure. Then again, it’s a cult we’re talking about, IMO. What else to expect?

    I agree, but one thing I find maybe as disturbing (or more so) than Driscoll himself and his obnoxious antics are the number of fans Driscoll had who stood by him, and who still promote him to this day.
    The guy is most obviously not qualified to lead any other Christian in any capacity, not from a biblical stand point, and not from a common sense stand point.

    Also, were Driscoll a manager at a company, I can see how he’d get in trouble with H.R.

    I had a female boss at one job who was somewhat similar to him (she was a bully), and she was a nightmare to work for and with. She got lots of complaints filed against her by different employees with H.R. (They never fired her, though, which they should have done.)

    But I can see how Driscoll would be a nightmare to work for in a secular capacity as well, if he held a secular managerial position. He’d be the sort to bully co-workers, raise the voice at them, nit pick them to death, etc.

  56. What really, really annoys me about this is there is simply no discussion whatsoever about how how harmful Mark Driscoll’s teachings were on women. I think I know the reason for that–the guys who “picked up the pieces” generally agreed with Mark on complementarianism and the role of women in the church and simply didn’t question it.

    The problem is that it NEEDS to be questioned. The emphasis on complementarianism and pushing women into a second-class status is IMHO very wrong. But don’t expect to see that from TGC, Acts 29, Christianity Today or any of the related groups, ministries etc. That’s because they are absolutely invested in male authority and superiority in any way possible.

    This is not to deny the other aspects of Driscollism that were problematic or simply wrong–the abuse of scripture in interpretation, the authoritarianism, the abuse of other leaders and members–but as a class, women regularly and frequently got the hammer. There was only one way to be an acceptable woman in Mars Hill, and that was to be a stay at home mom with kids. (Nothing wrong with that, btw, if it’s your choice.) When the social environment is such that you’re looked upon as not spiritually right for making a different choice about your life, then there’s a real problem.

    And it’s never been fixed. TGC didn’t even confront that in their article.

  57. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Considering that The Gospel™ Corp has deleted two of my comments on that article, I’m afraid I don’t see them admitting the faults in Driscoll’s theology any time soon.

    Glad to know I’m not the only one who got deleted by the Gospel Bully Boys. *rolls eyes*

  58. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    I can say accountability done rightly will not be done publicly.
    Because… why?

    Because special rules apply to gospel bros as compared to, say, a woman trying to get away from her abusive husband in hopes of not being dead in body or spirit?

    I appreciate your attempts, but you’re right that they won’t hear it. No amount of abuse directed at those in the pews will ever be enough to disqualify a man they like, who helps them make money and gain status. And maybe they know, if he goes down, they could go down.

    And apparently it wasn’t a ‘moral’ problem because that only applies to sex (which was probably the woman’s fault anyways, so of course that can be redeemed too).

  59. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    What really, really annoys me about this is there is simply no discussion whatsoever about how how harmful Mark Driscoll’s teachings were on women.

    Either they don’t get it or they don’t care. The ONLY reason I say some people don’t get it is because I see people who otherwise seem to care deeply about things like abuse but still don’t want to hear how comp philosophy causes it.

    But TGC? They don’t care.

  60. On the Healing Journey wrote:

    They don’t see his downfall as a result of his theology.

    Yes, they view Driscoll’s failures as flaws in his character, not his theology. But perhaps his theology enabled his bad behavior. Calvin shunned, excommunicated, and exiled those who disagreed with him in Geneva … and he made no attempts to stop the magistrate from torturing and executing religious dissenters. TWW continues to chronicle bad characters in the reformed movement.

  61. I did read Deb and Dee’s original post last night, but I can’t remember if this was brought up in the post:

    Mark Driscoll’s Recycling Ministry
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/04/06/mark-driscolls-recycling-ministry/

    I’m comfortable (and have been for over a year now) stating I think Driscoll is a wolf. I don’t think he’s a Christian. I think Driscoll is selling Jesus for profit.
    I think that post above to Throckmorton’s article is just one more point of proof of that.

    Why or how anyone can still follow Driscoll, defend him, attend any church he runs, or send him money, is beyond me. I think they must be very naive, I guess.

  62. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Here’s a post where I tackle a Driscoll favorite proof text that really is a sad example of eisegesis where MD inserted his own gender agenda into a text he claimed proves his point. This theological error led to much suffering on my part inflicted by those who followed this teaching and liked to use it like a shame bludgeon.

    My husband is retired military, and I go to Ft. Campbell fairly often for one reason or another. On and around Ft. Campbell, I see people (young people, male and female) who are missing limbs, paralyzed, or otherwise permanently disabled in some way while fighting for our country. A family can not survive on disability checks. These men who can no longer take care of their families physically and financially ……. would Mark Driscoll no longer consider them to be men??? Driscoll’s attitude just makes me want to put him in a wheelchair!

  63. Lea wrote:

    Ha, just found it. Wow, that conversation really made this guy freak out.

    I especially like that he complained about having to go back 2k years ago (actually more) for examples followed immediately by a reference to wwii. Um…

    I found his post a little confusing, as I was telling Velour the other day.

    He did make some kind of remark that it’s lame to have to go back more than 2,000 years to find an example of a woman warrior.

    What that guy fails to recognize is how his fellow complementarians usually like to debate about this subject.

    Your average complementarian screams, “Sola scriptura! The Bible only! Prove it from the Bible!”

    -So okay, from the Bible, there is the example of Deborah in the book of Judges. (As well as a few other biblical women who do not line up with complementarian views.)

    Of course, there are more recent examples of women in combat, as I list on this page:
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/examples-of-girls-and-women-being-assertive-at-work-in-life-women-as-rescuers-and-heroines/

    But if you’re talking to a complementarian who wants purely “BIBLICAL” examples, yes, you have to go back a few thousand years, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

    It’s not my fault that God did not continue updating the Bible until the year 1987 or 2014.

    When you cite “biblical” examples that disprove the comp position, they then go on to water down those examples.

    How a comp will respond:
    ‘Well, um, yes, Deborah led the armies into battle, but that example DOES NOT COUNT, because…’

    If that dude at that blog wants contemporary examples, in addition to my own blog page, he might want to Google for this (it’s on Wiki)
    Women in the Israel Defense Forces

    Via Wiki:

    Women in the Israeli Defense Forces are female soldiers who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israel is one of only a few countries in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women.

    According to the IDF, 535 female Israeli soldiers had been killed in combat operations between the period 1962-2016 (this figure does not include the dozens of female soldiers killed in Israeli service prior to 1962).

    Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948,…

    Hmm. I should probably update my blog post to add that information.

  64. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    My husband is retired military, and I go to Ft. Campbell fairly often for one reason or another.

    Will Camp Backbone be in the vicinity of Ft Campbell?

  65. Mae wrote:

    Maybe….I’m not ruling it out. I just don’t always agree that highly visable women are without​ resources to escape.

    If Grace is codependent, she may not realize she has a “right” to leave. It may not occur to her that leaving is a possibility or an option, even if she has the money to get her own place.

    Especially growing up under Christian codependency, she’s probably had it drilled into her that obedience to God means staying with Mark, never divorcing, putting up with him, etc., and she may want to be pleasing to God.

    She may also be afraid that if she leaves him, he’ll become violent or something.

  66. @ Deb:

    maybe this stephen mcalpine is both close enough and far away enough (Australia, articles of his are posted on TGC Australia website) to be a catalyst of some kind. a catalyst for honesty, integrity, transparency directed at TGC.

    or maybe he’s sold large pieces of his soul as well.

  67. okrapod wrote:

    Tacky is a great word, if you understand some of the unspoken connotations. It is used to mean done up like a circus clown (caricature) and selling yourself cheap on the street corner to all comers, or more specifically doing something that reminds one of such a picture.

    “Tacky” reminds me on one level of the phrase “white trash,” and it is Driscoll under discussion here, so I feel it fits.

  68. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Here’s a post where I tackle a Driscoll favorite proof text that really is a sad example of eisegesis where MD inserted his own gender agenda into a text he claimed proves his point. This theological error led to much suffering on my part inflicted by those who followed this teaching and liked to use it like a shame bludgeon.

    I recall the guy at this blog,
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/
    Tackling that topic in a blog post or two.

    I can’t remember exactly in what posts, but he gets into how even if Driscoll’s interpretation of those passages were correct,…

    It still doesn’t pan out in real life (not for Americans at least), because the reality is that in the American economy of the past ten or so years, most men cannot financially afford to get their own place, marry, and have three kids (or not in their 20s).

    It takes a lot of money to do that (to sustain a nuclear family on one salary alone), and a lot of people today are having a difficult time finding employment, or a position that pays enough.

    I was thinking about doing a post on my own blog along these lines, eventually – how complementarianism, to be feasible, can only work under a very particular set of circumstances.

  69. Daisy wrote:

    But if you’re talking to a complementarian who wants purely “BIBLICAL” examples, yes, you have to go back a few thousand years, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

    Considering the way people had to live 2,000 years ago, “biblical” examples of “complementarian” marriages made sense. No assembly line mass production, no grocery stores, no tractors or combines or automobiles, no washing machines, no water supply systems, no electricity ……. people had to pretty much make/grow their own supplies. In a typical family, everybody had jobs to do to survive. It made sense for the women to do the type work in which they could get their jobs done and tend to small children/infants at the same time.
    Things have changed drastically since then, including laws.

  70. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    The problem is that it NEEDS to be questioned. The emphasis on complementarianism and pushing women into a second-class status is IMHO very wrong. But don’t expect to see that from TGC, Acts 29, Christianity Today or any of the related groups, ministries etc. That’s because they are absolutely invested in male authority and superiority in any way possible.

    I agree.

    About ‘Christianity Today’ magazine, online. I don’t know why, but I find their type of Christianity in regards to women to be the most frustrating.

    They sometimes come close to fully endorsing women, but always draw back.

    It’s like a lot of their writers recognize that there are problems with complementarianism and how women are treated by churches, but they are reluctant to fully fight it and address it, and are reluctant to tell Christians to just chuck complementarinaism into the trash can and be done with it.

    For example, publications such as “Christianity Today” will usually publish these editorials (just this last month, I think, there was another one), where they have a headline like,
    “How You Christian Men Leaders Can Encourage Leadership In Your Fellow Christian Women!”

    However, such editorials usually end up being quite patronizing and never go far enough.

    They may tell the men in such articles to encourage your talented sisters in Christ to serve more in the church nursery, be leaders in the church kitchenette, or to speak up more in group Bible study lessons…

    All of that is fine and dandy, but they’re stopping short of calling out complementarianism for the sexism it is, and they’re stopping short of saying ‘allow women to serve in any and all capacities that they feel called to or are gifted in, even when that includes leading men.’

    – That’s the line they don’t want to cross.
    They will tip toe up to that line very gingerly, but won’t actually put their big toe into the water.

    Their wishy-washy, “pretend” support of women makes the out-right misogyny and patriarchy of a Doug Wilson, John Piper, or a CBMW look more refreshing by comparison (in a sense), since these other more “obvious” sexist guys aren’t pretending to really support women (or not as much).

  71. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    We live 38 miles from Ft. Campbell, but I can take you on a tour! Bring photo ID!

    I’ve been there a few times. It’s about three hours away. I just lost track of where Camp Backbone might be. I’m thinking my wife and I can make the journey.

  72. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    A family can not survive on disability checks. These men who can no longer take care of their families physically and financially ……. would Mark Driscoll no longer consider them to be men??? Driscoll’s attitude just makes me want to put him in a wheelchair!

    I agree with you completely, but complementarians who are deeply vested in comp and defending comp No Matter What are in strong denial mode.

    Over at Julie Anne’s SSB, she’s had a few guests posts about a complementarian lady named L.A. (Lori Alexander).

    LA promotes the same message as Driscoll does – that for a family to be “truly” biblical and obedient to God, a man has to have a job and pay all the bills, while the woman must stay at home.

    When confronted by non-comp women on how this teaching does not work in real life for all people..

    For example,some women never marry, or, their spouse dies, their spouse divorces them – the non-comps say that such women need to have an education and work history to fall back on to support themselves financially.

    LA responds with such naive advice to them, as “God will take care of them,” or, “such women can earn money working on the internet.”

    For some reason I don’t comprehend, God does not always magically intervene and send people jobs or money.

    Secondly, if everyone could make a livable income via selling or marketing stuff online, everyone and their granny would do so.

    Who would not want to be able to sit on their computer all day in their bunny slippers and ratty bath-robe piddling around online?
    Most people have to work for someone else to earn a livable wage.

    These complementarian people don’t factor in exceptions.

    They are in denial or heartless about all the men and women who are UNABLE to live out marriages, or whatever, as they insist should be done.

  73. When Will TGC and Friends Admit That Mark Driscoll Taught Tacky Theology ?

    NEVER.

    Just ask Reichsminister Ribbentrop and Comrade Foreign Minister Molotov between 1938 and 1941.

    “One of Us!
    One of Us!
    Gooble! Gobble!
    One of Us!”
    — Todd Browning, Freaks

  74. Daisy wrote:

    It still doesn’t pan out in real life (not for Americans at least), because the reality is that in the American economy of the past ten or so years, most men cannot financially afford to get their own place, marry, and have three kids (or not in their 20s).

    Never mind “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!” in addition.

  75. Max wrote:

    Yes, they view Driscoll’s failures as flaws in his character, not his theology.

    Party Ideology is Always Pure and Correct, Comrades.

  76. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    What really, really annoys me about this is there is simply no discussion whatsoever about how how harmful Mark Driscoll’s teachings were on women. I think I know the reason for that–the guys who “picked up the pieces” generally agreed with Mark on complementarianism and the role of women in the church and simply didn’t question it.

    And Correct Ideology Cannot Be Questioned.

  77. PaJo wrote:

    The resultant hurt is one of the deadliest of all: people think they have heard the “gospel” and have (as a completely sensible response) rejected it. For good.

    Remember the idea behind vaccination:

    Expose the immune system to a weak/dead/fake version of a pathogen to build immunity to the real thing.

  78. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    This article says church should be more important than family. I don’t think so!!!
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/august-web-only/if-our-families-are-more-important-than-our-churches-we-nee.html?start=1

    I guess it can depend on the particulars, but to a point, I do agree with that guy’s article.

    To anyone who is divorced, widowed, childless, never married who is estranged from their biological family (like I am), it would help if churches played the part of a spiritual family to the single adult, but they are often too wrapped up in supporting people who are still in nuclear families to pay attention to widowers, childless women, divorced people, etc.

    I do think people who are Christians should help and spend time with their biological family, if they have any bio family left.

  79. Mara wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    what exactly IS his message???

    That he is relevant at any given time and you (and I) are less so.

    “Nothing gets Old-Fashioned faster than Over-Relevance.”

    Remember that hip and RELEVANT show, Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In? GROOVY, MAN!

  80. Mara wrote:

    You can add this one under your #3 The Infamous Song of Solomon Sermons. (a.k.a The Peasant Princess Series)

    Yet another look into a ManaGAWD’s sexual fetishes.

    Which is why to me he will always be “Deep Throat Driscoll”.

  81. Muff Potter wrote:

    “Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

    — Bertrand Russell —

    “Fear always works!”

    — Acting Mayor Bellwether, Zootopia

  82. Velour wrote:

    Do tell. Link, please [to the wartburg whiner doofus, which apparently is a Thing].
    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.

