Beyond Service

The caution I must exercise is not to direct my anger, my hurt, my frustration toward a person. Mark Driscoll drives me crazy. I have never identified with his style of communication. I have described him as arrogant, one who loves to hear himself speak and thumping a potentially damaging message about women and their place in the kingdom.

It was not surprising, in fact, it was predictable to read his answer to the Ted Haggard disaster. Mark Driscoll makes several glaring remarks about women. Yes, I know he wasn’t blaming Gayle Haggard for her husband’s sin, but it certainly seemed like he was suggesting that women share in the blame of their husbands’ wandering minds, hearts and bodies if they don’t keep themselves beautiful and available to them. In taking a hit for the home team, he perpetuates the home-boy attitude that reduces women to mere objects for sexual pleasure....

So, now what? Is Mark Driscoll my enemy? If I label him as a misogynist, maybe he is? Then what am I to do about that?

Let him bring out the best in me, not the worst in me! and I am an intercessor, a prayer warrior. So, I must pray, wash Mark Driscoll’s feet with prayers to the Lord.

[via Graceful Journey]

Filters Out, Comes Off Nicely

Here is my over-simplification of his re-statement...

I meant what I said... but if it looks like I am apologizing without apologizing, then all those who are not "Bible-believing, Jesus-loving" (aka "my critics") will get off my case. So, I am going to "clarify", or restate in a nice way, and hope that it comes off as an apology.

One of the things that MD talks about in the original post is the great protection he has surrounded himself with. You know, the pastor needs a pastor, his heterosexual male assistants, everyone having access to his email, and all...My question then is: Is there no one filtering what comes out?? Are the filters only on the stuff going in? Because, it seems that the stuff that is coming out is a potentially damaging as the stuff going in.

[via Revivified Hermitess, emphasis mine]

From What should we do about Mark Driscoll--a cussing, hot-tempered, chauvinistic pastor?:

I would like to offer three observations about the Church’s expectations of its leaders and their wrongdoings.

First, we expect pastors to acknowledge their own sinfulness, but we’re somewhat picky in how they do so. We prefer that they refer to sin only at a general, theological level. E.g., “All have sinned, and so have I.” Openness about specific sins should never happen, or, if it does, only in the context of recounting long ago deliverance.

Second, under no circumstances should we directly observe or learn of sins. Pastors can mention having a problem with anger, but we must never see them lose their temper. They can refer to foul language, but we must never hear them curse. They can lament struggling with their flesh, but we must not know that they looked at porn. They can want to love more, but we must never witness them disrespecting someone.

Third, the more accomplished the pastor, the more rigorously these first two principles are applied. A pastor of a small, stagnant church can say and think all sorts of things, and most Christians, aside from the few who sit in the church’s pews, would not care. If, however, the pastor has done a lot of good—saving the lost, raising disciples, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor—we insist on them displaying little if any wrong. (As a side note, this reverses the concept of social capital—which holds that the more “good” one has done the more “bad” one is allowed to get away with.)

These observations fit with Mark Driscoll.

[via Bradley Wright's Web Log]

I want to be a bearer of the gospel.
It doesn’t matter if I bear children.
I want to fulfill my vows to God,
And not have my calling dependent on a man.

{the full poem by Shawna R.B. Atteberry}

Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils.

G.K. Chesterton

It Could Be Worse, Right?

Sure, Mark Driscoll is a hard complementarian, but at least he isn't this[Warning: *may strongly offend*], true?

A generous apostasy?

[via IdeaJoy]

Emerging Context, Essentially Divisive

This sort of division within the church isn’t new…but it is unique. While folks have debated the role of women in ministry before, this is version of that old debate is taking place in an emerging context. It is interesting that most of those who have posted comments are talking about Driscoll versus McLaren…not the CBE versus Grudem/Piper.

I used to be a complementarian. Now I am basically egalitarian–though I have problems with the term. Once, I would have said that the role of women in the church and within marriage was an essential issue (like Driscoll and others would argue). I saw it as a sort of gateway doctrine, that if eroded would lead to much more heinous doctrinal errors. For a while I tried to put it in the “unimportant” pile. Now, after years of struggle, I see it again as an essential issue–an issue of justice that cannot be ignored.