    Why isn’t (s)he whining about me? I’m feeling left out.

    The closest I’ve come was when somebody whined about the clan-name “Deebs”, which I first thought of. I don’t like to mention it; I just mention it.

  83. On a lighter note, church can be a good experience. Last night I went to an awesomely well done Lutheran service. It was an eighth grade commencement ceremony in which they did an abbreviated liturgy of the word with the graduates doing the readings, and a brief ‘meditation’ by the pastor (commencement talk) maybe 5 minutes, then gave out the diplomas.

    Then they did something I had never seen done. The pastor announced that there were times when the scripture talking about calling for the elders of the church who would lay hands on people and pray, so they did. Three elders: the new pastor (an older and mellowed man), the community relations director of the school (who is also part of the music team) and is somewhere in his fifties with grown children of his own, and the principal of the school, a 30 year old who just proved himself in the late kerfluffle with the prior pastor having passed through some fire himself in the process. The pastor did all the praying. It was totally a sober and sacred moment beautifully done.

    I was so impressed. You could just feel God all over that place.

    So, for those who wonder-IMO there are a number of better choices than neo-cal just waiting to be found.

    *For those who may not know, a liturgy of the word includes singing, scripture readings, prayer with congregational responses, recitation of the creed and the Lord’s prayer with a homily/ meditation/ few words appropriate to the situation.

  84. It’s absolutely tacky theology! It’s TGC’s made-up house doctrine of “Charismatic Reformed” which makes no sense from the standpoint of using a doctrine to answer questions of Christian practice, but makes complete sense for one who would want to blend the two most authoritarian streams of Protestantism.

    What sinks in with me about this article, is that here are the people who affirm a church forcing a woman to stay married to her husband after she outed him as a pedophile. They believe this because of John Piper’s apostolic prophecy that Jesus didn’t really permit divorce for sexual immorality:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-the-bible-allow-for-divorce-in-the-case-of-adultery

    But when multiple divorces among Christians are all traced back to one church with one pastor who was especially noted for his teachings on gender roles and marriage, as reported by Tricia Wilkerson on this podcast (5:32) and corroborated by the article:

    https://soundcloud.com/pastor-with-no-answers/81-part-2-mars-hill-speaks-w-tricia-wilkerson

    Here’s what they have to say:

    “Some marriages split;

  85. @ Daisy:

    Maybe I’m cynical, but I read this article as “Dear pastors, you can have women kiss your backsides too!”

  86. okrapod wrote:

    I was so impressed. You could just feel God all over that place.

    Beautifully said. The Lutherans have a real sense of the power of the sacred in their liturgy, yes.

  87. Daisy wrote:

    Divorce Minister wrote:

    Here’s a post where I tackle a Driscoll favorite proof text that really is a sad example of eisegesis where MD inserted his own gender agenda into a text he claimed proves his point. This theological error led to much suffering on my part inflicted by those who followed this teaching and liked to use it like a shame bludgeon.

    I recall the guy at this blog,
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/
    Tackling that topic in a blog post or two.

    I can’t remember exactly in what posts, but he gets into how even if Driscoll’s interpretation of those passages were correct,…

    It still doesn’t pan out in real life (not for Americans at least), because the reality is that in the American economy of the past ten or so years, most men cannot financially afford to get their own place, marry, and have three kids (or not in their 20s).

    It takes a lot of money to do that (to sustain a nuclear family on one salary alone), and a lot of people today are having a difficult time finding employment, or a position that pays enough.

    I was thinking about doing a post on my own blog along these lines, eventually – how complementarianism, to be feasible, can only work under a very particular set of circumstances.

    So true. I wonder as well if tying masculinity to money is why MD clung so strongly to it and did all that shady–imo–book/company stuff.

  88. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    My husband is retired military, and I go to Ft. Campbell fairly often for one reason or another. On and around Ft. Campbell, I see people (young people, male and female) who are missing limbs, paralyzed, or otherwise permanently disabled in some way while fighting for our country. A family can not survive on disability checks. These men who can no longer take care of their families physically and financially ……. would Mark Driscoll no longer consider them to be men??? Driscoll’s attitude just makes me want to put him in a wheelchair!

    I love your spirit! The Church would benefit if we could clone you, Nancy Two. 🙂

  89. Daisy wrote:

    She may also be afraid that if she leaves him, he’ll become violent or something.

    I feel sad for Grace. Whatever her outlook on her situation is, I see nothing that she has ever done that deserved how her husband treated her publicly.

  90. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Do tell. Link, please [to the wartburg whiner doofus, which apparently is a Thing].
    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.
    Why isn’t (s)he whining about me? I’m feeling left out.
    The closest I’ve come was when somebody whined about the clan-name “Deebs”, which I first thought of. I don’t like to mention it; I just mention it.

    I have the solution, Nick. Just give a rigorous defense of women a few times and how competent they are and that should land your comment on his blog.

  91. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    This article says church should be more important than family. I don’t think so!!!

    In the world of NeoCalvinism where “church” = “cult” that would be true.

  92. Daisy wrote:

    “Women in the Israel Defense Forces”

    Ahh yes, it’s all coming back to me. I also cited in a comment on that thread that Israel proves John Piper wrong because Israel requires mandatory military service from its women, not just its men. They are a small country surrounded by many enemies and everybody needs to be able to defend the country.

    I also talked about how I met many very tough young Israeli women when I was backpacking in Patagonia, Chile (very tip of South America) who had just completed their mandatory military service.

  93. Mark Driscoll is on the comeback trail would be my guess. I wonder when his new book is due out . . bleah.

  94. Daisy wrote:

    LA promotes the same message as Driscoll does – that for a family to be “truly” biblical and obedient to God, a man has to have a job and pay all the bills, while the woman must stay at home.

    And if the woman is a pediatrician, does she run her practice out of her home? And when is she ‘permitted’ to go ‘on call’ or to attend her patients in hospital each morning? Emergencies?

    Good grief. The knots these men attempt to tie woman up in are ridiculous.

    The day comes, and I say this in my forty-ninth year of marriage, that the husband needs to be cared for and the wife takes up the burdens of that care, even for a temporary time ….. it happens.

    I’m not sure what the neo-Cals are calling ‘marriage’ as they see it;
    but it is NOT ‘marriage’ in the sacramental Christian sense of ‘either to other’ in all seasons of life.

    There is a biblical case to be made for the existence of STRONG women in Christianity, because if marriage is ’till death do us part’, then sooner or later, that strength WILL BE NEEDED.

  95. GreekEpigraph wrote:

    Mark Driscoll is on the comeback trail would be my guess. I wonder when his new book is due out . . bleah.

    the neo-Cal roots grow deep into Driscollism as well as the other ‘isms’ of the patriarchists, so these roots are demanding fresh nourishment from the well of Driscoll’s provision. God have mercy. There will be misogyny of the likes that we have not seen since the days of the witch burnings.

  96. @ Daisy:
    My husband has been a firearms instructor and shooting coach for years. He would tell you women have equal ability in the shooting arena. There are no handicaps in the sport, women often excel.
    The best WW2 snipers were Russian women.
    Normal women do a darn good job of protecting the home front/family, until some man comes along and convinces some women they are out of God’s when they protect themselves and their young.

  97. Mae wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    My husband has been a firearms instructor and shooting coach for years. He would tell you women have equal ability in the shooting arena. There are no handicaps in the sport, women often excel.
    The best WW2 snipers were Russian women.
    Normal women do a darn good job of protecting the home front/family, until some man comes along and convinces some women they are out of God’s when they protect themselves and their young.

    On that other thread, I had posted a video of a woman police vet who is on Philadelphia’s S.W.A.T. team! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RazOVLWWBgU

  98. Daisy wrote:

    some women never marry, or, their spouse dies, their spouse divorces them – the non-comps say that such women need to have an education and work history to fall back on to support themselves financially.
    LA responds with such naive advice to them, as “God will take care of them,” or, “such women can earn money working on the internet.”

    Ya know, that advice just doesn’t square with the equally mindless shaming about personal responsibility. I know way too much about what happens when a father suddenly dies, leaving a widow and small children. Give her credit for getting up in the morning and striving to create family autonomy under new and horrible circumstances. Don’t tell her she must remain invisible and/or pray to be rescued.

  99. “Some use their power to silence … and live in the void of their own increasingly deteriorating, off-course sense of self and meaning. It’s like going mad on a desert island, only with sycophants and room service. It’s like having a compliant compass that agrees north is whatever you want it to be. The tyrant of a family, the tyrant of a little business or a huge enterprise, the tyrant of a … [church?]. Power corrupts, and absolute power often corrupts the awareness of those who possess it. Or reduces it: narcissists, sociopaths, and egomaniacs are people for whom others don’t exist…”

    “…The powerless need to dissemble—that’s how slaves, servants, and women got the reputation of being liars—and the powerful grow stupid on the lies they require from their subordinates and on the lack of need to know about others who are nobody, who don’t count, who’ve been silenced or trained to please. This is why I always pair privilege with obliviousness; obliviousness is privilege’s form of deprivation…” from LitHub, May 30, 2017, by Rebecca Solnit – quoted here on TWW without reference to politics, the article has good points…

    Misogyny and Patriarchy and Pastoral-Leadership-Gone-Awry as privilege and power?

    … recalling that Jesus Himself was addressed as a Rabbi and a Teacher, and taught in the synagogues, (He is All Powerful) however, Jesus called out the powerful corrupt religious leaders of His day, to their great displeasure.

    – In the post: A goofy round boy face pictured innocent yet simple-minded with the little plaid vest, or in the Mickey Mouse T and a hoodie, carrying on with a teen fetish or curiosity with adult intimacy issues under the guise of a spiritual leader in a church public forum of spirituality teaching – seems oblivious.

    One wonders how the followers got to that point of nonsense, and then it (the goofiness) relocated to another locale to pick up where it left off.

  100. JYJames wrote:

    narcissists, sociopaths, and egomaniacs are people for whom others don’t exist

    which explains ‘who’s who’ in the neo-Cal world and who the silenced must be in that world also … non-persons

    that male headship thing requires a throne for the male;
    and the footstool? a kneeling woman, silent, submissive, unimportant, nothing to say that matters to the male, no dignity need be wasted on this non-person because she is invisibly silent in the cage they have built for her, a tomb from which she is forever forbidden to rise because the males have decreed that is also her place for all eternity

  101. dee wrote:

    Guest wrote:

    The angry unhinged brat pervert is having sex fantasies about his church members. He talks and acts like the type. If the men who went to his church were street smart men, (real men) and cared about their wives, they would have never gone back.

    Great comment.

    After punching him in the nose first, of course.

  102. I’m not sure we all know the same Jesus. Where is grace? Where is mercy? Where is forgiveness? Yes Pastor Mark was far from perfect but what person is? I would challenge everyone to sit and watch a full series of his. I was a part of Marshill for two years and all I every saw was a man learning to teacher as a Father not the angry uncle. Man being challenged to stand up and be the head of there families. I was in small groups with women that have been at the church over 7 years and never felt belittled. There is a difference between being a strong women or being a woman of strength. Also the Real marriage book was to help and talk about in a heathy way sex in a marriage.

  103. Daisy wrote:

    Boston Lady wrote:

    Driscoll taught a false gospel; tacky, foul-mouthed, pornographic, vulgar, sexually obsessed drivel and pervert, for sure. Then again, it’s a cult we’re talking about, IMO. What else to expect?

    I agree, but one thing I find maybe as disturbing (or more so) than Driscoll himself and his obnoxious antics are the number of fans Driscoll had who stood by him, and who still promote him to this day.
    The guy is most obviously not qualified to lead any other Christian in any capacity, not from a biblical stand point, and not from a common sense stand point.

    Also, were Driscoll a manager at a company, I can see how he’d get in trouble with H.R.

    I had a female boss at one job who was somewhat similar to him (she was a bully), and she was a nightmare to work for and with. She got lots of complaints filed against her by different employees with H.R. (They never fired her, though, which they should have done.)

    But I can see how Driscoll would be a nightmare to work for in a secular capacity as well, if he held a secular managerial position. He’d be the sort to bully co-workers, raise the voice at them, nit pick them to death, etc.

    Did we work for the same woman?? Lol! But seriously. I retired in December, but I am still having nightmares about this toxic place.

  104. Brent wrote:

    Perhaps these men hold to the adage learned at their mother’s knee – People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
    Then can [ and perhaps have ] always call Mark Driscoll up on the phone and dissent or they can take to the internet and try to shame him publically – but if you’re doing that, are you really a friend?

    I stood outside Driscoll’s church for seven months of Sundays, holding a sign. I NEVER saw the guy. NEVER. He hid from me. And, frankly, I’m one of the most unthreatening people you could meet…a fat, middle-aged white woman. (Dee’s met me, she can attest to that.) But Driscoll was so very, very afraid of me. He’s so afraid of me that if I step a foot on his property, it would be trespassing and I’d be off to jail. I’ve been warned.

    If I didn’t know that Mark Driscoll is not a representative of Jesus but of his own ego, my view of Jesus and Christianity might be hurt by that. However, I’ve figured out that Mark is Mark and he has very little to do with Jesus, except to occasionally fling His name around on a Sunday.

  105. Mae wrote:

    The best WW2 snipers were Russian women.

    Those were some scary ladies. You did NOT want to end up in their crosshairs!

  106. @ Steve Scott:
    “This boy is no longer a boy, he is a Brave,” Old Lodge Skins declares over Little Big Man.

    Too bad Little Plaid Vest Mickey T has, as of yet, not stepped up, but remains Big Little Boy.

  107. JYJames wrote:

    @ Steve Scott:
    “This boy is no longer a boy, he is a Brave,” Old Lodge Skins declares over Little Big Man.

    Too bad Little Plaid Vest Mickey T has, as of yet, not stepped up, but remains Big Little Boy.

    With those KYOOT Pinchable Pudgy Cheeks!

  108. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    But Driscoll was so very, very afraid of me. He’s so afraid of me that if I step a foot on his property, it would be trespassing and I’d be off to jail. I’ve been warned.

    “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! —
    ARMORBEARER! BEAT HER UP!”

  109. Christiane wrote:

    JYJames wrote:

    narcissists, sociopaths, and egomaniacs are people for whom others don’t exist

    which explains ‘who’s who’ in the neo-Cal world and who the silenced must be in that world also … non-persons

    that male headship thing requires a throne for the male;
    and the footstool? a kneeling woman, silent, submissive, unimportant, nothing to say that matters to the male, no dignity need be wasted on this non-person because she is invisibly silent in the cage they have built for her, a tomb from which she is forever forbidden to rise because the males have decreed that is also her place for all eternity.

    https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/biblical-manhood.jpg?w=600

  110. GreekEpigraph wrote:

    Mark Driscoll is on the comeback trail would be my guess. I wonder when his new book is due out . . bleah.

    When he can fork over $210 Grand to ResultSource to juice it onto the best-seller list.

  111. Just like in high school and fandoms.
    It’s always the whiny wet noodles (like Piper) or buttery doughy guys (like Driscoll) who have to constantly tell everybody how Big Manly Studly they are.

    (whining & whimpering) “I’M REALLY A NINJA! I COULD KILL YOU ALL WITH MY LITTLE FINGER!”

  112. JYJames wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Looked up the link. Oh my stars …

    Yeah. Naked Pastor can really draw those zingers.

  113. Christiane wrote:

    and the footstool? a kneeling woman, silent, submissive, unimportant, nothing to say that matters to the male, no dignity need be wasted on this non-person because she is invisibly silent in the cage they have built for her, a tomb from which she is forever forbidden to rise because the males have decreed that is also her place for all eternity

    <Slave Girls of Gor, by Divine Right!

    (If we could peek into the stashes of these Comp Christian Manly Men, would we find full sets of John Norman’s Gor series instead of Harlequin Romances?)

  114. 1. By “tacky theology” do you really mean “heresy”?
    2. All those accusing you gals of having a vendetta against him must be right – after all leading with that picture with that sweater vest… there’s some tacky stuff right there
    (3. Yes, #2 was a joke…)

  115. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    KYOOT

    There’s much here in sync with Middle School:

    – pudginess
    – goofy attire that is a throwback to childhood
    – preoccupation and curiosity with gender
    – immature control and hierarchy in relationships or King of the Playground overreach with unhealthy boundaries
    – unresolved relationships, so quit, relocate, form a new network
    – etc.

    Arrested development?
    Is there a Shrink in the house? Psychotherapist Paula Peach Ehrman? (Joe Ehrman’s wife)

    Coach, NFL Player, now Pastor Joe Ehrman: “I think those three lies of masculinity — athletic ability, sexual conquest, economic success — in many ways, those things have been heightened.”

    “On what it means to be a man: it can only be defined by two things: One, it’s your capacity to love and to be loved. Masculinity ought to be defined in terms of relationships. Second thing, it ought to be defined by commitment … to make the world more fair, more just, more hospitable for every human being… That’s the underline of all humanity — men and women.”

  116. @ Franklin:
    I am terribly sorry that you think that Mark Driscoll was acting in accordance with Scripture. I hope some day that you get to know a real pastor-one who knows your name and is kind to you and doesn’t call women names such a p#$%@ homes.

    The many things he said were abusive and it is too bad that there weren’t real men and enough strong women in that church who could stand up to him. Instead, people cowered in their seats and made up excuses why his bizarre ramblings were normal. They let him threaten to punch elders and fire them so long as they weren’t the ones being abused.

    There is a reason that a large entity like Mars Hill bit the dust. It had money and all sorts of resources, including people like yourself who loved the guy and could excuse his incredibly obvious problems.

    I have followed him extensively since 2009 and I bet I could out quote you on things that he said. I bet I could argue Scripturally why he what he said and role modeled was wrong. The reason is that I know my Bible and didn’t have Driscoll as a teacher.

    Mark Driscoll was a fraud but a very clever fraud and he was able to convince people that he was the real deal. He wasn’t and that is why there is no longer anything called Mars Hill in Seattle.

    Sadly there are still some people who can disregard all that happened was just a misunderstanding. Poor Mark-he just made mistakes. We all make mistakes….How very, very sad! This is Driscoll’s bankrupt legacy.

  117. Franklin wrote:

    I’m not sure we all know the same Jesus. Where is grace? Where is mercy? Where is forgiveness?

    If Mark Driscoll has learned so much, why hasn’t he gone back to all of the people and families he harmed and made amends, starting in Seattle? Mark Driscoll has NEVER made amends for his excommunication and firing of godly Christian elder and Ivy-league attorney Paul Petry, who opposed Driscoll’s un-Biblical consolidation of power.

    In fact, Mark Driscoll says that everyone owes him an apology.

    How old are you? Are you from an alcoholic or otherwise troubled family? Why can’t you make discerning, adult decisions?

    Why aren’t you bothered by the level of damage Driscoll did to Christians and his refusal to apologize. Don’t *real men* apologize? Don’t *real men* not engage in this kind of depravity in the first place?

  118. “There is a difference between being a strong women or being a woman of strength. ”

    Will you please explain what you mean by this?

    “Also the Real marriage book was to help and talk about in a heathy way sex in a marriage.”

    Telling women to have sex against their will, do sex acts aginst their will, and bullying and mocking them if they don’t is heinous. Of course, I say this as a victim of child sexual abuse and not some heartless misogynistic man, a follower of brat Mark Driscoll.

    Mark Driscoll is an embarrassment to Christianity, an embarrassment to “ALL” grown ups, an embarrassment to actual real men who are not hyper paranoid about their manhoods, an embarrassment to men who do not have to demean women to make themselves feel better.

    The man is embarrassing. Any mature grown up that isn’t a raving pervert misogynist sees that.

  119. dee wrote:

    The many things he said were abusive and it is too bad that there weren’t real men and enough strong women in that church who could stand up to him. Instead, people cowered in their seats and made up excuses why his bizarre ramblings were normal. They let him threaten to punch elders and fire them so long as they weren’t the ones being abused.

    weakened people will often mistake a bully for a ‘leader’ and if others around them see what is going on and ‘celebrate’ the bully,
    then more ‘cred’ is piled on …… but there comes a time of reckoning and maybe the SBC is next (?)

    Mars Hill went down ….. what entity(entities) will now fall because of these ‘leaders’ who bully?

    strange that these neo-Cal folks think Our Lord Who could calm the storms and raise the dead with a Word was ‘lesser’ in the Holy Trinity,
    and these bully-thugs, who prance about on stages and belittle women, are strong ‘Christian’ leaders

    I thought Calvinism was a logic thing …. but these neo-Cals don’t ‘get it’, do they? not at all

  120. “How old are you?”

    I wondered if Franklin isn’t fourteen, but I wonder that about all of Mark Driscoll’s followers.

  121. dee wrote:

    Mark Driscoll was a fraud but a very clever fraud and he was able to convince people that he was the real deal. He wasn’t and that is why there is no longer anything called Mars Hill in Seattle.

    YES!!

  122. “people that he was the real deal. He wasn’t and that is why there is no longer anything called Mars Hill in Seattle.”

    I have wondered why Marky doesn’t go out and get a real job, like a real man, in the real world.

    What is real man Mark scared? Will the real world laugh at pompous blowhard Mark and tell him to lick their boots?

    These pseudo-manly men are scared of women and scared of the real world.

  123. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    PaJo wrote:

    The resultant hurt is one of the deadliest of all: people think they have heard the “gospel” and have (as a completely sensible response) rejected it. For good.

    Remember the idea behind vaccination:

    Expose the immune system to a weak/dead/fake version of a pathogen to build immunity to the real thing.

    Or, in other words – Give them enough of a false Jesus so that they are inoculated against the real Jesus of the Gospels.

  124. Franklin wrote:

    Man being challenged to stand up and be the head of there families.

    The Head of a Christian family is Lord Jesus Christ. I’m not aware of any other kind of Christian marriage where a man and a woman are joined together in Holy Matrimony and marry ‘either to other’ in the Presence of the Lord. Take a look at this early Christian example of marriage:

    “From a letter by Tertullian, an Early Church Father, to his wife, ca. 202 A.D.
    ” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
    They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
    They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.
    Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
    Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”

  125. Christiane wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    She may also be afraid that if she leaves him, he’ll become violent or something.

    I feel sad for Grace. Whatever her outlook on her situation is, I see nothing that she has ever done that deserved how her husband treated her publicly.

    Ditto, Christiane. I cannot help but see Grace as a trapped woman. Trapped by the harmful views of Patriarchy, whether she realizes it or not. In that kind of situation, she (and other women like her), will do what they can in order to survive in that environment. Many women in Patriarchal communities come to a place in recognizing how suffocated and oppressive their lives are, and are willing to take the necessary risks in order to escape.

  126. Velour wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Do tell. Link, please [to the wartburg whiner doofus, which apparently is a Thing].
    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.
    Why isn’t (s)he whining about me? I’m feeling left out.
    The closest I’ve come was when somebody whined about the clan-name “Deebs”, which I first thought of. I don’t like to mention it; I just mention it.

    I have the solution, Nick. Just give a rigorous defense of women a few times and how competent they are and that should land your comment on his blog.

    Velour who is this fella you are talking about? What is the name of his blog?

  127. Darlene wrote:

    Velour who is this fella you are talking about? What is the name of his blog?

    Darlene,

    It’s some dude who “writes” (if you can even call it “writing”) a blog called Wartburg Whiners about all of us. http://wartburgwhiners.blogspot.com/

    He is a poor writer and lacks basic logic skills.

    His latest piece, posted yesterday, is that we women are probably binge drinkers. He doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the shed.

  128. Darlene wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    Velour wrote:
    Do tell. Link, please [to the wartburg whiner doofus, which apparently is a Thing].
    Someone whining about me too? He must be threatened.
    Why isn’t (s)he whining about me? I’m feeling left out.
    The closest I’ve come was when somebody whined about the clan-name “Deebs”, which I first thought of. I don’t like to mention it; I just mention it.
    I have the solution, Nick. Just give a rigorous defense of women a few times and how competent they are and that should land your comment on his blog.
    Velour who is this fella you are talking about? What is the name of his blog?

    The initials for the articles are “S.G.” Let me take a wild guess…Seneca Griggs?

  129. Franklin wrote:

    I would challenge everyone to sit and watch a full series of his.

    I have. I even searched out quotes from speeches he made in… was it Scotland? He went into details about how wives should “serve” their husbands. It was rude, vulgar, and medically unwise. I recall thinking that I wish I could unhear what I just heard.

    It might be instructive for some of us to quote MD verbatim, from some of his sermons and interviews and books… Hopefully not the parts he “borrowed” from another writer. But most of his more colorful quotes would surely trip the filters, requiring more work from our gracious hosts.

  130. Guest wrote:

    I have wondered why Marky doesn’t go out and get a real job, like a real man, in the real world.
    What is real man Mark scared? Will the real world laugh at pompous blowhard Mark and tell him to lick their boots?

    I don’t think any of the NeoCal boyz could work jobs in the real world. Nobody would tolerate them.

  131. JYJames wrote:

    One wonders how the followers got to that point of nonsense, and then it (the goofiness) relocated to another locale to pick up where it left off.

    Yep. The legacy of Mark Driscoll continues in those churches that are spin-offs of Mars Hill.

  132. @ Darlene:

    Darlene,

    By the way, Natalie K. on Visionary Survivor on Facebook has an awesome new interview with author Rebecca Davis about her book called Untwisting Scriptures.

  133. @ Darlene:JY James: I realize you were referring to the “goofiness” as Driscoll’s new church in Phoenix, but I can’t help but think about the repercussions of those pastors who sat under Driscoll’s teachings (& consider that tripe good theology) – who are also continuing in the Mars Hill tradition (ethos).

  134. So why was this posted at The Gospel Coalition?

    Testing the waters before making a further commitment? Toss out a fluffy re-write of the history of Driscol & Co, if there is no substantial rebuttal then wait a few months and move onto the next step to bring Driscol back. After all, “it wasn’t a moral failure”, their words, not mine.

  135. Velour wrote:

    I don’t think any of the NeoCal boyz could work jobs in the real world. Nobody would tolerate them.

    the degree of contempt they show to women is so extreme ….. Mark Driscoll’s ‘realism’ concerning marital relations was so graphic and so disgusting that I am still puzzled why he is held up as someone to ‘follow’ ….

    Our Lord was not dismissive of women. He sent Mary Magdalene to the other Apostles with the news of His Resurrection, and she is known formally in the Church as ‘the Apostola Apostolorum’, the Apostle to the Apostles, because of this great honor. The Church regards her with a dignity equal to the other Apostles.

    How was it that the neo-Cals fell so low in their opinion and treatment of women? What began their strange theology of male superiority? I am at a loss to sort out how all of that ‘negative’ came about, but I see from its results, that it must have come from the pit of hell, this attitude about women. It didn’t just start with the neo-Cals, no, but they have developed it to new lows. God have mercy on the women they affect with their malevolence.

  136. Franklin wrote:

    Also the Real marriage book was to help and talk about in a heathy way sex in a marriage.

    If you think Real Marriage was healthy in any way, you need to get a dictionary and become reacquainted with the meaning of that word.

  137. Darlene wrote:

    Franklin wrote:
    Also the Real marriage book was to help and talk about in a heathy way sex in a marriage.
    If you think Real Marriage was healthy in any way, you need to get a dictionary and become reacquainted with the meaning of that word.

    Preach it, Darlene!

  138. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    Franklin wrote:

    I would challenge everyone to sit and watch a full series of his.

    I have. I even searched out quotes from speeches he made in… was it Scotland? He went into details about how wives should “serve” their husbands. It was rude, vulgar, and medically unwise. I recall thinking that I wish I could unhear what I just heard.

    Oh yes, and remember this sex act was a way for wives to minister to their husbands and a means to evangelize non-Christian husbands. I was aghast that no one shouted “Enough of this hogwash”! Was anyone appalled at his irreverence and crassness? Did anyone have the nerve to get up and walk out? Or did they all just sit there mesmerized by Marky?

  139. Velour wrote:

    Guest wrote:

    I have wondered why Marky doesn’t go out and get a real job, like a real man, in the real world.
    What is real man Mark scared? Will the real world laugh at pompous blowhard Mark and tell him to lick their boots?

    I don’t think any of the NeoCal boyz could work jobs in the real world. Nobody would tolerate them.

    Not only that, the NeoCal Boyz couldn’t handle working with women who wouldn’t submit to them. Imagine one of these Boyz having a female boss. They would have conniptions and quit after the first day.

  140. Velour wrote:

    @ Darlene:

    Darlene,

    By the way, Natalie K. on Visionary Survivor on Facebook has an awesome new interview with author Rebecca Davis about her book called Untwisting Scriptures.

    I’ll make a point of looking into that.

  141. “When he encountered really successful churches, his devotion to the business became a definite longing to return to preaching: he ached to step up, push the minister out of his pulpit, and take charge, instead of sitting back there unnoticed and unadmired, as though he were an ordinary layman.

    “These chumps would be astonished if they knew what I am!” he reflected.

    After such an experience it was vexatious on Monday morning to talk with a droning implement-dealer about discounts on manure-spreaders; it was sickening to wait for train-time in a cuspidor-filled hotel lobby when he might have been in a church office superior with books, giving orders to pretty secretaries and being expansive and helpful to consulting sinners.”

    -Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis

    “Elmer Driscoll” could only stand six months out of the spotlight. Thankfully for him and his type “common sense” is not too common in evangelical circles. There will always be more than enough dolts to lavish praise and greenbacks on these snake-oil salesman. That The Go$pel Coalition continues to mislead the public about this man is not surprising. There is no honor among thieves.

  142. And one question I have that most everybody has been strangely silent on at TGC…

    Where did the money go?

    We know that the churches received some of it, but most of it just disappeared because Mark “quit” when fired.

    That’s a mighty large building you got there in Scottsdale, Mr. Driscoll. I know. I’ve walked past it many times…

  143. Thersites wrote:

    So why was this posted at The Gospel Coalition?

    Testing the waters before making a further commitment? … move onto the next step to bring Driscol back.

    Driscoll had/has a tremendous following of YRR. If TGC doesn’t put him back in the pack, he will draw disciples after himself. TGC should be concerned about losing “market share” if Driscoll invents some new thing (Charismatic Calvinism?)

  144. @ Stephen McAlpine:
    Interesting, your “Driscoll and The Bogeyman Narrative” piece on your self-named blog on 1 June 2017:

    “In its early iteration Mars Hill scooped up a host of lost young men who were lacking any sense of identity in post-foundational American Christianity, and for whom the traditional denominations had failed.”