At one point I would have had hope that a discussion like the one you’re suggesting could happen and be fruitful. Now, I am of the opinion that the sort of Christianity Driscoll holds to is often fundamentally different than the sort that I hold to. And while I don’t think protesting is a worthwhile option, I have profound doubts that interested parties would be able to sit down with one another for a meaningful discussion. Both sides of the debate see it as an essential issue–but for completely different reasons. Both sides of the debate see the folks on the other side as “the enemy.”

Perhaps the passages of Scripture everyone involved should investigate aren’t the ones that talk about the role of women, nor the ones that say we should have unity–instead we should all read the Sermon on the Mount, particularly where it says we ought to love our enemy.

[by Mark Van S in this post, emphasis mine]

Hard Complementarian, Fighting Words

His teaching may disempower women. It may hurt emotionally. It may lead to gifts given by God to the Body of Christ not being used to their full extent. It may even lead to some women making choices in life to forgo education and live a life that is more hemmed in and constrained than necessary...
But none of these things, bad as they are, are abuse, oppression or misogeny. Tragic, yes. Misogeny, no.

That having been said, Mark Driscoll is a male chauvinist. He frequently uses "feminine" as a derogatory. His version of manhood is becoming more of a ridiculous charicature every day. I have sat in the room with him and been told "If your wife is working, you are a selfish bastard. How dare you make her shoulder her half of the curse and part of yours as well." In addition to being erroneous theology (it really, really is), this kind of talk has some far reaching consequences, and communicates a lot of things that have the potential to really screw people up (guys- it's all on you! Perform! Women, hold back... don't shine too brightly!)

Mark is not a complementarian. He's a Hard Complementarian, who borders on a heirarchicalist. He gives lip service (I know he would say it's more- but actions and outcomes speak louder than words) to equal value of men and women, but effectively negates this as he teaches a view of headship that has some women promising to "obey" in their wedding vows, and seeking the "covering" of a fill-in dad when theirs is unavaliable and they would like to date.

Mark needs to smarten up and his elders need to kick his arse hard enough to help him smarten up. He needs to re-assess some of his views and soften how he presents others.

The elders of Mars Hill (IMHO) need to see at this point that Mark's blog, Mark's comments and rants, is/are a net-negative to their church community, and they need to shut it down for the time being. The best known church in the Acts 29 network, other than Mars Hill, has left the organization, in part in an effort to distance themselves from the blowback from Mark's comments. There are still personal friendships there, to be sure. But when people have to start organizationally moving away from each other- that's a sign to me that something is amiss. And it wouldn't surprise me if other A29 churches weren't moving in the same direction.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- Mark is at a crossroads. What I'm seeing now is that a lot of people, his entire church community, and the leadership in particular, are there with him.

As his apparent pride grows, so does the danger- the danger of his words hurting, the danger of other emulating him, and the danger when/and if someone that big, and that prideful, takes a fall.

[via bob.blog, HT: TallSkinnyKiwi]

And from the comments:

The problem attitudes regarding women extend to the elder board of the church, AND, in my opinion, the purveyors of various complementarian materials, such as the CBMW.
Mark Driscoll and Leif Moi do not produce new ideas. They rehash, without any tact or restraint, ideas that are coming out the complementarian movement, stating bluntly the things that are carefully veiled by more experienced speakers and writers....

I think Mark Driscoll is a very intense, serious and sincere Christian. However, he has a huge weakness in terms of his Wayne-Grudem-meets-drunken-frat-boy attitude towards women. It is his Achilles heel, and it will be his downfall if he cannot get it under control.

If the protests about his recent indiscretions provoke him to either rethink his attitude or restrain his expression of it, or both, then it will be the best thing that ever happened to him, and Mars Hill.

Disapointing Driscoll and the Pornographic Imagination

[via The Philosophical Pastor]