    In addition to the issues you raise, and your compelling suggestion of a sociological study of the YRR phenom, is what you don’t mention but has come up here at TWW, the relational aspects with these men and their wives, thus, the consideration of women.

    Earlier on this stream, I quoted NFL player, Coach, and now Pastor Joe Erhman with his rejection of physique, sex appeal, and money defining masculinity but replacing that with 1) relationships and 2) just cause or purpose or serving others as what really makes a man – and he adds, a woman.

    You raise the underlying appeal to the YRR crowd – looking for identity, and you also mention the need of relationship:

    “I’d love to read something that deals with all of this from a sociological and psychological perspective, especially the point that Driscoll was a father figure to a culture of young men with absent fathers, whether that absence be actual or emotional. For a while there Driscoll was the Young Pope of post-denominational reformed Protestantism.”

    Unfortunately, it may be that the relational need and purpose need were addressed by MD, however, with an insufficient answer, a culture lacking:

    “I remember meeting many of them at Mars Hill back in late 2007 and being struck by the number of thirty to thirty five year olds escaping from unreconstructed fundamentalism and pragmatic church experiences. They could plainly see that neither of those options had any cultural traction left and they were looking for something else.”

    “Standing drinking whisky and smoking cigars on the Driscoll’s lawn after a Boot Camp, it seemed they had found that future. It was a heady time. I found it fairly intoxicating too.”

  145. JYJames wrote:

    “I remember meeting many of them at Mars Hill back in late 2007 and being struck by the number of thirty to thirty five year olds escaping from unreconstructed fundamentalism and pragmatic church experiences. They could plainly see that neither of those options had any cultural traction left and they were looking for something else.”

    “Standing drinking whisky and smoking cigars on the Driscoll’s lawn after a Boot Camp, it seemed they had found that future. It was a heady time. I found it fairly intoxicating too.” (Stephen McAlpine)

    That description of Driscoll’s brand of New Calvinism speaks volumes. There is no doubt that Driscoll pushed “culturally-relevant” to the extreme. Hand a mob of young pastor wannabes whiskey and cigars in their search for a new way of doing church, toss in some potty-mouth preaching, along with a porno book on marriage – i.e., give them what they want – and you can get a great multitude of Millennials to follow you! Sadly, the damage has been done … they are now in pulpits across America!

  146. @ Stephen McAlpine:
    Hi STEPHEN McALPINE,
    I found this fascinating reading: “So I’m waiting for someone to write the book. Someone with a little more distance from it all than TGC perhaps. And definitely someone who loves the gospel, and in Christ loves Mark Driscoll as well. I don’t want to see the gospel-less Schadenfreude of those post-evangelical bloggers who were right in calling Driscoll and Mars Hill out, but were wrong in some of the theological conclusions. Their glee turns my stomach.”

    It sounds like you have a need to be that ‘author’ who tells the story from a view point no one ‘outside’ of that scene has the gravitas to do so. Had you thought to chronicle your journey within that world?

    I am Catholic and cannot fathom the neo-Calvinist world, I admit, but I realized you might be the one to open a door into that Mars Hill world when I read your words, this:
    ” …. and in Christ loves Mark Driscoll as well”

    That phrase translates to my Catholic understanding and tells me that you might have some compassion for the frail humanity of your brother that others are not capable of summoning.

    Why don’t you chronicle, and then journal, and then begin to write your own account from your own perspective,
    because if you can see in Mark Driscoll what we cannot see, maybe we need to listen and understand with more depth than is now possible from a distance?

  147. Mae wrote:

    @ Todd Wilhelm:
    Why can’t people grasp these people are hucksters?

    Guess what?
    I HAVE A VERSE!
    “And they shall follow, and marvel, and worship, saying “Who is like unto The Beast? Who can stand against Him?”

    During my time in-country, I heard that verse of Revelation from End Time Prophecy types, usually coupled with “God Shall Send Them Strong Delusion, That They Shall Believe a Lie”. Do these guys have any idea they are behaving EXACTLY like the Beast Worshippers in Revelation that they sneered at?

  148. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    Franklin wrote:

    I would challenge everyone to sit and watch a full series of his.

    I have. I even searched out quotes from speeches he made in… was it Scotland? He went into details about how wives should “serve” their husbands. It was rude, vulgar, and medically unwise. I recall thinking that I wish I could unhear what I just heard.

    i.e. Another unwanted peek into the MoG’s sexual fetishes?
    Specifically, both-ends-of-the-alimentary-canal erotica?

  149. Velour wrote:

    I don’t think any of the NeoCal boyz could work jobs in the real world. Nobody would tolerate them.

    Them that can, do.
    Them that can’t, PREACH.

  150. Darlene wrote:

    Or, in other words – Give them enough of a false Jesus so that they are inoculated against the real Jesus of the Gospels.

    And once vaccinated, Automatically REJECT the real thing.

  151. Velour wrote:

    dee wrote:

    Mark Driscoll was a fraud but a very clever fraud and he was able to convince people that he was the real deal. He wasn’t and that is why there is no longer anything called Mars Hill in Seattle.

    YES!!

    But there will soon be (under another name) in Scottsdale.

  152. Darlene wrote:

    Oh yes, and remember this sex act was a way for wives to minister to their husbands and a means to evangelize non-Christian husbands.

    “FLIRTY FISHING”, MO DAVID, CoGs!

    I was aghast that no one shouted “Enough of this hogwash”! Was anyone appalled at his irreverence and crassness? Did anyone have the nerve to get up and walk out? Or did they all just sit there mesmerized by Marky?

    “WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE MARK? WHO CAN STAND AGAINST HIM?”

  153. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    But Driscoll was so very, very afraid of me. He’s so afraid of me that if I step a foot on his property, it would be trespassing and I’d be off to jail. I’ve been warned.

    Remember, there is nothing that these guys (Driscoll, Piper, Challies, Burk,… and the list goes on) fear more than powerful women. I wonder which one of them will bloviate on this week’s opening of the film Wonder Woman?

  154. @ Stephen McAlpine:

    Hello, Stephen. Thank you for interacting.

    To the brand. To principle over people. To cruelty for the sake of what benefits “me & mine”. To empire building. To the allure of celebrity, power, personal significance, and perhaps money. To consolidation of power and control. To an aggrandized sense of self. To protecting one’s interests at the expense of the welfare of others. To being willing to manipulate, spin, and tell half truths. To cowardice in not admitting wrong-doing for one’s actions & inactions & those of others under the TGC brand. To double standards that favor oneself and the in-group one has gained acceptance in.

    not the most succinct list….

    From the little i’ve read about you, i think better of you than these things. But i have to tell you that I and many others have observed everything listed above in The Gospel Coalition.

  155. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    “These chumps would be astonished if they knew what I am!” he reflected.

    The comparison with Gantry is apt. Elmer Driscoll “converted” for the express purpose of making a career of it.
    Driscoll’s “testimony” from ‘Seasons of Grace’:
    “In the first season, in the fall of 1989, God was in the process of drawing me unto Himself. While attending Washington State University I began reading such classics as Augustine and Aquinas, and read through the New Testament in less than two weeks from the Bible my girlfriend Grace gave me as a high school graduation present . Aware of what God was orchestrating, but still unyielding in my heart, I had one Christian friend who asked me over a burger one late night what I was planning on doing for my career. I told him that God was going to make me a Christian and send me out to plant churches like I had read about Paul. He laughed, unsure if I was mocking him, being serious, or trying to discourage him from giving me any more goofy tracts. Within a month, my lingering struggles with the Gospel disappeared and I began teaching a Bible study and attending a solid church pastored by Doug Busby. In the spring of 1990 I attended my first retreat and after a late night of worship with a few hundred farmers and college professors I knelt down by an Idaho river and prayed. It was at that time that I quite unexpectedly received my call. God told me, “Mark, I have called you out from among many to lead men.” I then began to serve in leadership for a ministry, and also became the editor for the opinions section of the campus newspaper; an adventure that included bomb threats, protests, and a handful of heated public debates. Grace transferred to WSU and we were married in the summer before my senior year. Upon graduation Grace and I moved to Seattle without a place to live, jobs to pay the bills, or a church to attend, but determined to somehow begin planting churches.”

  156. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:
    I trust this least eminent moniker isn’t already taken? Or should I go with Apostle Satin?
    I like “Uncle Satin”!

    I’m having second thoughts now that I’ve noticed Seneca’s article “Wartburgwatch HATES shepherds- they will have no man in authority over them”. After an appropriate time I may promote myself to FATHER Satin. I can then be the faux male headship-meet who steps in and corrects all the uppity binge-drinking feminist shepherd-hating wimmenfolk who are the overwhelming majority of commenters.
    Hi Seneca! You like my idea? I’ll watch for your answer on your blog. In the meantime, why don’t you count the number of male commenters on this article? Might be surprised.

  157. Max wrote:

    Hand a mob of young pastor wannabes whiskey and cigars in their search for a new way of doing church, toss in some potty-mouth preaching, along with a porno book on marriage – i.e., give them what they want

    “Manly”

  158. Christiane wrote:

    Why don’t you chronicle, and then journal, and then begin to write your own account from your own perspective,
    because if you can see in Mark Driscoll what we cannot see, maybe we need to listen and understand with more depth than is now possible from a distance?

    @ Stephen McAlpine:
    Good suggestion, Christiane.
    Stephen McAlpine, reading your experiences and insights on your blog, her suggestion makes sense – and add a woman’s perspective – it would be quite an insightful read with understanding of the fallout and the future, perhaps.

  159. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    i.e. Another unwanted peek into the MoG’s sexual fetishes?
    Specifically, both-ends-of-the-alimentary-canal erotica?

    Precisely. My spouse has a medical background, and has explained to me that some of the activities that Mark suggests have potentially negative medical consequences. And that’s enough said about that…

    Someone asked why people didn’t walk out of the room when Mark taught this stuff. Good question. I guess part of it could be that they were sitting there, maybe half-asleep, when these bits of “evangelistic wisdom” were spoken. And there’s that moment when you think, “Wait, what did he just say?” And by that point, the speaker is on to something else, and you’re thinking that surely you misheard that.

    Or maybe the fear of being shouted down and publicly ridiculed by a bully kept them in their seats. “How dare you!” is something Mark has been known to say.

  160. Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    Hi Seneca! You like my idea? I’ll watch for your answer on your blog. In the meantime, why don’t you count the number of male commenters on this article? Might be surprised.

    I’m not sure we should be picking on Seneca. He exhibits some pretty severe symptoms of genuine mental disorder. I hope he gets the right meds soon.

  161. JYJames wrote:

    Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:
    Washington State University
    As in Pullman, Washington, next to Moscow, Idaho, Doug Wilson’s home town.

    I’ve been unable to find evidence that Driscoll was influenced by THIS Wilson back then, or was even acquainted.
    Doug’s father Jim, however, had already been arguably the most influential church leader on the Palouse for 2 decades, and pastored the Evangelical Free church I attended for awhile. When the EFree church peacefully spun off several groups in the 70’s, Doug Busby mentioned by Driscoll became pastor. One of the daughter churches was taken over by Doug Wilson and transmogrified into the Kirk after he allegedly ran off his brother and another elder who disagreed with Calvin. The other elder ended up at the EFree, leading to Doug allegedly mounting an imprecatory prayer campaign against them.

  162. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    It’s always the whiny wet noodles (like Piper) or buttery doughy guys (like Driscoll) who have to constantly tell everybody how Big Manly Studly they are.

    Don’t forget the narcissists!

    Meanwhile I have dated at least two marines and neither of them said anything like that.

  163. Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    Doug’s father Jim, however, had already been arguably the most influential church leader on the Palouse for 2 decades…

    i.e. First Pope of the Palouse?Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    One of the daughter churches was taken over by Doug Wilson and transmogrified into the Kirk after he allegedly ran off his brother and another elder who disagreed with Calvin.

    Didn’t Machiavelli write about how a Prince once he seizes the throne cannot let any rival survive? Or is this succession Turkish Harem style?

  164. Lea wrote:

    Meanwhile I have dated at least two marines and neither of them said anything like that.

    Probably because they weren’t fresh out of boot camp.

  165. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    How does she put up with him?

    The false premise that as a Christian woman (or lay person or grunt or newby or young person or old person or marginalized person) – you check your agency at the curb when you go to church, at the door when you enter fellowship, at the altar when you become a Christian, and with the ring when you say your wedding vows.

    Some commentators ask about grace and forgiveness. Others mention willingness to submit and be taught and led. Without discernment? Jesus rebuked certain powerful influential religious leaders of His day, and paid with His life. The answer: Follow Jesus. Who said, “I bend my knee to no one except Jesus,”? God bless the women who hold true to Jesus their Savior in marriage. God bless the men who hold true to Jesus in their church, work, and BFF men’s group, calling out the nonsense (cigars and whiskey as manly connective culture?).

  166. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Didn’t Machiavelli write about how a Prince once he seizes the throne cannot let any rival survive? Or is this succession Turkish Harem style?

    The same thing is seen in those Mormon polygamist cults. The young men are kicked out and left homeless and family-less because the older men see them as competition from the young women.

  167. Franklin wrote:

    I was in small groups with women that have been at the church over 7 years and never felt belittled.

    How do you know? Maybe we should wait and see if any of them show up here and they can speak for themselves?

    Considering MArk’s public offerings, I cannot imagine any woman not feeling belittled in that church.

  168. Lea wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    It’s always the whiny wet noodles (like Piper) or buttery doughy guys (like Driscoll) who have to constantly tell everybody how Big Manly Studly they are.
    Don’t forget the narcissists!
    Meanwhile I have dated at least two marines and neither of them said anything like that.

    Hmmm, agree. Wife of Marine, mother of Marine. Sure young Marines are full of themselves but generally speaking if you can do your end of the job, they don’t care who is doing it.
    My hubby doesn’t give a hoot about Piper or Driscoll’s blabbing. Hubby’s motto is more in the form of, ” don’t tell me what you got, show me what you got.” These preacher boys live in a faux world….endlessly talking, yapping, tweeting, etc. Boot camp might have done them some good.

  169. Mae wrote:

    These preacher boys live in a faux world….endlessly talking, yapping, tweeting, etc. Boot camp might have done them some good.

    Some truth in what you say, yes.
    Is a saying that before you can respect others, you have to have some self-respect. That military training breaks down the nonsense and builds up a solid sense of self-respect in young people.

    All the neo-Cal business about ‘the gospel’ goes to nothing the first time people witness the ‘headship boyz’ working out on innocent people bully-fashion.
    No ‘gospel’ there, none. A page from the devil’s playbook more likely.

    Without bullying and fear and control, the neo-Cal masters are powerless to harm innocent people. These bullies never got it that the REAL power in the Holy Gospels lay in accessing and using the ‘fruit’ of the Holy Spirit in their lives. They couldn’t understand. Maybe they didn’t try. (?)
    Too impatient to have their own way, so ‘other methods’ were needed to get where they wanted to be, and so ‘another gospel’ became the Rule, and victims piled up.

  170. Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    After an appropriate time I may promote myself to FATHER Satin. I can then be the faux male headship-meet who steps in and corrects all the uppity binge-drinking feminist shepherd-hating wimmenfolk who are the overwhelming majority of commenters.

    Wouldn’t “Bishop Satin” indicate a more appropriate level of faux headship?

  171. Lea wrote:

    Considering Mark’s public offerings, I cannot imagine any woman not feeling belittled in that church.

    “Denying that a powerful system exists, after all, is one of the best ways to allow it to endure unchecked. Just ask the patriarchy.”

    “But the women [sixty-somethings] of ‘The Keepers’ refuse this scenario. They insist that they still matter — and that those structures remain, … whose existence depends on the continued silence of people around them. People taught to be docile, to not question authority, to do what the priest, or a police officer, or your teacher, or your father or your husband tells you. To trust that our systems of religion, education, and law are rooted in justice for those who lack the means to protect themselves — even when so much evidence suggests the opposite.”

    – From the BuzzFeedNEWS article: “The Women Of ‘The Keepers’ Aren’t Afraid Of The Truth”, by Anne Helen Petersen, posted June 1, 2017. Subtitled: “When our systems for justice fail, who takes up the burden? Women.”

    Luke 24:9-11 “And the women remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.”

    Sometimes it is the marginalized, in this case, women, that are able to communicate the truth.

  172. Mae wrote:

    Why can’t people grasp these people are hucksters?

    Centuries ago a classical education largely included the subject of rhetoric. In many ways I wonder if our predecessors in general had a better idea of the tools to used to persuade. Now such understanding comes only with some few psychologists and the professional hucksters like politicians, con men, and some pastors. Such an education should surely should give the hearer a better ability to discern when they are being manipulated, i.e. he’s using the “flattery ploy”.

  173. @ Thersites:
    It’s just so maddening to observe too many being duped in Christianity.
    Not that I haven’t been duped here and there, but never to the extent the younger set seem to be.
    It seems apparent to me the younger generations don’t mind marketing of any type. ( including Christianity ) It’s almost like they view the package as more important then the contents.
    I have no answers, just lots of frustrations.

  174. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    He exhibits some pretty severe symptoms of genuine mental disorder.

    Nah, he’s probably just a Calvinist curmudgeon. They tend to be ill-tempered, difficult, and cantankerous. There are several of them in SBC’s Founders Ministries.

  175. Mae wrote:

    It seems apparent to me the younger generations don’t mind marketing of any type. ( including Christianity ) It’s almost like they view the package as more important then the contents.

    Has anyone done a PhD thesis correlating the likelihood of being an easy mark and the amount of time spent texting instead of communicating during crucial maturation years?

  176. Mae wrote:

    It’s just so maddening to observe too many being duped in Christianity.
    Not that I haven’t been duped here and there, but never to the extent the younger set seem to be.

    There’s a hot place in hell for “ministers” who prey on the spiritual immaturity and lack of discernment of young folks who may be genuinely seeking God, but walk into a snare. New Calvinism is particularly populated by leaders who take advantage of Millennials as their target “market.”

  177. @ Max:
    A hot place in hell for any of us who prey on the young, physically, emotionally, spiritually.
    Still, it’s particularly vile when it’s served up from the pulpit, masqueraded as truth.
    Better to tie a millstone around ones neck and drop into the sea.

  178. Velour wrote:

    The same thing is seen in those Mormon polygamist cults. The young men are kicked out and left homeless and family-less because the older men see them as competition from the young women.

    That’s more ANIMAL Herd-Harem behavior:
    The Herd Bull claims exclusive rights to EVERY female in the herd and drives off all rivals — including his own male offspring when they get old enough to where they could challenge him for the Harem. This way the Herd Bull makes sure ONLY his Seed is passed down.

  179. Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    I’m having second thoughts now that I’ve noticed Seneca’s article “Wartburgwatch HATES shepherds- they will have no man in authority over them”. After an appropriate time I may promote myself to FATHER Satin. I can then be the faux male headship-meet who steps in and corrects all the uppity binge-drinking feminist shepherd-hating wimmenfolk who are the overwhelming majority of commenters.
    Hi Seneca! You like my idea? I’ll watch for your answer on your blog. In the meantime, why don’t you count the number of male commenters on this article? Might be surprised.

    I’d say it’s about 50/50 male-female commenters at TWW. Funny how S.G. – is it Seneca Briggs? – considers female commenters something to be disparaged. Perhaps he thinks womens’ place is in the kitchen and blogging about theology, church abuse & pastors gone sour isn’t a woman’s place – like the Bayly Brothers. After all, on the popular Calvinist/Reformed blogs out there that permit comments, the overwhelming majority of commenters are men. Wonder why that is….

  180. Mae wrote:

    It’s just so maddening to observe too many being duped in Christianity.
    Not that I haven’t been duped here and there, but never to the extent the younger set seem to be.

    Wonder if we all have our new-Christian duped stories to varying degrees. A mature Christian woman used to reflectively comment that new Christians sometimes need to be “put in a closet as they are crazy on-fire for the Lord and will do just anything for the Lord”, which she meant in a loving way – maybe more to protect the young Christian than to protect anyone from them. At times the spiritual journey mimics the coming of age teen years of openness, vulnerability, ideology, trying things and trying to grow up.

    Looking back, our Youth Leaders were commonly narcissistic God’s Gift to Mankind types (seminarians for the most part) – and the Youth Group would do anything for them. We put in long hours for their ministry projects, but there was no foul play.

    Eventually, agency and critical thinking emerge, thank God.

  181. GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:

    Someone asked why people didn’t walk out of the room when Mark taught this stuff. Good question. I guess part of it could be that they were sitting there, maybe half-asleep, when these bits of “evangelistic wisdom” were spoken. And there’s that moment when you think, “Wait, what did he just say?” And by that point, the speaker is on to something else, and you’re thinking that surely you misheard that.

    That was me who wondered why someone in that church didn’t stand up and shout: “This is hogwash!” – while Driscoll was preaching his Song of Solomon drivel. Who knows? Maybe some in that church were aghast; maybe some walked out. What I do know is that Marky gave them 3 topics to choose from (which he listed) – and the congregation overwhelmingly decided that they wanted to hear Driscoll’s Sex Sermon. So they got what they wanted with a a double dose of Christian porn on steroids. Maybe it was more than what they bargained for, and maybe not. If it was a Neo-Calvinist​ church, they very well might have known what they were in for because by that time MD was known as the “potty-mouthed” preacher. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if many of the folks in that congregation were fans of Driscoll’s patriarchy and shock-jock shenanigans.

  182. Mae wrote:

    A hot place in hell for any of us who prey on the young, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

    “It is not everyone who keeps saying to me ‘Lord, Lord’ who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father’s will. In ‘that day’ many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we preach in your name, didn’t we cast out devils in your name, and do many great things in your name?’ Then I shall tell them plainly, ‘I have never known you. Go away from me, you have worked on the side of evil!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

  183. Lea wrote:

    Franklin wrote:

    I was in small groups with women that have been at the church over 7 years and never felt belittled.

    How do you know? Maybe we should wait and see if any of them show up here and they can speak for themselves?

    Considering MArk’s public offerings, I cannot imagine any woman not feeling belittled in that church.

    Considering the effects of brainwashing & thought reform, those women at Mars Hill may have actually believed Driscoll’s misogynist teachings. If so, they wouldn’t necessarily feel belittled, but rather, accepted their subordinated roles. I say this as someone who was once brainwashed into believing the misogynist teachings of my former Christian cult.

  184. Franklin wrote:

    Pastor Mark was far from perfect but what person is?

    I’ve been a Christian for 60+ years. All my life, I’ve heard that there are no perfect preachers, no perfect churches, no perfect saints, etc. That sort of thinking gives us the license to settle for far less than Christ intended for us. I’ve come to realize over the years that there ‘is’ a perfect Savior who is in the business of perfecting believers. A preacher who has not been on a perfecting journey with Christ should never be given a pulpit. Driscoll was a potty-mouth macho-man at Mars Hill who was obsessed with sex. A preacher who has not been changed has nothing to offer to others which will change them. Any good that Driscoll may have done at Mars Hill was over-shadowed by his bad-boy legacy there.

    Driscoll may have said that he was wrong about a few things, but never came around to exhibiting a godly sorrow for his sins that would demonstrate genuine repentance. In the meantime, he has launched an unrepentant comeback in Arizona. As far as extending grace, mercy and forgiveness to Driscoll … we all should if/when he actually repents of his past ministry failures. Restore him to ministry … absolutely not! He has forfeited that privilege.

  185. Max wrote:

    there ‘is’ a perfect Savior who is in the business of perfecting believers. A preacher who has not been on a perfecting journey with Christ should never be given a pulpit

    Thank you, Max. Extremely well said.

  186. Off-topic. Prayer Request.

    Please pray for CHRISTIANE who is having eye surgery tomorrow.

    Thank you.

  187. Velour wrote:

    Off-topic. Prayer Request.
    Please pray for CHRISTIANE who is having eye surgery tomorrow.
    Thank you.

    CHRISTIANE’s eye surgery will start after 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

    Please keep her surgery and recovery in prayer. And she’s nervous.

  188. Max wrote:

    I’ve been a Christian for 60+ years. All my life, I’ve heard that there are no perfect preachers, no perfect churches, no perfect saints, etc. That sort of thinking gives us the license to settle for far less

    Would the judge chuckle if a swindler used the “nobody’s perfect” defense?

  189. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Here’s a post where I tackle a Driscoll favorite proof text that really is a sad example of eisegesis where MD inserted his own gender agenda into a text he claimed proves his point. This theological error led to much suffering on my part inflicted by those who followed this teaching and liked to use it like a shame bludgeon.

    http://www.divorceminister.com/mars-hill-church-mark-driscoll-and-my-first-marriage/

    My husband (who holds a doctorate in Byzantine history, not the most marketable specialty in the whole wide world) stayed home and homeschooled our kids, very thoroughly and successfully I might add. I worked as an advertising copywriter, a profession I loved, and was the sole breadwinner. Uncomventional, but it worked well for us. I could never have homeschooled — not in a million years — whereas my husband was a born teacher.

    Well, a Catholic friend once chided me for our “unbiblical” arrangement. Troubled, I asked a very conservative, orthodox priest about it. He said it was perfectly OK, and my friend should mind her own business.

    I am so sorry for the toxic effect this terrible “teaching” had on your first marriage. And I wish someone would explain to me how working wives are so in unbiblically evil whereas adultery and abandonment are not!!!!

  190. Darlene wrote:

    Considering the effects of brainwashing & thought reform, those women at Mars Hill may have actually believed Driscoll’s misogynist teachings. If so, they wouldn’t necessarily feel belittled, but rather, accepted their subordinated roles.

    I thought about this, but I would argue you are still feeling belittled even if you ACCEPT that that is the role you should fill. imo.

  191. Franklin wrote:

    Where is grace? Where is mercy? Where is forgiveness? Yes Pastor Mark was far from perfect but what person is?

    Dear Franklin,

    You’re committing a logical fallacy here. No one here is insisting that Driscoll’s ministry ought to have been “perfect”. We’re criticizing him for being abusive.

    It is possible to tolerate faults and imperfections without condoning abuse. Just because pastors can’t be perfect doesn’t mean they’re allowed to be bullying and misogynistic.

  192. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I’m not sure we should be picking on Seneca. He exhibits some pretty severe symptoms of genuine mental disorder. I hope he gets the right meds soon.

    Is Seneca Griggs behind the “Wartburg Whiners” blog? Or does he have his own blog, called Seneca Griggs?

    For Seneca Griggs:
    Women don’t need to be under any man’s authority.

    Hebrews 4:14:
    Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess

    Matthew 23:9:
    And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

  193. Darlene wrote:

    I’d say it’s about 50/50 male-female commenters at TWW. Funny how S.G. – is it Seneca Briggs? – considers female commenters something to be disparaged.

    He should rethink this. In the past, I have posted to other sites under male names (or names other mistook for masculine), and under gender-neutral names (where again, I was mistaken for being a dude).

    And for all Griggs know, I might be a really smart feline typing on a keyboard. Like in this photo:
    https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/unknown-cat-at-the-keyboard-2010-e1270508249694.jpg

    It’s the internet, after all.

  194. @ Stephen McAlpine:

    Dear Stephen McAlpine,

    Thank you very much for taking the time to comment and interact here. I appreciated much of the article you wrote on the Mars Hill debacle, and TGC’s retrospective on it.

    At the same time, I question a few of the observations you made in that blog posting. In particular, you wrote the following:

    I don’t want to see the gospel-less Schadenfreude of those post-evangelical bloggers who were right in calling Driscoll and Mars Hill out, but were wrong in some of the theological conclusions. Their glee turns my stomach.

    May I ask whom exactly you had in mind when you wrote this? Were you thinking of us here at the Wartburg Watch? If so, where exactly have you witnessed “Schadenfreude” or “glee” concerning Driscoll or the end of Mars Hill?

    I’ve seen some measure of satisfaction that Driscoll is being seen for what he is, and that he’s lost an empire that he never deserved to hold in the first place. But “glee” is something I can’t find here, and I’m not sure I’ve seen it elsewhere. There’s certainly very little to be glad about in this whole situation. So I would appreciate some concrete examples of the kind of attitude you’re denouncing in this paragraph.

    Thank you again for your time. I look forward to your response.

  195. Darlene wrote:

    Did anyone have the nerve to get up and walk out? Or did they all just sit there mesmerized by Marky?

    They pretty much sat there mesmerized I suspect.
    There’s something in the human psyche that wants to be told what to believe and what to do. It takes the onus off of you (generic you) to think for yourself and then own the actions and results of your beliefs.

  196. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    At the same time, I question a few of the observations you made in that blog posting. In particular, you wrote the following:
    I don’t want to see the gospel-less Schadenfreude of those post-evangelical bloggers who were right in calling Driscoll and Mars Hill out, but were wrong in some of the theological conclusions. Their glee turns my stomach.
    May I ask whom exactly you had in mind when you wrote this? Were you thinking of us here at the Wartburg Watch? If so, where exactly have you witnessed “Schadenfreude” or “glee” concerning Driscoll or the end of Mars Hill?

    I also wondered what Stephen meant by that.

  197. dee wrote:

    @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
    PS-Since no one comments on his rantings, he comments himself, using his initials s.g.

    Seneca Griggs seems quite taken with copying my comments here over to his blog and ripping them out of context.

    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.

  198. @ Thersites:

    Thersites UNITED STATES on Sun Jun 04, 2017 at 10:41 PM said:

    Max wrote: “I’ve been a Christian for 60+ years. All my life, I’ve heard that there are no perfect preachers, no perfect churches, no perfect saints, etc. That sort of thinking gives us the license to settle for far less”

    Thersites wrote: “Would the judge chuckle if a swindler used the “nobody’s perfect” defense?”
    +++++++++++++++++

    here’s the thing: one of the big reasons i’m so disillusioned with “christianity” (in its current state) is how cruddy & lackluster & totally unimpressive christians are….

    and how honest, generous, kind, compassionate, hard-working, and full of integrity just about everyone else i know is. Muslims, hindus, buddhists, jewish, atheists, agnostics…. they are the best human beings, the loveliest people.

    so i have to wonder…. “christianity” (in its current state)…. what’s the point?!?

    what makes matters worse is christians and church environments have this air about them of being the world’s elite class of human being, God’s gift to the world. the city is lucky to have them. whenever they enter a room, the room and all those in it are lucky to have them.

    they may talk a humble game, at times — but certainly not in practice. not by observation.

    in theory i’m a christian — i just don’t categorize myself as such anymore. i’m repulsed by the idea.

    God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are totally awesome, though.

    and i’ve monologued long enough here.

  199. Daisy wrote:

    For Seneca Griggs:
    Women don’t need to be under any man’s authority.
    Hebrews 4:14:
    Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess

    Precisely, Daisy.

    And what Seneca has been advocating is from the un-biblical heavy-Shepherding Movement from the 1970’s whose Florida founders repented for its abuses and un-biblicalness.

    And all of the other big patriarchy proponents I’ve noted have been outed for sex crimes and sued. Guys without boundaries and ulterior motives always want other people to obey.
    It’s what predators do.

  200. elastigirl wrote:

    and how honest, generous, kind, compassionate, hard-working, and full of integrity just about everyone else i know is. Muslims, hindus, buddhists, jewish, atheists, agnostics…. they are the best human beings, the loveliest people.

    Yes, isn’t this true! Christians tend to confuse their theological status (righteous in God’s eyes) with their social status. Just because they are believers doesn’t mean they behave well toward their neighbors, family, coworkers, or employers.

    My mother used to work for a secular company and she said the meanest nastiest complaints always came from Christians.

  201. Velour wrote:

    His latest piece, posted yesterday, is that we women are probably binge drinkers. He doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the shed.

    His complaints about TWW are:
    Blogging while female.
    Commenting while female.
    Criticizing pastors while female.

  202. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    If so, where exactly have you witnessed “Schadenfreude” or “glee” concerning Driscoll or the end of Mars Hill?

    I think most of us are happy when, say, serial killers get caught because they cannot kill again. Is that an ugly emotion? I don’t think so.

    Daisy, I thought my name was gender neutral but apparently people do not read it that way!

  203. Velour wrote:

    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.

    I’m in a mainline denom now. We had wine at the christmas party! Oh noes.

    The funny thing about that particular criticism is that most of the non-denom/reformed head honchos that get criticized make a big point about how much they little whiskey and cigars and artisanal beer brewing. So.

  204. elastigirl wrote:

    “christianity” (in its current state)…. what’s the point?!?

    In the last book of the Book, Jesus sent a firm warning to the church “in its current state” … “Repent or else!”

  205. @ Janey:

    “Yes, isn’t this true! Christians tend to confuse their theological status (righteous in God’s eyes) with their social status. Just because they are believers doesn’t mean they behave well toward their neighbors, family, coworkers, or employers.”
    ++++++++++++++

    makes me wonder what they’re believing in.

    i think christians tend to confuse their theological status with their righteousness status.

    Something’s off. I can’t put my finger on it. the christian theological party line is just too perfect, too cute, too buttoned up.

    i’ve thought this for years, even as i was slaving away with a ‘ministry hat’ on in the spotlight, doing the bidding of the pastors. actually, i was doing it for God — giving him my best because he deserved it,

    yet at the same time wondering…”what’s the point of all this?” [i know all the stock answers, so no one need bother – they don’t help in the slightest]

    and thinking, “God…. this really is stupid.” (on many levels)

    but mostly, “God… something doesn’t make sense here. Something’s off.”

  206. Janey wrote:

    My mother used to work for a secular company and she said the meanest nastiest complaints always came from Christians.

    One of the guest commenters at Internet Monk once related that when he worked in commercial radio (advertising accounts), word from experience was “With Christians, Cash Up Front, NO EXCEPTIONS.” They’d been burned by Born-Agains to the point they’d extend credit to a druggie before they would a Christian(TM) — better credit risk.

  207. Velour wrote:

    And what Seneca has been advocating is from the un-biblical heavy-Shepherding Movement from the 1970’s whose Florida founders repented for its abuses and un-biblicalness.

    I was only on the fringe of the Shepherding Movement FAD, and that was bad enough.

    Shepherding Movement = Control Freak’s Wet Dream, Justified by Divine Right.

  208. elastigirl wrote:

    here’s the thing: one of the big reasons i’m so disillusioned with “christianity” (in its current state) is how cruddy & lackluster & totally unimpressive christians are….

    I come from an F&SF fannish background – Old School Lit-SF, pencil/paper/funny dice gaming, small-press Comics, proto-Anime, Furry, MLP:FIM. ANd what strikes me the most about “Christianity in its current state” is the utter lack of imagination and wonder and flat-out HATRED of the arts. To me, that way is Madness and Death.

    We even used to say “It’s Gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
    And “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”
    (Yes, if Christians hated it, that was an indicator of quality. Think about that.)

  209. Velour wrote:

    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.

    Wasn’t the same accusation made to the Apostles at Pentecost?

    “How could we be drunk? It’s only nine in the morning!”
    — Simon Cephas Bar-Jonah

  210. Muff Potter wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Did anyone have the nerve to get up and walk out? Or did they all just sit there mesmerized by Marky?
    They pretty much sat there mesmerized I suspect.

    Wondering and worshipping.
    “WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE MARKY-MARK? WHO CAN STAND AGAINST HIM?”

  211. Darlene wrote:

    What I do know is that Marky gave them 3 topics to choose from (which he listed) – and the congregation overwhelmingly decided that they wanted to hear Driscoll’s Sex Sermon.

    Ever heard of the phrase “Pornography for The Pious”?

  212. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Didn’t Machiavelli write about how a Prince once he seizes the throne cannot let any rival survive? Or is this succe

    It’s biblical (TM). Think Abimelech and Jehoram.

  213. Mae wrote:

    It seems apparent to me the younger generations don’t mind marketing of any type. ( including Christianity ) It’s almost like they view the package as more important then the contents.

    Brings to mind a local news item from many years ago, about a mass bust of a white-supremacist militia “cell” which was arming up and apparently planning something big. Specifically, a comment from a third-party friend of one of the guys who got busted:
    “I don’t see him in it for the Hate. He was in it for the Hardware.”

  214. Darlene wrote:

    I’d say it’s about 50/50 male-female commenters at TWW.

    Last time I looked (this morning in the shower), I was male.

  215. Darlene wrote:

    considers female commenters something to be disparaged.

    And male commenters something to be ignored. Years ago he wrote that folks dislike Piper for his conservative Bible teaching. I researched a detailed comment about Christian Hedonism, Piper’s claim to fame, to the point that it’s far from conservative or biblical. I quoted Jesus. At a later time he said he’s No Better Than Doug Phillips. I made a detailed reply as to how this is highly unlikely to be true. I quoted King David saying Abner was a better man than the guys who killed him.
    I’m still awaiting the responses.

  216. Velour wrote:

    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.

    And just last month, he accused this blog of “libellous” comments against his homeboys. Now he offers up this little nugget, with no proof or justification whatsoever. I think standing in his own echo chamber is affecting his grip on reality.

  217. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Last time I looked (this morning in the shower),

    IIRC Fiscal warned guys against this. Might make us effeminate worship leaders singing love songs to Jesus, or something.

  218. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Hey, me too!!

    But when you first started posting I didn’t know which you were. I doubt Seneca knows about many commenters.
    I guess we should all have gender-non-specific monikers, like yours, or Pat or Chris, or fabric-friendly ones. headless unicorn person?
    Except moi– As Satin I must be a male authority figure.

  219. Darlene wrote:

    like the Bayly Brothers

    I’ve decided to save Father Satin for an alter-ego I’ll use to step in and correct female commenters and demand the names and numbers of their pastors, ala Baylys. He might also correct Nick’s alter-ego “God” by quoting scripture at him. Think I’ll stick with Uncle Satin when it’s really me. 🙂

  220. Muff Potter wrote:

    Or did they all just sit there mesmerized by Marky?

    They pretty much sat there mesmerized I suspect.

    Decades ago I remember playing chess against the computer. I always lost but one of the few joys I got was to make such an outrageous move that the computer would take a much longer time to respond. I have found that I similarly take a while to process new situations. It is even more difficult to act if you come with someone else but I imagine still some got up and left a minutes later or more sat there and stewed till it was over and never came back.

  221. Uncle Satin AKA Dave A A wrote:

    And male commenters something to be ignored.

    And then you have others who drop by and only seriously interact with the male commenters.

    Of course, on that SBC blog, they mostly only interact with women to insult them for having silly little thoughts about being real, human people who should be treated as such. People are so revealing in comment sections! Surely they are not like this in person.

  222. Thersites wrote:

    but I imagine still some got up and left a minutes later or more sat there and stewed till it was over and never came back.

    The smart ones to be sure. Very similar I would think to the German Jews making plans to leave Germany after the 1933 “election”.

  223. For the record (as if we’re keeping count), I’m female and I don’t drink. Too many chronic illnesses and too many drugs for those illnesses.) I do like to wear shorts and slacks, which in some quarters might mark me Az gender non-conforming, but I wore a dress out to the House of Driscoll yesterday.

    Yes, I went back to the barricades, oops, sidewalk, yesterday. I think they were surprised. And there was no cop to protect Driscoll from machete-wielding assailants, oops, a fat, middle-aged white woman. (That says volumes. He had a cop out there because he was worried about me being there.) There we’re only 92 cars in the lot for the first service. I didn’t stay for the second service because it was too warm. Otherwise not much has changed: Driscoll still has a lot of out-of-state people attending. And he still can’t bring himself out to introduce himself to me. Even David Miscavige came out to the sidewalk to glare at me back in 1997.

  224. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    I wore a dress out to the House of Driscoll yesterday

    BTW, I saw your picture on twitter and I wanted to say I like your hat! Ha.

    I am female. I enjoy a glass of wine or whiskey. I don’t know that I’m old enough to fit in that dudes little subset but whatever, alcoholic is different from a person who drinks occasionally and since he’s using this mostly to slam people he already doesn’t like I wouldn’t take him too seriously.

    To quote Miranda: I heard Jesus he drank wine and I bet we’d get along just fine.

  225. Lea wrote:

    Of course, on that SBC blog, they mostly only interact with women to insult them for having silly little thoughts about being real, human people who should be treated as such. People are so revealing in comment sections! Surely they are not like this in person.

    I dunno. I don’t know any of the commenters on the SBC blogs personally. But, going by behavior I’ve seen out of other SBC church men, I’d guess that they really are like that in person.
    I’ve seen women verbally rebuked in front of the church for having the gall to speak at church business meetings. There is a certain church deacon who made fun of my husband every time I drove to church ………. had to bite my tongue to keep from saying, “Why don’t you put some signs in the church parking lot that say ‘NO WOMEN DRIVERS!'”

  226. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    I do like to wear shorts and slacks, which in some quarters might mark me Az gender non-conforming,

    Uhm, I usually were 5-pocket jeans, shorts, or capris……… Super short pixie hair style …….. sometimes hiking boots ……. sometimes open carry. It’s kinda difficult to get the cows back in the fence and then fix the gate or the barbed wire fence in a dress.
    I do were skirts and dresses from time to time, though. When I taught kids’ Wed. night and VBS classes, I even wore pants so I could do activities with the kids.

  227. elastigirl wrote:

    yet at the same time wondering…”what’s the point of all this?” [i know all the stock answers, so no one need bother – they don’t help in the slightest]
    and thinking, “God…. this really is stupid.” (on many levels)
    but mostly, “God… something doesn’t make sense here. Something’s off.”

    So with you on this!

  228. Lea wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    Considering the effects of brainwashing & thought reform, those women at Mars Hill may have actually believed Driscoll’s misogynist teachings. If so, they wouldn’t necessarily feel belittled, but rather, accepted their subordinated roles.

    I thought about this, but I would argue you are still feeling belittled even if you ACCEPT that that is the role you should fill. imo.

    Well, the truth is the women at Driscoll’s church were being belittled whether they felt or recognized it as such. But when persons have

    a.) given over their thinking capabilities to an arrogant leader and
    b.) laid aside their common sense, AND
    c.) ignored that inner voice which is meant to warn them when something/someone isn’t quite right

    they will believe the abuser’s lies and live according to that false view.

    This is why cults are so successful. The leaders within those environments are skilled in finding peoples’ weaknesses so as to control and manipulate them in order to attain their goals. Crafty wolves leading gullible people.

  229. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    “…the utter lack of imagination and wonder and flat-out HATRED of the arts. To me, that way is Madness and Death.

    We even used to say “It’s Gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
    And “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”
    (Yes, if Christians hated it, that was an indicator of quality. Think about that.)”
    +++++++++++++

    oh, yes, perfectly sums it all up. absolutely accurate. i’m a creative person, 100% right brained — growing up ‘christian’ has been torture.

    (‘christian’ in quotes, because of course God is the ultimate in creativity and the source of it all, from pure and refined down to edgy grunge and dark. it’s beyond ridiculous that the God’s namesake institution is paranoid about creativity)

    but this is nothing new. i think of the augmented 4th: the “chord of evil” that was banned in Renaissance church music….Churchmen thought its disturbing effect “apt to provoke lewd and libidinous thoughts”.

    what is it with religion and human beings?!

  230. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.
    //
    And just last month, he accused this blog of “libellous” comments against his homeboys. Now he offers up this little nugget, with no proof or justification whatsoever. I think standing in his own echo chamber is affecting his grip on reality.

    I would just ignore him. His posts are not worth the attention.

  231. I wear jeans, tshirts, sneakers, and also have a pixie cut. And I do nearly all the driving in the house. OH THE MASCULINITY!

    My dad says he hates it when I grow out my hair. And since when I grow it out it looks like I stuck my finger in a lightsocket even when laden down with $50 worth of hair products, it’s so not worth it to grow it out.

  232. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    There is a certain church deacon who made fun of my husband every time I drove to church ………. had to bite my tongue to keep from saying, “Why don’t you put some signs in the church parking lot that say ‘NO WOMEN DRIVERS!’”

    It was NONE of that deacon’s business who drove the family car and I would have let him know that in no uncertain terms. I am often the driver when hubby and I are together because I have Meniere’s Disease and I get dizzy & nauseous sitting in the passenger seat. What other people think about this arrangement I care NOT one hoot.

  233. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    There is a certain church deacon who made fun of my husband every time I drove to church

    On TWW, we talk a lot about New Calvinist “elders” who are in their 20s-30s. But, we haven’t addressed another real problem in traditional SBC life. Unspiritual deacon bodies!! Some of the meanest people on the planet are old Southern Baptist deacons who never met the Biblical qualifications of that office, but were placed there only because they were popular, wealthy, prominent business men, etc. … but don’t have a spiritual bone in their body! I can understand why the young reformers want to do church differently, but they have picked the wrong route.

  234. Lea wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.
    I’m in a mainline denom now. We had wine at the christmas party! Oh noes.
    The funny thing about that particular criticism is that most of the non-denom/reformed head honchos that get criticized make a big point about how much they little whiskey and cigars and artisanal beer brewing. So.

    Yeah, Lea!

  235. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    But then he has also accused us women over here of being drinkers. Sigh.
    Wasn’t the same accusation made to the Apostles at Pentecost?
    “How could we be drunk? It’s only nine in the morning!”
    — Simon Cephas Bar-Jonah

    +1

  236. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    I’ve seen women verbally rebuked in front of the church for having the gall to speak at church business meetings. There is a certain church deacon who made fun of my husband every time I drove to church

    I know you’ve told these stories before, but it’s so irritating! I suspect I would lack the capacity to be civil in such instances. So glad to be far away from that nonsense!!!

    BTW, any cultural discussion of masculine and feminine is, or at least should be, completely irrelevant to Christian living. There was an interesting article I read today that posited that white cultural concepts of feminine and masculine are imposed on non-white individuals and that this is harmful…while acknowledging that it is also harmful to the white individuals who do not fit these cultural norms, whatever they are. But then I look at this bio and he goes to one of those super comp Baptist seminaries so maybe he needs to look at the whole thing, not just where it intersects with race.

  237. And since we’ve been discussing hair, mine is long and looks pretty awesome today, if I do say so myself. When I cut it short (shoulder length) it’s really fluffy and I don’t like it. I can’t imagine myself with a pixie cut. Maybe I should try a wig out of curiosity!!

  238. You know what’s tacky?

    When I was growing up, things were so much simpler. All I had to do was pray and believe these words: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I take Him to be the Lord and Savior of my life.”

    And then I was baptized and part of Jesus’s family.

    If these self-appointed rulers of God’s church can improve upon Jesus’s covenant of grace through faith, then perhaps we should worship them instead. But they can’t and we shouldn’t.

  239. @ ishy:
    @ Lea:
    My hair is just the opposite – baby fine and stick straight, won’t hold curl and perms burn it. The longer it gets, the worse I look! So, short-short and styling gel it is!
    I’ve tried to let it grow out once in the last 30 years ….. made it to a chin length blunt cut and I couldn’t stand it anymore. When I walked in the door with the hair all whacked off again, my husband just pointed at my head and said, “That’s better!”

  240. hoodaticus wrote:

    You know what’s tacky?
    When I was growing up, things were so much simpler. All I had to do was pray and believe these words: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I take Him to be the Lord and Savior of my life.”
    And then I was baptized and part of Jesus’s family.
    If these self-appointed rulers of God’s church can improve upon Jesus’s covenant of grace through faith, then perhaps we should worship them instead. But they can’t and we shouldn’t.

    Instead we have tons of books, conferences, seminars, seminaries, coalition,telling us we’ve got it all wrong, done it all wrong.
    Thank the Lord, we can still meet with him on a hillside…Geneva, Rome or Capital Hill is not required.

  241. Lea wrote:

    I know you’ve told these stories before, but it’s so irritating! I suspect I would lack the capacity to be civil in such instances. So glad to be far away from that nonsense!!!

    There’s a reason I quit going to church…….. way too tempted to kick certain men in the back of the knees on the way down the church steps, among other things. I decided to avoid the temptations.

  242. Janey wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    His latest piece, posted yesterday, is that we women are probably binge drinkers. He doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the shed.
    His complaints about TWW are:
    Blogging while female.
    Commenting while female.
    Criticizing pastors while female.

    Wait – they allow women to comment here??????

    (Just kidding!!!!!)

  243. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    @ ishy:
    @ Lea:
    My hair is just the opposite – baby fine and stick straight, won’t hold curl and perms burn it. The longer it gets, the worse I look! So, short-short and styling gel it is!
    I’ve tried to let it grow out once in the last 30 years ….. made it to a chin length blunt cut and I couldn’t stand it anymore. When I walked in the door with the hair all whacked off again, my husband just pointed at my head and said, “That’s better!”

    Totally relate….. my hair is super fine, straight as an arrow, flat!! Keep it short….hubby likes it. When I’ve had it long, I have to fuss with it, gel it , spray it or tie it back, and then it looks short anyway.

  244. Janey wrote:

    My mother used to work for a secular company and she said the meanest nastiest complaints always came from Christians.

    Telling.

  245. hoodaticus wrote:

    If these self-appointed rulers of God’s church can improve upon Jesus’s covenant of grace through faith, then perhaps we should worship them instead. But they can’t and we shouldn’t.

    Good point.

  246. @ Max:
    True.

    Our founding pastor retired. Enter the YRR new hire who kicked the crabby old codgers in the teeth. We left the melee. Pathetic, both sides. The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.

  247. JYJames wrote:

    The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.

    “TOMORROW BELONGS
    TOMORROW BELONGS
    TOMORROW BELONGS TO MEEEEEEE!”
    Cabaret

  248. hoodaticus wrote:

    If these self-appointed rulers of God’s church can improve upon Jesus’s covenant of grace through faith, then perhaps we should worship them instead. But they can’t and we shouldn’t.

    Even if their graven image comes to life and demands we worship them or else?

  249. JYJames wrote:

    @ Max:
    True.
    Our founding pastor retired. Enter the YRR new hire who kicked the crabby old codgers in the teeth. We left the melee. Pathetic, both sides. The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.

    Same thing at our former church.

  250. Max wrote:

    Some of the meanest people on the planet are old Southern Baptist deacons who never met the Biblical qualifications of that office, but were placed there only because they were popular, wealthy, prominent business men, etc. … but don’t have a spiritual bone in their body! I can understand why the young reformers want to do church differently, but they have picked the wrong route.

    i.e. appointing YOUNG and mean Southern Baptist deacons who never met the Biblical qualifications of that office, but were placed there only because they were Totally Utterly Loyal to the New Order/Pastor.

  251. ishy wrote:

    I wear jeans, tshirts, sneakers, and also have a pixie cut. And I do nearly all the driving in the house. OH THE MASCULINITY!

    In women, I like anything from pixie cut to just off the shoulder. Not too short, not too long.

    My dad says he hates it when I grow out my hair. And since when I grow it out it looks like I stuck my finger in a lightsocket even when laden down with $50 worth of hair products, it’s so not worth it to grow it out.

    i.e. Your name in high school could have been “Frizz”?

    And the only reason Long Wavy Hair becamse the only “Godly” hairstyle for women is because Got Hard has a Loooooong Waaaaaaavy Haaaaaaaair fetish.

  252. elastigirl wrote:

    oh, yes, perfectly sums it all up. absolutely accurate. i’m a creative person, 100% right brained — growing up ‘christian’ has been torture.

    I’m so right-brained I’m strongly left-handed. When I was a kid, I was told I was a difficult birth and the back of my skull was noticeably larger on the right side than the left. My mother had to massage my head as my skull knit after birth so I wouldn’t look deformed. (I can still feel little creases in the bone back there.) As an adult, I have wondered a lot whether that asymmetrical skull was due to more than just a hard trip down the chute.

    (‘christian’ in quotes, because of course God is the ultimate in creativity and the source of it all, from pure and refined down to edgy grunge and dark. it’s beyond ridiculous that the God’s namesake institution is paranoid about creativity)

    That’s a major reason I ended up on this side of the Tiber. Patronage of and respect for the Arts. (Even if the arts involved include upright talking animals and worldbuilding…)

    But this is nothing new. i think of the augmented 4th: the “chord of evil” that was banned in Renaissance church music….Churchmen thought its disturbing effect “apt to provoke lewd and libidinous thoughts”.

    (Including Muscular Women begetting Unnatural Arousal?)
    Again we see the Christianese obsession with S*E*X.

  253. Darlene wrote:

    This is why cults are so successful. The leaders within those environments are skilled in finding peoples’ weaknesses so as to control and manipulate them in order to attain their goals.

    “Under cover of Heaven’s gate
    I MANIPULATE!”

    — Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlZ7U67Uio

  254. Darlene wrote:

    The leaders within those environments are skilled in finding peoples’ weaknesses so as to control and manipulate them in order to attain their goals. Crafty wolves leading gullible people.

    Is it a weakness to be a young, naive, new Christian?

  255. JYJames wrote:

    @ Mae:
    “Is that actually a thing?”
    Must be a thing.

    Yes it is…..it’s their, magnum opus, in the neo Calvinist world.

  256. hoodaticus wrote:

    Wait – they allow women to comment here??????

    It’s because Archbishop Satin (aka Uncle Satin) has not been doing his job. He failed to exercise male leadership and look what happened.

    But we cannot blame it on just one man. All of the men commenting on this site probably need training like this: http://nypost.com/2017/06/03/this-intensive-boot-camp-is-designed-to-revive-a-mans-primal-nature/. Maybe such training would enable us to stand against all the ungodliness that permeates this site.

    Now back to reality.

  257. elastigirl wrote:

    Something’s off. I can’t put my finger on it. the christian theological party line is just too perfect, too cute, too buttoned up.

    Very good observation. This is a big topic to unwrap, but I’ll suggest a few hints. I think the basic point is the Reformed view of God is wrong. All of the stuff that is “off” comes from this.
    – The reformed view of god’s holiness is primarily legal/moral. If God is holy, it means set apart. It’s easy for us to think of God as being legally/morally pure, so maybe that definition is too easy. What is really mind-blowing is that God has existed as Trinity for all eternity in a relationship of self-giving, other-centered, sacrificial love (never existed as a solitary, alone god with nothing to love). If that is what it means to be holy (relational holiness), that is truly set apart from us.
    – In the reformed view, god is primarily involved with rewarding obedience and punishing disobedience. His hot wrath against sin must be vented because the books have to be balanced. But this is not what the vast majority of Christians believed about God through history.
    – The Hebrew view of God’s justice is restorative rather than punitive. His justice is satisfied when things are set right, not because punishment was inflicted. But the reformed view sees his justice primarily as punitive.

    For me, the antidote is the teaching from the early church fathers and modern theologians who are more along those lines. What a journey.

  258. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    His justice is satisfied when things are set right

    Well said.
    I might add: “set right” through relational and moral restoration and a journey to correctness as Max mentions upthread, as in the Prodigal Son;

    rather than “set right” through anger and lashings and hairshirt theology. (It seems a distant memory that “set right” was used pejoratively in a sermon or two. Strange how words are used.)

  259. JYJames wrote:

    @ Mae:
    “Is that actually a thing?”
    Must be a thing.

    “The king is a thing!”
    “A thing, my lord?”
    “Of nothing. Bring me to him.”
    Hamlet

  260. JYJames wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    The leaders within those environments are skilled in finding peoples’ weaknesses so as to control and manipulate them in order to attain their goals. Crafty wolves leading gullible people.

    Is it a weakness to be a young, naive, new Christian?

    Nope, not a weakness. Being “young, naive” & a “new Christian” however, is easy prey for the crafty wolves & arrogant, controlling pastors/leaders. I have personal experience. I was once one of those young, naive, new Christians who was wrongly influenced by an older manipulative leader claiming to speak for God.

  261. Deb wrote:

    Glad others are discussing the Mars Hill fiasco and HUGE fail by MD. This post is definitely worth reading.
    https://stephenmcalpine.com/2017/06/01/driscoll-and-the-bogeyman-narrative/

    I, too, found this to be worth reading. It contains what I believe to be a particularly telling quote:

    In the early stages, [Mars Hill] was a vital component of a return to conservative biblical family ideals.

    To be clear: these are not Stephen McAlpine’s words; he quotes them from Sarah Zylstra’s article (and even she was quoting someone else), and in context, if I read him aright, he is critically examining them.

    The variola virus, responsible for smallpox (and, thereby, much death and great suffering through human history), has/had a very successful way of infecting the human body. It has a number of human genes in its genome. Long story short: it can create proteins on its surface that the immune system believes are not foreign. Thus, the virus evades detection long enough to cause a terrible infection.

    In the same way, Driskle entered church culture at a time when there was a great appetite for some kind of antidote to the terrible frightening feminists and liberals, and he made a lot of noise about “biblical” this and “reformed” that and traditional the other. So he was given a pass. He ticked certain doctrinal boxes, so who cared what else he was?

    The root issue with Driskle is, of course, that he is not an “imperfect” pastor who’s made some mistakes. He is a wolf. And has always been a wolf, and still is now. He is in the game to enrich himself at the expense of the sheep. He is a false teacher, not fundamentally because his teaching is false (though much of it is), but because he himself is false. Thus, for all his outward ability to attract people into an organisation resembling a conservative “biblical” church, he never has and never will “win people to Jesus”. He uses a picture of Jesus as bait to draw people into funding and feeding himself.

    But because he has pulled the variola virus trick – ticked those pricelessly important doctrinal boxes – large swathes of the evangelical community are helplessly incapable of seeing this. They never have, nor ever will, see what is right in front of their faces. That’s the real sadness of this whole fiasco; there have been Driskles before, and there will be others after him. Because evangelicals identify themselves primarily by what they believe to be their technically correct doctrines, and cannot see that it does not protect them from wolves.

  262. JYJames wrote:

    Our founding pastor retired. Enter the YRR new hire who kicked the crabby old codgers in the teeth. We left the melee. Pathetic, both sides. The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.

    Good summary of the weeping and gnashing of teeth that accompanies a typical YRR takeover of a traditional SBC church. Perhaps the young rebels’ future will run out when they run out of money? Unfortunately, in my area, they are replacing the old timers with Biblically-illiterate young professionals with new money.

    When old pastors retire, I just don’t see them being replaced with anyone but a new reformer – who else is out there? My son-in-law is a bi-vocational non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastor is in his early 40s. He watches in amazement as he tries to attract new members with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for ALL people, while nearby New Calvinist church plants are busting at the seams. Maybe he should put some coffee in the foyer and get a cool band? He can’t spike his hair, it’s getting thin … and he refuses to wear skinny jeans. He may not be cool, but he is a passionate Gospel preacher who proclaims Truth without compromise. But, it seems the Millennials want the “new and improved” church experience where New Calvinism reigns.

  263. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    We even used to say “It’s Gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
    And “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”
    (Yes, if Christians hated it, that was an indicator of quality. Think about that.)

    Here’s a recent illustration:
    I just saw The Shack on DVD. Back when the film hit the cinemas it drew fire from two extremes. The effete snooties of no faith dismissed it as maudlin tripe while hardcore fundagelicals declared it heresy from the pit.
    Personally I thought the movie was good, well crafted, and a great antidote to toxic ixtianity.

  264. elastigirl wrote:

    what is it with religion and human beings?!

    Most religions (when they take virulent form) hate and despise human freedom.

  265. elastigirl wrote:

    what makes matters worse is christians and church environments have this air about them of being the world’s elite class of human being, God’s gift to the world. the city is lucky to have them. whenever they enter a room, the room and all those in it are lucky to have them.

    In my community, a largely secular university town, Christ’s followers seem to be a fairly decent bunch that unfortunately contains their share that fail to exhibit what they espouse. While I was ground up by a local church that left me seriously questioning the validity of Christ and his church, I have since found every group is internally inconsistent, even the atheists in town are terribly inconsistent with their espoused beliefs or lack of same.

    I would single out the university set that I found exhibits an even worse hypocrisy, this may be due to their self congratulatory quality that reminds me of the British elite of a century past who looked down on the lower classes and the rest of the world. There is nothing like being part of the elite to be oblivious.

    Much of the testimony I hear about how bad believers are doesn’t pass the test of scrutiny, such as the old trope they are bad tippers. I can usually find what I am looking for in groups of people, even street hoodlums in a major city just North of me had expressions of compassion and nobleness. Your description of your experience with christians who think themselves as elite may be their problem, just don’t lose your own humility.

  266. Max wrote:

    JYJames wrote:

    Our founding pastor retired. Enter the YRR new hire who kicked the crabby old codgers in the teeth. We left the melee. Pathetic, both sides. The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.

    Good summary of the weeping and gnashing of teeth that accompanies a typical YRR takeover of a traditional SBC church. Perhaps the young rebels’ future will run out when they run out of money? Unfortunately, in my area, they are replacing the old timers with Biblically-illiterate young professionals with new money.

    When old pastors retire, I just don’t see them being replaced with anyone but a new reformer – who else is out there? My son-in-law is a bi-vocational non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastor is in his early 40s. He watches in amazement as he tries to attract new members with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for ALL people, while nearby New Calvinist church plants are busting at the seams. Maybe he should put some coffee in the foyer and get a cool band? He can’t spike his hair, it’s getting thin … and he refuses to wear skinny jeans. He may not be cool, but he is a passionate Gospel preacher who proclaims Truth without compromise. But, it seems the Millennials want the “new and improved” church experience where New Calvinism reigns.

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster? Why wouldn’t any sane person prefer to worship the infinitely loving God Who sent His Son to die for every last person on the planet?? I know this has been asked many times before, but I still cannot wrap my mind around it. What is the appeal? Why would millennials be drawn to such an inhumane belief system?

  267. Muff Potter wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    We even used to say “It’s Gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
    And “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”
    (Yes, if Christians hated it, that was an indicator of quality. Think about that.)

    Here’s a recent illustration:
    I just saw The Shack on DVD. Back when the film hit the cinemas it drew fire from two extremes. The effete snooties of no faith dismissed it as maudlin tripe while hardcore fundagelicals declared it heresy from the pit.
    Personally I thought the movie was good, well crafted, and a great antidote to toxic ixtianity.

    A friend loaned me the book. I tried to read it, but the shlockiness got to me. Maybe the movie was better.

  268. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    . Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster?

    we share the same gut reaction, yes

    Thanks for prayer. 🙂
    Surgery follow-up today was good. I am grateful to all who prayed. Thank you so much. And God Bless!

  269. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    A friend loaned me the book. I tried to read it, but the shlockiness got to me. Maybe the movie was better.

    I’ll probably read the book too. Sklockiness is in the eye of the beholder I think, and there’s no accountin’ for taste, or so the old saying goes.

  270. Muff Potter wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    what is it with religion and human beings?!

    Most religions (when they take virulent form) hate and despise human freedom.

    To take that a step further, they not only despise human freedom, they also despise human beings who are not exactly like them.

  271. Christiane wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    . Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster?

    we share the same gut reaction, yes

    Why would anyone want to believe in a god like that? A couple of reasons. Because they believe they​ are being faithful to Scripture, and must submit to the truth of the Bible as they understand it, regardless if that makes God a monster. And many, because they are convinced they are among the elect, have no worries about being damned before the foundation of the world. All will be well with them in the end because they are one of the Chosen.

  272. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    What is the appeal? Why would millennials be drawn to such an inhumane belief system?

    Darlene wrote:

    And many, because they are convinced they are among the elect, have no worries about being damned before the foundation of the world. All will be well with them in the end because they are one of the Chosen.

    Which would fit in with the Entitlement Mentality observed in a lot of Millenials.

    (I keep remembering the stories about Millenials who see nothing wrong with slavery, probably because they see themselves as Entitled to Hold the Whip.)

  273. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In the same way, Driskle entered church culture at a time when there was a great appetite for some kind of antidote to the terrible frightening feminists and liberals, and he made a lot of noise about “biblical” this and “reformed” that and traditional the other

    Like the two-Antichrist Archetype tag team:

    Fleeing the Fanatic Persecutor, you run to (and take the Mark of) the Slick Deceiver.

  274. Muff Potter wrote:

    I just saw The Shack on DVD. Back when the film hit the cinemas it drew fire from two extremes. The effete snooties of no faith dismissed it as maudlin tripe while hardcore fundagelicals declared it heresy from the pit.

    I used to say that when you’re taking fire from both sides, you’re probably on the right track.

  275. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster? Why wouldn’t any sane person prefer to worship the infinitely loving God Who sent His Son to die for every last person on the planet?? I know this has been asked many times before, but I still cannot wrap my mind around it. What is the appeal? Why would millennials be drawn to such an inhumane belief system?

    I don’t ‘get it’ either. There was a time when I did, but that time is long past and at present, my conscience will no longer permit me to sign onto allegiance and fealty to such a god embodied in a kind of carrot (heaven) and stick (hell) religion.
    I think that many millenials are drawn to it because it promises them a kind of security they cannot grab onto in this world. And if it has inhumane trappings? They’re irrelevant and they’re part and parcel to a much grander and more glorious belief system (in their view).

  276. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    So he was given a pass. He ticked certain doctrinal boxes, so who cared what else he was?

    Exactly like the Christianese Cult-Watch groups during my time in-country.
    Defining “Cult” entirely by Theology and Doctrine, not behavior.
    Parsing theology letter-by-letter while splinter “Fellowships” abused their people unimpeded.

  277. Muff Potter wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    A friend loaned me the book. I tried to read it, but the shlockiness got to me. Maybe the movie was better.

    I’ll probably read the book too. Sklockiness is in the eye of the beholder I think, and there’s no accountin’ for taste, or so the old saying goes.

    I definitely didn’t mean to attack your taste!!!! I assume the movie’s better than the book…some stories are told better visually than verbally. I thought the book began well, but after awhile I just couldn’t take it anymore. Maybe I should try reading it again. Meanwhile I’ll shut up, lol!

  278. @ Ken F (aka Tweed):

    “– The Hebrew view of God’s justice is restorative rather than punitive. His justice is satisfied when things are set right, not because punishment was inflicted. But the reformed view sees his justice primarily as punitive.

    For me, the antidote is the teaching from the early church fathers and modern theologians who are more along those lines. What a journey.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    thanks for the comment. a journey, indeed.

    i’ve never been in a reformed church. The church i grew up in was part of an organization that wanted people from various denominations to be comfortable so as to work together for the ultimate goal: to bring God to people, and to persuade them to say a maybe to God, a yes to God.

    therefore, they didn’t take a stand on all these ultra-specific, pin-pointy things that are part & parcel of the Neo-cal / Calvinist / Reformed realm. The ultimate goal was not “algebraic theology” where all the data works together to solve all the unknowns.

    Talk about a time consumer, a brain consumer, an emotions consumer, a life consumer, a relationships consumer!

    In my adult life i’ve been a part of charismatic/pentecostal churches, which again didn’t seem to get mired in all these technicalities.

    to think that “The Gospel” is technicality-driven is ludicrous to me. And only those churches which call themselves “A Gospel Church” (presumably technicality driven) are the true and right ones. Ridiculous, all of it.

    however, in all my church exposure, i don’t recall hearing much about the past. hearing about all the happenings across all the millenia which explain why things are the way they are in christian world.

    so, i like your approach (jewish thought, church fathers, etc.).

  279. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster?

    For the elation of being an insider?

  280. Lea wrote:

    I think there is a lot more to it than that.

    Yes, much more. I could be wrong, but I think the main issue is what we believe about God. That will determine what we believe about creation, mankind, and everything else. If we get it wrong on who God is then we are likely to get many other important things wrong as well. It’s basically the problem mankind has had ever since the garden of Eden.

  281. elastigirl wrote:

    so, i like your approach (jewish thought, church fathers, etc.).

    I’m finding freedom and recovery of joy in this approach, but it does not make me popular in my SBC church. My church has not yet gone down the YRR path, but I fear it’s only a matter of time because no one seems to be paying much attention to where the SBC is heading. Most of the concern is figuring out how to accommodate all the young families with children who are showing up because of all the new construction in the area. As an empty-nester, I have become somewhat irrelevant.

  282. It should be duly noted that Mark’s base theology, on which he built church function, purpose and stoked the fires, was based on Prophet, Priest and King theology that came straight from Joseph Smith and the Mormons. His church structure wasn’t built on scripture, he was too big for that, was built on Amway philosophy. Literally, he met extensively with Amways founder prior to expanding Mark’s Hill Church.

  283. Darlene wrote:

    Why would anyone want to believe in a god like that? A couple of reasons. Because they believe they​ are being faithful to Scripture, and must submit to the truth of the Bible as they understand it, regardless if that makes God a monster. And many, because they are convinced they are among the elect, have no worries about being damned before the foundation of the world. All will be well with them in the end because they are one of the Chosen.

    Hi DARLENE,
    yes, the first idea describes ‘bibliolatry’, which seems to replace The Word (Our Lord) with a testament that is about Him instead ….. the second idea seems like a self-centered ‘I’m saved and the h3ll will everyone else’ mentality …. no sense of union with humanity in Christ through the Incarnation and through the Body of Christ …. no compassion or empathy for the ‘unchosen’

    Honestly, St. John wrote of Our Lord as ‘the Light that shines in the darkness’, but the god of the neo-Cal world is not of ‘the Light’, no ….. a wrathful, vain, glory-seeking monster unlike the Christ of Scripture

    I will never understand.

  284. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster? Why wouldn’t any sane person prefer to worship the infinitely loving God Who sent His Son to die for every last person on the planet?? I know this has been asked many times before, but I still cannot wrap my mind around it. What is the appeal? Why would millennials be drawn to such an inhumane belief system?

    In a nutshell: they’re drawn to it because they do very nicely out of it, thankyou. To reverse your question, why would they want to worship a loser God who chooses to suffer and who might ask them to put themselves out for the poor and the dispossessed too…

  285. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm

    This is about election, from the Catholic viewpoint. It is consistent with scripture, even scripture with which some people would rather disagree. God is not a monster. People who believe scripture are not committing ‘bibliolatry’ unless you want to accuse the whole Catholic Church of being in that camp. I am having no part in any such talk and I just want that clearly understood. You people do what you feel is true and is pleasing to God, but this sort of talk is not it for me.

  286. okrapod wrote:

    It is consistent with scripture

    Thank you for posting. This concept did not come from nowhere. I think free will and election are both present in scripture to some degree.

    I am much more interested in looking at the other aspects that make calvinistas tick in a disagreeable way, because as I said before, I think it is way too simplistic to simply blame calvin and be done. It is so much more than that.

  287. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster?

    Flatter the Monster enough and you not only get to live, but the Monster can promote you (over others’ bodies, of course) into the Inner Ring of Court Favorites. And you get a share of all that Delicious, Delicious POWER.

  288. Darlene wrote:

    And many, because they are convinced they are among the elect, have no worries about being damned before the foundation of the world. All will be well with them in the end because they are one of the Chosen.

    And because they are one of the Chosen, they can do Anything They Want and get away with it. Anything.

    “I kill my own mother and still they cheer me!”
    — Nero Caesar, in Paul Maier’s historical novel Flames of Rome

  289. elastigirl wrote:

    Talk about a time consumer, a brain consumer, an emotions consumer, a life consumer, a relationships consumer!

    Remember all those 3-400-year-old New England Puritans’ journals.
    All navel-gazing sin-sniffing, all the time.
    (Makes you wonder how they found the time to sniff out all those Witches…)

  290. Muff Potter wrote:

    I think that many millenials are drawn to it because it promises them a kind of security they cannot grab onto in this world. And if it has inhumane trappings? They’re irrelevant and they’re part and parcel to a much grander and more glorious belief system (in their view).

    Especially when (in the words I heard last night) “Millenials are THE most Entitled piles of [skubalon] on the planet.”

  291. @ okrapod:
    I think ‘bibliolatry’ is a sad business. But I understand that when the written word is central to a people’s ‘assurance’, it is possible that they will cling to the shadow and not the substance. A testament is not the object of the kind of worship one gives to the One that the written testament is about;
    but that testament may be honored as ‘sacred’ or ‘sacramental’ in how it is used by God to touch the lives of those who come upon it, especially at the time in their own lives when they have been ‘opened’ to ‘see’ and when this happens, they may find through their reading of the sacred Scriptures, the way to God’s salvation and peace.

    What the kind of destructive ‘bibliolatry’ does though is horrific:
    misogyny, child abuses, fostered hatred of ‘the others’, self-glorification …. we know the list, don’t we? The perpetrators tak ‘a verse’ and adapt it to fit their own agendas and the KEY to seeing this is that, in order to do this, they have set aside the light of Christ and have turned towards the darkness in their actions.

    The ‘elect’? There are some among us who touch lives with their gifts from God. I like to think that they are ‘servants’ in the best sense and their mission is to help others towards the light by the example of their own humility before the Lord. ‘Grace’ is given to the humble of the Earth. For a reason. 🙂 These people point others towards the Lord with a clarity you can’t miss. Not the classic ‘Catholic’ definition of ‘the elect’? Think about it for a while. 🙂

  292. Christiane wrote:

    What the kind of destructive ‘bibliolatry’ does though is horrific:
    misogyny, child abuses, fostered hatred of ‘the others’, self-glorification …. we know the list, don’t we? The perpetrators tak ‘a verse’ and adapt it to fit their own agendas and the KEY to seeing this is that, in order to do this, they have set aside the light of Christ and have turned towards the darkness in their actions.

    Well said Christiane.
    And there’s also this:

    “Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another) … There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.”
    ―- Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird —

  293. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster?

    Flatter the Monster enough and you not only get to live, but the Monster can promote you (over others’ bodies, of course) into the Inner Ring of Court Favorites

    Just had one of my usual delayed mental flashbacks on this subject:

    The Eighties TV miniseries The Bunker, starring Anthony Hopkins as Adolf Hitler in the story of the last days of WW2 in The Bunker in Berlin.

    Somewhat early on, there’s a scene where the Inner Ring of current court favorites (Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels, maybe a couple others) confront Speer to tell him in no uncertain terms that he will Never be one of their Inner Ring. Much like a clique of Mean Girls laying the smackdown on the geeky kid, kicking them away from the Kewl Kids’ Table.

    This while the bunker is shaking from the near-misses of Russian artillery bombarding the city.

  294. @ Lea:

    According to some reliable sources the prophet Daniel, his 3 friends and maybe Nehemiah may have been eunuchs. This was not a voluntary thing, but often young men who served in the royal palace were castrated. Since Driscoll accuses Esther of being a slut he would probably call Daniel transgender.

    Some great Biblical heroes were not virile, alpha males as Mark Driscoll would have us believe. There's more to being a real man than getting it on with your wife.

  295. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
    Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Max wrote:
    JYJames wrote:
    Our founding pastor retired. Enter the YRR new hire who kicked the crabby old codgers in the teeth. We left the melee. Pathetic, both sides. The old timers have the $$$. The millennials have the future.
    Good summary of the weeping and gnashing of teeth that accompanies a typical YRR takeover of a traditional SBC church. Perhaps the young rebels’ future will run out when they run out of money? Unfortunately, in my area, they are replacing the old timers with Biblically-illiterate young professionals with new money.
    When old pastors retire, I just don’t see them being replaced with anyone but a new reformer – who else is out there? My son-in-law is a bi-vocational non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastor is in his early 40s. He watches in amazement as he tries to attract new members with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for ALL people, while nearby New Calvinist church plants are busting at the seams. Maybe he should put some coffee in the foyer and get a cool band? He can’t spike his hair, it’s getting thin … and he refuses to wear skinny jeans. He may not be cool, but he is a passionate Gospel preacher who proclaims Truth without compromise. But, it seems the Millennials want the “new and improved” church experience where New Calvinism reigns.

    I don’t get that. Why would anyone *want* to believe in a god who damns most of humanity just to glorify his own glory, or however they put it? Why would one *want* to worship a monster? Why wouldn’t any sane person prefer to worship the infinitely loving God Who sent His Son to die for every last person on the planet?? I know this has been asked many times before, but I still cannot wrap my mind around it. What is the appeal? Why would millennials be drawn to such an inhumane belief system?

    Good point! A Roman Catholic priest criticized John Calvin’s magnum opus Institutes of the Christian Faith on the grounds that his TULIP would make God the ultimate author of evil. Instead of being three times holy, God would be worse than the devil–but much more powerful!

    Since Calvin didn’t feel like coming up with a revised edition, he had the priest burned at the stake. Woohoo! Way to win a debate!

    That’s why I’m an arminianist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *