Posted by Helen on: 11.09.2006 /
Note: the comments section on this entry is now closed. If you would like to continue discussing whether Mark Driscoll’s teachings are hurtful to women, please do so on the People Against Fundamentalism blog. If you would like to read about spiritual abuse or discuss it in general, without reference to a particular church or leader, please see this blog entry: Spiritual Abuse Recovery Resources.
A few days ago Mark Driscoll shared his response to the Ted Haggard situation on his blog. In his introduction he comments:
I have, however, seen some very overt opportunities for sin. On one occasion I actually had a young woman put a note into my shirt pocket while I was serving communion with my wife, asking me to have dinner, a massage, and sex with her.
She must have been a bit mixed up about what sort of communion was being offered at Mark’s church…
Anyway, do we really need to know these details? How are men who read Mark Driscoll’s blog supposed to not think about illicit sex if he keeps writing about it?
On another occasion a young woman emailed me a photo of herself topless and wanted to know if I liked her body. Thankfully, that email was intercepted by an assistant and never got to me.
I hate to disappoint Mark but that sounds like spam rather an an example of a woman who singled him out for her personal attentions.
Why is he thankful it never got to him? Is he that weak that it would have been a significant problem if it had?
Again, do we really need these details? Was this his trusty heterosexual male assistant who intercepted this e-mail? Why did the assistant click on the attachment and find out she was topless?
After the introduction, Mark writes:
as a means of encouragement, I would like to share some practical suggestions for fellow Christian leaders, especially young men
I do like his stated motive. However, he seems to have some other motives too. In bullet point two of his advice to men he finds himself unable to refrain from making derogatory comments about pastors’ wives (emphasis mine):
Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
I listen to a Christian radio show that is more enlightened, evidently, than Mark Driscoll. They have a name for men who say “my wife was not sexually available enough for me so I went outside the marriage”: sex addicts. The hosts of the show run workshops especially to help men recover from sexual addiction. On air I hear them discuss with the wife what she can do to help her husband. However, strangely enough I have never heard them ask “Have you ‘let yourself go’? Because if you have, that’s probably why this happened!” Unlike Mark they do not blame her for her husband’s behavior.
In bullet point five we hear about the flirtatious woman who might show up to Bible study at the pastors’ home. I wonder what ‘test’ is used to determine whether she is being flirtatious?
Pastors have the right to protect their own home. This means that if someone keeps dropping by unannounced and is unwelcome, or a flirtatious woman shows up to a Bible study at the pastor’s home, the pastor and his family have the right to request that they never return.
In bullet point seven we discover that female assistants to pastors are unable to avoid becoming too emotionally involved with them. Mark suggests returning to male heretosexual assistants. (What about female lesbian ones?)
Churches should consider returning to heterosexual male assistants who are like Timothy and Titus to serve alongside pastors. Too often the pastor’s assistant is a woman who, if not sexually involved, becomes too emotionally involved with the pastor as a sort of emotional and practical second wife. I have been blessed with a trustworthy heterosexual male assistant who can travel with me, meet with me, etc., without the fear of any temptations or even false allegations since we have beautiful wives and eight children between us.
Yes, as long as you are with a man who has a beautiful wife and a number of children you can be sure there’s no risk of problematic temptations occurring. Well, as long as he’s not the President of the NAE, anyway. (Mark did write this before the allegations against Ted Haggard were proven - but not before they were made. Did he really think this through?)
In bullet point nine the flirtatious woman rears her attractive head again:
if the pastor knows someone is trouble (e.g., a flirtatious woman), he can see that on his caller ID and simply refuse to answer the call or have to deal with a voicemail.
If Mark is too weak to deal with her, couldn’t he ask someone else to help her (since she’s in trouble) rather than ignoring her? Where in the Bible does it say “love your neighbor (of course that means help your neighbor, not ‘respond to any flirtatious overtures’) unless she is a flirtatious woman“?
What is it with Mark Driscoll and women?
Comment by: Julie Marie
1 11/9/06 5:56 AM | Comment Link |a commenter on one of the Christian blogs I read had this to say, and I liked it:
I have heard that women throw themselves at pastors and priests, if this is true, it is wise for them to come up with a way to deal with it. My former pastors have quite a list of protections - no one on one counseling with females, no closed doors with females, no riding in cars with females, no business trips with females…
Maybe that is one reason it is so hard for women to have any sort of pastoral position in churches.
I do have one question: does anyone know what in the world Driscoll means when he calls himself a heterosexual lesbian? Is it just a hyperbolic assertion that he is really really into women?
Comment by: Helen
2 11/9/06 6:06 AM | Comment Link |He’s ridiculing lesbians and churches which do not take the stand that all forms of homosexual lifestyle are sinful.
Comment by: Helen
3 11/9/06 6:09 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie wrote:
…and they probably would have been happy to ride alone with Ted Haggard (until a little over a week ago). Ironic, huh?
Comment by: Paul
4 11/9/06 6:31 AM | Comment Link |Here’s my take, for what it’s worth, why throw good brain power after bad and bother to give Mr Driscoll the time and attention he so craves from his pronouncements. He wants, so it would seem to me, for the whole world to applaud him or rail at him and thus blogsphere fills up with Driscoll related for him or against him blather…
As a Christian I cannot be bothered to take part in any more blue on blue action, it’s one firestorm in a tea cup I’d rather sit out. Friendly fire is just, well never friendly.
As a human being who thinks, i have a choice where to invest my thoughts and actions to make the world a better place, and this investment would just yield way too little return…
So rather than give him the attention Mr Driscoll craves by interacting I am going to do something much more fun and useful like clean my ears…
Comment by: Helen
5 11/9/06 6:45 AM | Comment Link |Fair enough, Paul. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Comment by: Julie Marie
6 11/9/06 8:13 AM | Comment Link |the thing that is upsetting about Driscoll is that he has the ear of many young pastors. His church is successful, and too often success is seen as Gods blessing and approval. Just having stepped out from under the repression CE puts on women, I am going to hava a response.
If he weren’t infulential, if he were some crackpot on the corner, I’d be more apt to say this is not a productive way to spend my time.
Comment by: Keith
7 11/9/06 8:24 AM | Comment Link |The fact that Driscoll is willing to communicate his sometimes-accurate-sometimes-not thoughts on sex is a sign that he is a guy who will be honest. And didn’t we just spend a bunch of time on the Ted Haggard post talking about how the focus had been on the sexual sin rather than the dishonesty? Driscoll is immature to be sure - so am I - but he is willing to speak honestly. If there were only two options (and I know there are more than these two), I would rather hear uncomfortable details about how the thinks and protects himself, than about how he used meth with a male prostitute.
Comment by: Helen
8 11/9/06 8:34 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Julie Marie - when you posted your first response I was wondering if being nice fully encompassed your feelings about this issue ;-)
The quote you posted - I have trouble with “We should ignore what he says about women and sexuality.” I really don’t see why we should, unless we’re sure that discussing it will achieve absolutely nothing except making us feel frustrated.
I’m happy to have men post their views on this - please continue to do so. However, I also find myself thinking “Do you really get what it’s like for women to read this stuff about women?”
I just posted a comment on on Church Rater about the importance of giving people space to say if they feel hurt, angry, betrayed, or whatever. It’s very ‘Christian’ to say “hey give the guy some slack - be nice to him - his honesty is refreshing” - or whatever.
But what about the women who read it? Why can’t we be honest about how amazingly disrespectful it is? Why should Mark Driscoll be given slack and praised for his honesty but if women share how they feel about his comments about them then they are admonished to be nicer to him? Can’t we get praised for our honesty too?
Comment by: Julie Marie
9 11/9/06 8:55 AM | Comment Link |I remember, during a hot and heavy debate on homosexuality last summer, one poster felt that the issue was not important enough to discuss. He, a heterosexual male, twice tried to divert the discussion to how we treat the poor.
Its easy to say a topic isn’t important when you aren’t the one being crushed by the heel of the boot.
I see your point now on “we should ignore…” but I took that more as advice to young male pastors. The idea that I should ignore him didn’t even occur to me. My days of adjusting the way I sit to accommodate the glass stuck in my ass are long gone. I’m pulling those shards out and giving them back.
Comment by: Stephan
10 11/9/06 9:10 AM | Comment Link |I would hesitate to totally disregard Driscoll. His intent is good - he wants to keep men from stumbling into a sexually compromised situation. It does sound, however, that he tends to over-sexualize things. He sounds a little paranoid, like every woman is out to get him (except, of course, his wife, who has, apparently, really let herself go).
It would not surprise me to find that Driscoll was being intentionally provocative in his language just to get people talking. Not that he does not believe what he said, but that he knows it will be unpopular and just wants to provoke discussion.
I think it is important for men, especially those in authority, to set boundaries for themselves. Accountability is key. I recall that Billy Graham would never have a private meeting with a woman - he would always have someone else there, just so everything was in the open. He wanted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But I doubt that he would have ever foisted responsibility on his wife or another woman.
Foist… what a funny word…
Comment by: Helen
11 11/9/06 9:15 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie - definitely get that glass out of there!
Comment by: Marty G.
12 11/9/06 9:34 AM | Comment Link |I don’t know Mark Driscoll but I know some pastors who do. One pastor friend, when questioned about Driscoll, said, “He likes himself a bit too much.” This was also my impression after hearing him preach. His sermons ramble on for an hour to an hour and a half…repeating himself constantly. His sermons, boiled down to the meat, could be performed in 30-40 minutes. I think he just likes to hear himself talk.
My point and my impression is that, like other pastors of high profile churches, me thinks he’s gotten a little too big for his britches. I’ve seen this before. I used to travel with a touring Christian drama team and have been on program with many high profile pastors, speakers of note and authors. Many of these folks suffer from the “too big for their britches” syndrome.
As for the women coming on to ministers deal…not sure how true that is. I used to be a minister (single at the time) and no one ever came on to me. I met my wife on Eharmony. It seems to me like he’s bragging that he gets seduced. Tacky.
So, for what it’s worth, that’s my two cents.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
13 11/9/06 9:43 AM | Comment Link |the outrage is that driscoll, an influential spiritual leader with a lot of pulpit power, has demeaned women by putting the responsibility of their straying husbands on the wife’s fat, frumpy backside.
women then become responsible for their horny husband’s inability to Just Say No.
argh.
I do believe driscoll’s accounts of sexually aggressive women. success and power are irristible aphrodisiacs for some women, and the reality is that some women want to bed a spiritual leader. Kind of like bagging a rock star.
however, it’s inferred in his writing that leaders of this stature especially need their wives to keep it hot in the bedroom. or else their husbands can readily find a new sex partner.
sex is power. the powerful attract sex like bees to honey. just learn to keep it in your pocket and don’t blame your wife if you can’t.
Comment by: Corrie
14 11/9/06 9:55 AM | Comment Link |Helen, good points. I agree that many are missing the point and being dismissive about how Mark’s comments are demeaning to women.
It sounds like he lives in the Middle Ages where women were thought to be evil and the source of evil temptations. It is the “flirtatious” woman who shows up to Bible studies? Honestly, does that really happen? What if this woman is just friendly and wants to learn about the Lord? I have learned that a pretty woman couple with friendliness is mistaken for coming on to men. I didn’t realize this. I thought that being nice and friendly was a good thing but many men take politeness as a “come on”.
Mark Driscoll comes off as saying that women are the threat to male purity.
What does the Bible teach? Nothing of the sort.
Comment by: Rachel
15 11/9/06 9:58 AM | Comment Link |I tend to agree with Keith on this one. While most decidedly not a fan of Mark Driscoll, I appreciate his honesty and I respect the safeguards he has put around himself to avoid sexual temptation. In my observation, some lonely women will form an inappropriate attachment to their pastor. I don’t think that reflects badly on those women; it is simply an indication of their unmet needs. And hopefully the faith community is a place where those needs can be met. But an intimate emotional relationship with the pastor is not the way to meet those needs and such a relationship can often lead to sexual temptation.
Also, it is important to guard against such attachments because of the significant power differential between the pastor and the parishioner. And I do think the same dynamic could just as easily develop between a charismatic female minister and an emotionally needy male parishioner. I think it is wise for a minister to guard against such relationships.
Comment by: Helen
16 11/9/06 10:03 AM | Comment Link |I have no problem with him putting protective boundaries around himself. Quite honestly I agree with Stephan - he does come across as a bit paranoid about women out to get him. But - maybe they are; and maybe he knows he would have trouble resisting them; in which case he should protect himself and his marriage. Good for him.
What I don’t get is: why is he so careful to put those sorts of boundaries in place and yet he doesn’t seem interested in putting any in place which would prevent him saying such disrespectful things about women?
Why one kind of boundary and not another?
Comment by: Rachel
17 11/9/06 10:27 AM | Comment Link |One of the problems with Mark Driscoll is the extremely insensitive manner in which he says things. He has already been reprimanded by his church board for being crude and combative (that was the McLaren/homosexuality rant that included the infamous “heterosexual lesbian” comment).
I agree with this statement up to a point (ohmigosh, I can’t believe I’m actually semi-defending Mark Driscoll - this is upsetting my universe!) But why is it only referring to women? It would be just as accurate (and Biblical) to say that a MAN who “lets himself go” and is not sexually or emotionally available to his wife leaves HER open to temptation.
And I think it is important to qualify any statements of this nature by pointing out that 99.9% of us will never meet the completely unrealistic standards of beauty put forth by our culture.
Comment by: Rachel
18 11/9/06 10:41 AM | Comment Link |Excellent point, Helen. That goes back to the basic fact that Driscoll simply does not have an egalitarian view of men and women. And he feels entitled to say things in whatever manner he pleases, as long as he believes he is “right.” I think it is too bad that Driscoll has cut his ties with Brian McLaren. Driscoll could learn a lot from McLaren about kindness, gentleness and self-control.
Comment by: Julie Marie
19 11/9/06 10:47 AM | Comment Link |I think being sexually available to each other is very important in a marriage. My first marriage failed partly because of that…I lost my desire for him, and he fell into temptation. But theres more to it than that…why did I lose my desire? I lost it because if my needs didn’t fit into his paradigm, they were invalidated. And his paradigm was structured to address his goals and aspirations only. I could either fight it (which led nowhere), leave (didn’t give myself that option), find gratification elsewhere (refused to do this) or repress the frustration. Problem was the frustration didn’t get repressed in isolation…my passion went down with it.
Its so easy to say “be sexually available.” The thing I learned from that painful part of my life is that when my sex drive goes “poof” attend to it. There’s something wrong that needs to be addressed.
Comment by: Keith
20 11/9/06 11:00 AM | Comment Link |Helen, I agree and never meant to infer that Driscoll should be given freedom to be honest, but women not. Kudos to you and other ladies here who are willing to say that his words are not appreciated.
Comment by: Karen
21 11/9/06 11:33 AM | Comment Link |Wow. There sure are a lot more “flirtatious women” in Christian circles than there were when I was a Christian! Either that, or this guy is intent on making other men envy his lofty position as chick-magnet for the Lord. ;-)
I must’ve gotten out of Christian circles before this guy popped up. I’ve never heard of him. I can’t imagine having to “disregard” everything he says on such an important topic, then trying to give him any credibility on other topics. How can he get this huge area so wrong? He seems tone-deaf to me - unaware of how he comes off to readers outside his own circle of followers. Not terribly unusual, actually. My husband and I used to get so frustrated going to Christian marriage seminars because they made such totally sexist assumptions about men and women, and most of the time they didn’t apply to our personalities at all!
A couple thoughts: I attended a very conservative fundamentalist church for a few years in the mid-80s. The pastor was a dashing charmer, a dead ringer for Clark Gable. His wife was a lovely, smart woman who sang in the choir, had a beautiful voice and often performed solos during services. During the course of their long marriage and four kids, she’d become overweight. She wasn’t unattractive, or sloppy, but she was heavyset.
Just after we left the church, the pastor got caught having an affair with his 20-something secretary and was removed from leadership. I never heard what eventually happened to him. But some of his supporters offered up excuses about how his wife had “let herself go” and was partially responsible for his straying. I thought it was total B.S., and so did most church members. It was hard to believe that was even suggested - and this was 20 years ago!
Julie:
ROTFL!! Julie, that is quite an image. ;-)
Comment by: Julie Marie
22 11/9/06 11:42 AM | Comment Link |we had that experience too…never did get around to completing our homework. regular counseling, where the counselor looked at both of us and said, listen…you were attracted to each other because of your strong opinions, right? Well…it was so nice to not have someone telling me to hush my opinion!
Karen, I just started giggling about the glass comment. Can you imagine the reaction to someone handing Driscoll (or any other sexist person) a bloody shard of glass and telling them “I believe this really belongs to you…”
Comment by: Jim Henderson
23 11/9/06 11:44 AM | Comment Link |(IMNSHO)I find Driscolls comments to be crude and disgusting.If he isnt already a closeted sex addict he certainly sounds like one. He is exhibiting many signs of hidden sex addiction. Sex addicts “find” ways to raise the topic of sex even when it seems impossible to do so, they are also attracted by the risk of doing it at the most imappropriate times. Why would Driscoll launch into his personal sexual fantasies instead of focusing on Haggards stuggles-what other influential C leader has done or is doing that). Sex addcits also enjoy the riskier locations(think oval office or on a public blog).
The fact that Driscoll is young is a two edged sword and is simply too bad. It’s obvious to anyone over 50 that this is one of his inbuilt limitations but he is also playing that card in public so it will be in public that he will have to learn his lessons. You simply cannot have it both ways - Get the stage and ask people to look at you in admiration and then complain about the stage when you act stupid(see any famous rock bands or politicians or preachers).
Again (IMNSHO) his behavior is disgusting and borders on dangerous. He is innoculating thousands of young people with arrogance and spiritual pride, he is grooming them to be part of (what I perceive to be) his personal sexual addictions all the time hiding behind scritpural talk and/or his “great peaching” (I mean really what does being a great preacher say about anyones character or their ability to lead- (again see former Pres Clinton)
Clinton drug a whole nation into his sexual fantasies - Driscoll seems to me to be marching down that same narrow path. He stuck his head out over the plate thinking (and I use the term very loosely) he was being heroic (”I’ll take one for the team”) when in fact what he was really doing what sharing his own personal struggles.
Comment by: Helen
24 11/9/06 11:54 AM | Comment Link |Jim wrote:
Yes - it really bothers me that he is role-modelling “be like me” to so many other young men.
Comment by: Corrie
25 11/9/06 12:20 PM | Comment Link |Someone just sent me the link to this blog and I think it clearly shows some more of what people think deep down in their hearts about women. I think a good point was made by “anon” about how these men have a right to their opinions and being “sensitive” and passionate about their feelings concerning things but those who disagree are feminists and male haters.
There is a lot of hypocrisy and deep-seated hatred in some statements. I don’t doubt that these men feel this way about most women. And these two men are pastors who counsel couples on marital issues.
I fear that with this sort of deep-down animosity towards women, they are not doing these couples a service.
Comment by: benjamin ady
26 11/9/06 12:21 PM | Comment Link |Did you see this in Mark’s post
Does this strike anyone else as either: A. excrementum or B. a terrible wresting of the word “faithful”?
I don’t know what’s up with Mars Hill being so popular. They keep getting called “emergent”, but as Sparky points out in this article, they simply are not!
Comment by: Corrie
27 11/9/06 12:22 PM | Comment Link |The link I posted doesn’t work.
Here it is:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18468281&postID=116292891245122674
Comment by: Helen
28 11/9/06 12:39 PM | Comment Link |I just fixed your original link too, Corrie.
I was reading thoughts about Mark Driscoll on another blog and the author points out how Mark objectifies women. I didn’t mention that specifically but I agree. He seems far too focused on outward beauty, imo.
Comment by: Julie Marie
29 11/9/06 12:55 PM | Comment Link |nice links, Benjamin and Helen…thanks.
Scarey Link Corrie! The thing that makes me the saddest is the women agreeing to the repression. Mrs. Mark Driscoll also wrote a piece about the wife’s role a little while ago. It was straight out of the 1940s.
Comment by: Julie Marie
30 11/9/06 1:00 PM | Comment Link |a link to Grace Driscoll’s article is here
Comment by: Rachel
31 11/9/06 1:35 PM | Comment Link |Corrie, I visited that blog and I found this delightful comment: Go try your feminist Jedi mind tricks to stir things up with someone else…it doesn’t work with me.
Jedi mind tricks? Wow! Apparently this particular feminist missed out on that class. I gotta find out how to do that!
Comment by: Julie Marie
32 11/9/06 1:38 PM | Comment Link |oh my goodness, and they think sex is powerful. sex + Jedi mind tricks? Soon we feminists willl rule the world! Bwhahahahahaha
Comment by: Rachel
33 11/9/06 2:03 PM | Comment Link |Hello, Mark Driscoll, we are your worst nightmare!
Comment by: Rachel
34 11/9/06 2:08 PM | Comment Link |Hey Jim, can you offer a feminist Jedi mind tricks workshop at the next Off the Map conference?
Comment by: Karen
35 11/9/06 2:50 PM | Comment Link |LOL! I think that’s exactly what they deserve to get!
Glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that … ! :-)
Comment by: Doreen
36 11/9/06 3:58 PM | Comment Link |It’s not just women, pastors & priests & ministers have both genders exhibiting this behavior. My counseling prof last summer was a fantastic prof who was not particularly good looking. As he said, if he has women throwing themselves at him, one realizes it is possible for any religious leader to receive this kind of unwanted attention.
That being said, I’d never heard of this Driscoll character and I can’t say I’m sorry….
Comment by: Julie Marie
37 11/9/06 5:09 PM | Comment Link |I’ve noticed that. I guess “young and brash” is what many traditional Chrisitians think of when they think of Emergents.
Comment by: Siamang
38 11/9/06 5:30 PM | Comment Link |I think that’s normal. College teachers get that often.
Comment by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr.
39 11/9/06 6:47 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
You’re way too smart to waste your time deconstructing and demonizing Mark’s post. Besides, whether or not you or I agree with Driscoll’s perspective, at least he’s willing to talk openly about this stuff, something Ted Haggard never felt the freedom to do.
Peace to you.
Tom
Comment by: Corrie
40 11/9/06 7:05 PM | Comment Link |Yes, Julie, I saw that reference to “Jedi mind tricks”. Don’t forget, this gem is coming from a man who is a pastor.
Also, just checked at the link and “dh” posted a nice post script:
Watch out for those frigid, frumpy feminists.
Another gem from a leader of the church. I wonder what kind of church these men lead? Are they part of the emergent/emerging church? The pastor’s wife has quite few links of emergents on her blog.
I guess it saddens me that men who are called to shepherd the people of God’s flock are so caustic, sarcastic, and down-right mean spirited. Instead of teaching in gentleness with wisdom and making sure that their words are seasoned with grace they use put-downs and take occasion to use the sensitivies and pain of another HUMAN BEING as a weapon which they delightfully stab into their soul.
These are the men who are called to teach the word of God?
If you follow that conversation, you will see that their tantrums are unfounded. They are very dramatic and very emotional and very illogical.
I can now understand why so many people tell me they want to have nothing to do with the church. It is not a healthy place to be when you have men like this at the helm.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
41 11/9/06 7:05 PM | Comment Link |Thomas do I hear you telling Helen to shut up?
Do I hear you saying Driscoll is right about his opionions about Fat pastors wives?
Do I understand that you would prefer that we kill this discussion so as to not “touch the lords annointed”?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
42 11/9/06 7:08 PM | Comment Link |I wonder why?
Sounds like now we are blaming not only his wife, but his church, the entire body of Christ and all evangelicals.
Comment by: Helen
43 11/9/06 8:20 PM | Comment Link |Thomas wrote:
I think it’s very likely that Ted Haggard (even though my guess would be that he’s a complementarian) never felt the freedom Mark Driscoll inexplicably feels to be so openly rude and disrespectful towards women.
But I doubt that’s what you meant.
Can you explain to me how this openness of Mark’s helps you? What does it do for you to know that a woman put a note in his pocket asking him for sex during communion? How has that information drawn you closer to God? If men are as susceptible to sexual temptation as Mark implies, surely the mere mention of such things is going to turn their thoughts in a rather different direction than towards Jesus. Isn’t it?
Comment by: naimas
44 11/9/06 8:45 PM | Comment Link |I can’t believe that people want to cut Mark slack because he is young and green? Uh, OK, then have him take offerings, scrub toilets and NOT preach. Take away the microphone. Mark speaks such poison because it makes people notice him and feeds his arrogance. You can read my strong words for Mark on my blog. I really wish he would just shut up and stop hurting people that other Ministers are trying to heal and reach.
Comment by: Helen
45 11/9/06 8:51 PM | Comment Link |I just found an article on Salon.com which includes this example of what Mark Driscoll’s view of being a woman does to a woman:
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
46 11/9/06 8:52 PM | Comment Link |is there any hope of me developing this jedi mind trick thing? Or is it a ladies only thing? (maybe if I attend the OTM workshop, I can at least hope to learn a way to counter it)
Comment by: Helen
47 11/9/06 9:05 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I think only women are allowed to attend the classes. However, men are allowed to learn ‘in quietness and submission’ from their wives at home, if their wives are willing to teach them. ;-)
Comment by: Christine
48 11/9/06 9:08 PM | Comment Link |Perhaps someone made this point in an earlier blog and I missed it. Forgive me if that’s true.
What’s fascinating to me is that Driscoll uses one married, supposedly heterosexual preacher’s alleged solicitation of a male prostitute to inspire true confessions of various sorts about the conduct of women and how men must be on guard against them.
That’s a pretty big reach. I hope his sermons track better than that, but the sad fact is they don’t have to. Just rev up the amps and people will bounce to any beat. That’s what he’s doing. Either consciously as a way to deflect from the real issue or unconsciously.
The evangelical community seems desperate to treat what was an incredibly strong homosexual compulsion over a long period of time as just another sin. Understandably. Doing anything else underminds their position.
I can’t help but laugh to see that Driscoll has chosen women, such a reliably good target, (and fat women, even better) to help him dodge the heart of this issue. If he’d been Rove he might have weighed in about black people’s criminality.
Stay tuned. That could be next.
What I’d like to hear Driscoll give us advice on is his attraction to men and how he keeps from following through on that. That is the issue afterall. And it might be helpful to all those evangelical men with similar problems.
But even then the issue wouldn’t be gay men coming on to him. It would be how he manages to resist calling male prostitutes and buying drugs from them.
Now there’s a temptation. I don’t know how many in his audience have to resist it, but if they do, they need really need his help.
Or maybe his help isn’t the help they need.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
49 11/9/06 10:00 PM | Comment Link |Well I don’t totally mind the submission thing, but the quiet might be difficult. (oh dear, getting a bit off topic). (or maybe not)
Comment by: Corrie
50 11/9/06 10:02 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I believe that the pastor said these were “feminist Jedi mind tricks”. I am guessing that these feminists learn these in their subversive underground training camps.
Jabba the Hut was completely against using Jedi mind tricks.
For more about Jedi mind tricks, go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_mind_trick
And then go to the above link and try to figure out what the heck this guy was referring to?
Paranoia will get you every time.
Comment by: Rachel
51 11/9/06 10:08 PM | Comment Link |That’s true. I do love your laugh, Ben…but I’m afraid it would disrupt my concentration during the subversive feminist mind tricks class. ;-)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
52 11/9/06 10:18 PM | Comment Link |maybe we should pool our money and send mark driscoll a copy of “killing us softly 3″ from Jean Kilbourne, in which she talks about the enormously powerful negative effect of the prevalent message in our culture about women: “women only have value if they are young, thin, and beautiful”
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
53 11/9/06 10:20 PM | Comment Link |rachel–you elicited my laugh. thankyou
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
54 11/9/06 10:21 PM | Comment Link |from the wikipedia artilce on jedi mind tricks
So unfair just because our corpus callosum is relatively smaller.
Comment by: Gary Means
55 11/9/06 10:53 PM | Comment Link |I found your blog while looking for more information on Mark Driscoll. I live in the Seattle area and have been following the recent controversy surrounding Mark’s recent blog comments. He was on the local news tonight attempting to defend his position.
I have heard stories of his misogynistic attitudes for quite some time. So tonight I did a little more investigation. I’ve put up two posts on my blog that reference two articles on Mark. One is from a local paper, the other from Salon. They include many quotes from Mark.
Especially interesting were ideas like this: “Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them.” (having babies and being quietly subservient to their husbands)
“Every single book in your Bible is written by a man… Priest[hood] is reserved exclusively for godly men.”;
“There is no occasion where women led a society and were its heads and the men complied and followed. … It’s a matter of Biblical creation.”.
Mark also views childbirth as an important form of growng the church and encourages all women in the church to quit their jobs and to have as many babies as possible. Here’s a quote from a woman in the church:
“My life is much harder, not easier, now that I’m a Christian,” she says, clenching her teeth against [her infant daughter's] droning whine. “We had originally planned not to have kids, but now we have to do our best to repopulate our city with Christians…..”It’s not what I ever imagined,” she tells me, “or even what I ever wanted, but it’s my duty now, and I have to learn to live with that.”
Comment by: bianca
56 11/9/06 11:01 PM | Comment Link |One thing I keep wondering about though, is why do we as a culture continue to place pastors (and their wives and their children) in fragile fishbowls far above us on rickety pedestals? One pastor behaves badly, another one speaks foolishly, and somewhere else yet another delivers a boring diatribe… Why do we ascribe such power to pastors, that when they do something remarkably human, we are surprised? Perhaps its terribly off-topic… just been on my mind in the midst of many recent conversations…
Comment by: Rose
57 11/9/06 11:22 PM | Comment Link |Much has been said on the inappropriateness of Driscoll’s comments. I just read Gary Means (55) blog on this. The amount of sexualized, objectifying and demeaning comments about women is more than disturbing. I hope there will be a continual exposure in our local media to not give him a pass on this topic.
As a woman pastor in the same city, I am deeply offended by Mark Driscoll. I am more concerned with the representation of his positions as being those of the evangelical community at large. Here is an example of an email I received from a 28 year old young woman living in San Francisco:
“Have you heard of this guy?? He’s a pastor or whatever in Seattle and is a total pig. Outrageous!!! You should post on his blog.
ugh”
I do not want to be associated with this kind of Christianity. I am a Christ follower who believes that for freedom Christ died and that means for everyone…man, woman, slave, free, black, white, for all.
Where is the outrage for this kind of diatribe?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
58 11/9/06 11:28 PM | Comment Link |helen–how late do I have to stay up in order to see the friday video?
Have you found out how to let everybody post images yet?
Comment by: Corrie
59 11/10/06 12:05 AM | Comment Link |Bianca, good questions.
My initial thought is that these same men bully those under them with their spiritual “authority”. They use the pulpit to bully and subdue and put those under them in their place. They use their position to shut people up and to cover over anything that would threaten their positions of power. These sorts of pastors need to be held accountable for their words and actions. It is not that I am surprised. These things should never be. They give all the good pastors a bad name. If you have ever read the book, “A Subtle Power Of Spiritual Abuse” by Jeff Van Vonderan, you would know the techniques of such people.
Comment by: NCxian
60 11/10/06 5:22 AM | Comment Link |This is is something that often crosses my mind as well, bianca. It is something that seems to exist more in certain Christian traditions than others. Certainly the current crop of fundamentalist Christians seem to have a powerful sense of the “authority” and “anointing” of the leadership of the church.
One of the more interesting things that I have found at this blog is how folks who have left very conservative churches still harbor this notion that pastors are “super-Christian”–have extraordinary status as representing God, or Christanity or a local church. The view of that person as especially good has changed 180 degrees, of course, but the notion of the special status seems to linger. It must be something that is hard to jettison. I wonder what leads a person to allow another person to have any kind of authority over their spirituality in the first place? Perhaps some folks are just constitutional more comfortable with “submission” than others? (Same thing that draws folks, for example, to the military?) But, in the case of a church, what benefits does it provide for the “submittor”? It befuddles me.
Comment by: Helen
61 11/10/06 6:45 AM | Comment Link |Ben I appreciate your enthusiasm about partaking in our female jedi mind tricks ;-). I’ll e-mail you a response to a couple of other things you asked.
Gary, thanks for your comments. I’m glad to know this has made the Seattle local news. I hope that will alert the community to the harmful things being taught at Mars Hill.
I also noticed the Salon.com article.I posted the story of that woman who admits she liked her life better before she changed it to fit Mark Driscoll’s idea of what a married woman’s role should be in comment #45 on here.
Rose wrote:
Exactly! Rose I am so sorry that you as a pastor’s wife (and a pastor in your own right) should a) have to put up with comments like Mark Driscoll’s being made publically b) have to put up with seeing him defended by other Christians.
Bianca, you are so right. I think it is part of the childlike vs childish issue I spoke about at the conference and wrote about here in Almost an atheist. My point was that idealizing authority figures is something that is normal for children but we should grow out of it. I think that the way we practise Christianity often encourages people to ‘regress’ or stay at the point where they do this, instead of encouraging them to have a mature adult view of all other adults as fallible peers.
Christine, I love how you picked up on Mark’s lack of advice to pastors who are tempted in the exact way Ted Haggard was tempted. Why does Mark warn pastors to avoid flirtatious women and not say the same about flirtatious men? In churches like his where leadership is limited to men I would have thought it wise to warn male Christian leaders that those men they hang out with a lot might include some who struggle with the same desires as Ted Haggard. Either the male Christian leaders who worked closely with Ted Haggard are covering up that they had suspicions about him; or it’s pretty much impossible for male Christian leaders to know whether those married male Christian leaders they spend a lot of time with are tempted to think about them as MORE than a good friend.
If the latter is the case then why isn’t Mark warning male Christian leaders to be on their guard about other male Christian leaders - rather than assuming “he’s married so nothing could possibly happen between us”.
Comment by: Julie Marie
62 11/10/06 7:15 AM | Comment Link |The Salon story made me very sad. The transformation from successful career woman to unhappy mother can hardly be what God had in mind.
This sort of transformation happens so slowly you don’t even realize how far down the road you’ve gone until you are stuck in a dead end, feeling like a failure because you do not find the “role God chose for you” fulfilling.
I’m hoping that as the extreme views of Driscoll are broadcast to the Seattle area, they will be seen for what they are and women (and men) will avoid that church. And perhaps, amid the clamor, a woman like the one portrayed in the Salon article will give herself permission to rethink her situation.
*btw, the woman portrayed in the Salon article says that the author misrepresented her and cast her situation in the worst possible light.
Comment by: Helen
63 11/10/06 7:22 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie wrote:
Maybe the author did misrepresent her - but either way, this is what the woman would have had to say to try to avoid being very strongly disapproved of within her church for saying the things in the article to a secular reporter.
It’s bad enough to give up things you love because someone says God says you have to. It’s even worse to do all that and then have your fellow church members disapprove of you anyway (because you were too honest with a reporter).
Comment by: Julie Marie
64 11/10/06 7:30 AM | Comment Link |I suspect that is exactly what happened.
Comment by: Rachel
65 11/10/06 7:32 AM | Comment Link |I guess Mark Driscoll has never heard of Deborah.
Comment by: David H
66 11/10/06 7:48 AM | Comment Link |On Jedi mind tricks: I started experimenting with them. I know, not a woman am I (pardon the Yoda joke). But I think I’ve got them working. Everytime someone asks me for something, I just pass my hand in front of their face and say: “You don’t need that. I can go.”
I’ve been trying it on my boss and, admittedly, the first few times he gave me a look and then asked the question again. But the other day he came to me looking for a report I hadn’t done. I passed my hand in front of his face and said: “You don’t need that report. David can go about his business.” He rolled his eyes and told me to get out of his office.
Practice makes perfect.
Comment by: David H
67 11/10/06 7:50 AM | Comment Link |Never heard of Cleopatra or the Queen of Sheba either. But given his background, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a selective education.
Comment by: David H
68 11/10/06 7:59 AM | Comment Link |I have read several places where Driscoll is given some slack for talking openly about sexuality, which might have helped Pastor Ted had there been an avenue for such conversation.
However, in reading stuff that Haggard has written and things written about him, I find that he and Pastor Driscoll use similar “open” language in defining sexuality, the place of women, etc.
To talk a company line about something is not necessarily to be open about what you really think or feel. Just ask Ted Haggard.
This link is to a lengthy article from Harpers in 2005. While the writer obviously does not come from a place of sympathy, he does quote Haggard and his writings extensively. If Driscoll is one of Haggard’s disciples or, perhaps worse yet, vying for the now vacant throne, then he is someone for whom I can cut little slack.
Comment by: Rachel
69 11/10/06 8:08 AM | Comment Link |I am too, Rose. This statement from the Salon article especially bothered me. Driscoll and his Mars Hills followers epitomize the mounting evangelical youth movement in America.
(sigh) I’m so tired of evangelicals being characterised by the most extreme members of the group. I guess it is just the nature of media that outrageous statements attract attention. If Mark Driscoll had written a thoughtful, balanced and egalitarian article about the genuinely important need for pastors to safeguard against inappropriate relationships, it would probably have attracted little notice.
Clearly, Driscoll says outrageous things on purpose to create controversy. And when people get mad at what he says, he is pleased since he thinks he’s being “persecuted for Christ.” And all this negative attention will only endear him even more to his followers because they will view him as taking a courageous stand for the unpopular “truth.” But as Helen said, we can’t simply let his insensitive and degrading comments go by without a response.
Observing Driscoll, I can’t help but think: What a dramatic contrast to the kindness and humility taught and modeled by Brian McLaren and the other leaders at the conference!
To those of you who saw Driscoll on the Seattle news: Did they interview any other Christian leaders to offer a counterpoint to Driscoll?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
70 11/10/06 8:22 AM | Comment Link |I would like to see the link to that interview as well
Comment by: Rachel
71 11/10/06 8:35 AM | Comment Link |Jim, I wonder if you and Rose and some of the other Seattle OTMers should contact the local media and say, “hey, we are here too and we are an alternative evangelical voice to the fundamentalists like Driscoll, please contact us for a response when these things hit the news.” Let them know that you represent the progressive Christian voice and they should come to you also. Kind of like what the “Red Letter Christians” have done in the national media. It has been so wonderful lately to see that when somebody like Robertson or Dobson makes a statement on the national news, they often counterpoint with a clip from Jim Wallis or another Christian progressive.
Comment by: David H
72 11/10/06 8:37 AM | Comment Link |Comment by: David H
73 11/10/06 8:38 AM | Comment Link |Above not meant as suggestion, just an attempt.
Comment by: Paul
74 11/10/06 9:33 AM | Comment Link |What I find incredible is that Mark thinks that those pesky flirtatious women are such a problem. This is merely evidence that he is unsure that he can control himself. People who go through great lengths to avoid any appearance of impropriety are likely tiptoing in the shallows of impropriety, with an occasional plunge. I.E., this is a problem with *him*, not a problem with women. But in foisting his problem off on women, he is exposing himself as a misogynist prick.
I am sick of my faith being hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalist wackos who have perverted the message of Christ into a sledgehammer of oppressions.
I propose it is time we come out of the closet & protest at Mars Hill. How does November 19 sound? After work today I will obtain a website & will set up a mailing list for people who are interested. I’ll post the URL back here.
We’ll need some catchy slogans, some megaphones, some placards, pamphelts to distribute, media presence.
A Chant: “We’re Here. We’re Women. We’re not going anywhere.”
On a T-Shirt: “Mark: Read My Breasts–No Touching!”
A Placard: “Mark Hates Women”
Comment by: Christine
75 11/10/06 10:21 AM | Comment Link |I think going to the media as counterpoint to “those” evangelicals is a great idea. I’d imagine reporters would be receptive to that. And it would make some difference.
I am often guilty of tarring all evangelicals with the same brush. I guess the solution is to always say “some evangelicals.” It would be better if there were another word, like fundamentalists. But I hesitate to use that word for obvious reasons.
One problem, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the number of “out” evangelicals who are not in the Haggard/Driscoll/Dobson camp appears to be so small.
One of the astonishing things about Jim Henderson is that he is so fearless. And public. Wallis is too, but I don’t sense that he is quite as open to other opinions as Henderson is or as bold about expressing his openness.
I like Wallis very much but my sense of him is that he is still talking pretty much exclusively to Christians, and Henderson is really reaching out in a way that could count. But I haven’t paid much attention to Wallis in recent years.
If you are going to make your presence known, I wish you would be on the lookout for a change that I suspect might be in the offing. Some of the recent polls say a large number of evangelicals prefer being called “Bible believers” because the term evangelicals is getting such a bad rep.
If the media fix on that, it will be hard to dislodge. I think it won’t help your cause at all. Because then evangelicals of the most conservative kind will own the very Bible with their interpretation.
One of the things I loved about the conference was seeing how you used the same Bible to make points that were very different than that of some evangelicals.
Comment by: Helen
76 11/10/06 10:22 AM | Comment Link |Paul, I think a protest is a great idea! Please do post the URL back here. I will be happy to help you publicize it. I’m not in Seattle but Off The Map is based there and has connections there.
It’s up to you: but I suggest “Mark the misogynist” for some of the signs. I thought about using that as the title for this blog entry.
Comment by: DonnaV
77 11/10/06 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Paul, thanks for the chuckle….this whole topic just frustrates me & I couldn’t agree more with your statement…
“I am sick of my faith being hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalist wackos who have perverted the message of Christ into a sledgehammer of oppressions.”
Comment by: Helen
78 11/10/06 10:28 AM | Comment Link |Christine wrote:
I enjoyed that too, Christine. It shows it’s not as simple as, all we have to do is read the Bible and all the answers are clear.
Comment by: Rachel
79 11/10/06 11:48 AM | Comment Link |Christine, actually Jim Wallis has really been out there in the last couple years and speaking and appealing to very broad audiences. My own sense of the progressive evangelical movement is that it is strong and growing. I don’t see Jim and Off the Map as isolated examples at all. (BTW, I’m the one with long brown hair and the “make poverty history” T-shirt who talked to you briefly in the entry area on Friday morning. I don’t know if you remember me - I know you met a lot of people.)
You might want to check out these sites for more about Wallis and the evangelical progressive movement. I’d love to hear what you think.
Red Letter Christians
God’s Politics Blog
Comment by: Rachelle
80 11/10/06 12:31 PM | Comment Link |I’m an ordained woman minister in Seattle and have been dealing with the inflamatory and bigoted influence of Mark Driscoll for several years. It breaks my heart to know that he has so much influence in my city. I mourn every time I drive past his church. I truly believe that Mark does not merely represent a different approach to ministry, but that his work in regards to women is evil.
Thank you to everyone who is bringing light into this place of darkness.
Comment by: Jesse
81 11/10/06 1:52 PM | Comment Link |I don’t like Driscoll because of the same reasons many of you have mentioned, but I really think that the shock that you show (Helen) at his frankness about sex and temptation is uninformed. Many men who want to avoid sexual sin still really struggle with temptation - I know I do - and well-intentioned women don’t seem to understand that struggle and how much it impacts men’s lives. You need to read For Women Only by Shaunti Feldhahn. It will be an eye-opener for you.
Comment by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr.
82 11/10/06 2:33 PM | Comment Link |Helen, Jim,
I don’t know Mark Driscoll personally. I am not his follower. I don’t think I have a “man-crush.” I don’t even want to spend time defending the guy. In the past, his rude rhetoric aimed at Brian McLaren and others enraged me.
And, no, Jim, I don’t want Helen to shut up. Please don’t put words in my mouth. My comment (#39) wasn’t intended to be inflammatory or derogatory. But it sure sounded like yours was.
By the way, Helen, Mark’s openness doesn’t help me. His views of women are not my views. To the contrary, it actually makes me wonder why he says such stupid stuff. Like Ted Haggard and you and me (and Jim too), Mark’s a terminally imperfect person. He comes from a long line of sexist, murderous, lying, cowardly men like Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, and Paul.
Peace to you.
Tom
Comment by: Thomas E. Ward, Jr.
83 11/10/06 2:42 PM | Comment Link |If it matters to anyone, here’s the corrected link to what I’ve said about Driscoll’s “rude rhetoric aimed at Brian McLaren and others…”, something I mentioned in comment 82.
Comment by: Helen
84 11/10/06 2:53 PM | Comment Link |Jesse, you will see that I disagree with you on a number of points - however, I appreciate you taking time to share your opinion here and to recommend a book you thought would be helpful to me.
In fact I am not uninformed - I listen to New Life Live a lot and they talk about men being tempted in this area a lot on there. The host co-wrote Every Man’s Battle and put together the Every Man’s Battle workshop to help me overcome sexual additions.
Jesse my point is, if men are so easily tempted in this area, the last thing Mark Driscoll should do is continually talk about it in relatively detailed ways. Words are powerful and surely if they pertain to an area of temptation they are even more powerful. Why Mark doesn’t realize this mystifies me. Or maybe it doesn’t - because I haven’t read anything by him which indicates he understands addictions and how to deal with them.
I’m not ’shocked’ by Mark Driscoll’s frankness. One of the benefits of reading an an atheist discussion board for over five years now is that I am beyond being shocked at what Christians consider ‘frank’ talk.
I read some Amazon reviews of Shaunti Feldhahn’s book. It sounds like it’s the same-old same-old evangelical Christian advice to women. Here’s one review:
I don’t want to be depressed or angry and it sounds like I’ve heard it all before so, with all due respect, I think I’ll give this book a miss.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
85 11/10/06 2:59 PM | Comment Link |Thomas
Sorry you felt I was putting words in your mouth. I wasn’t.
Comment by: Helen
86 11/10/06 2:59 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Thomas. Jim does like to be provocative - you got that right.
Comment by: Rachel
87 11/10/06 3:42 PM | Comment Link |AMEN!
Comment by: Corrie
88 11/10/06 3:50 PM | Comment Link |I am wondering what women are so tempted by that we make big deals about it and write volume after volumes of books about it? I mean, why would God cause men to be unable to control themselves in the area of their sexuality unless the moon, jupiter, the sun and the earth were all in alignment (does that ever happen?).
I am getting the message that guys were made by God to be so overly sexualized that unless they take drastic measures protecting themselves from gaggles of horny women who constantly throw themselves at them, they are being ripped to shreds in battle every minute of every day. I can’t imagine that the bible is so silent on this concept?
I know that this culture is obsessed with sex but does the church have to be? Can we not rise above this culture and show them a better way? Sex is important but the Bible never even hints that men have an especially hard time controlling themselves in this one area. I have yet to find one verse in the Bible that puts any sort of burden on any other outside source or person to keep one’s self pure.
In fact, the bible says the tongue (James 3:8) is the only MEMBER that an individual is unable to control. The Bible clearly teaches that the tongue is the member that we have to wrestle with and that we have to do constant battle with.
I am undone at the sight of brownies. And since I am a daughter of Eve, we women are more tempted by our line of sight than men. Even was tempted by the fruit she saw. You guys just wouldn’t understand what it is like for us women to go out into the world every day and be tempted by the things shoved right into our faces.
I think that if the guys would take care to not eat their brownies in the sight of us women, it would be a good thing. Many a woman has been undone by the sight of a careless guy who has let himself go by eating a pan of brownies. Don’t they understand? I am not blaming it on you guys if a woman stumbles and gives into the almost uncontrollable desire to eat a whole pan of brownies. I am just saying that you might not be helping.
Really, one would think that the ones who claim to have the corner on the market on theological understanding would at least be consistant and stop making excuses. Paul told Timothy to treat the young women as sisters. Obviously, Paul and Timothy didn’t think it was impossible for men and women to put aside sexual thoughts for one second and be civil.
As the mother of 6 girls, it really scares me that our churches are filled with men who can barely control themselves. And these are men confessing to be believers. I KNOW that is not true but if I went by what I read in the blogosphere, I would think it was. Are my daughters safe? For that matter, are my 4 sons safe?
I thought that Paul said the cure for sexual immorality is marriage? Why don’t we believe it? I know. It may be too simplistic but the irony is that this is the only subject that I would get flack from for interpreting the Bible for what it really says. In this one area, the theologically astute get wiggle room when it comes to what the Bible say.
No, I am not a guy, so I don’t know what it is like to be a guy. And I know that guys are wired differently. I am not denying that. But, otoh, guys are not women so I really wish that some guys would stop telling us women how unsexual we are. How would they know?
I have been tempted more than a few times by the sight of a stud-muffin. Contrary to popular belief, many women like to look at a man’s body and we are turned on by looking. Shall I reference SOS where the Shunamite describes her lover’s body? Her eyes were definitely taking in some nice scenery.
I am seeing a real need for reform in the area of our thinking especially after reading that book review on Amazon.
Comment by: Helen
89 11/10/06 4:19 PM | Comment Link |Corrie wrote:
I wonder if Mark Driscoll ever preaches on controlling the tongue. It would be interesting to see what he says about it.
I quite agree about those brownie carrying men - STAY AWAY FROM THEM Corrie! Don’t even answer your cellphone if one calls you, not even if he’s in trouble!!
Comment by: lisa w.
90 11/10/06 4:45 PM | Comment Link |Well, my comment is late in the discussion but here it goes:
An article was published in the “Stranger” of all places last spring which compares MarsHill to Trinity United Methodist is here In the last paragraph Rich Lang of Trinity MC in Ballard says this,
The writer also discusses reasons why young women seem to overlook the anti-female sentiments: they’re either not paying attention or need the structure so much they are willing to overlook Mark’s comments.
I was exposed to a very conservative version of Christianity during college years. I managed to take what worked and overlooked what didn’t fit. I wasn’t thinking about marriage so certain aspects just didn’t apply.
My prayer for the women of Mars Hill is that they will take what they need and get the hell out of there, that they will grow up faster. My faith is that God will burn through the crap and reach people where they are with what they need.
I anticipate that Mark will fall away of his own arrogant weight and will live to regret his behavior and someday turn towards women and apologize profusely.
“Dogma can in no way limit a limitless God”
Flannery Oconner
Comment by: Doreen
91 11/10/06 5:33 PM | Comment Link |Corrie wrote
Whenever I try to have philosophical & theological discussions about why (some) men seem so oversexed, I get the following:
- men’s motors get going much more than women’s by visual things; women need a relationship (not me, I’m with you on the brownies)
- men were made to cast their seed widely so they can’t help it
- it’s women’s faults
- it’s the media’s fault
While there may be more scientific proof to sexual drive than to, say, the genetic basis of other things, an addiction is an addiction. As a recovering addict, I’m not saying it’s easy. I have never blamed my addictions on the media or my genes or anything.
I’m really tired of blame shifting. Where’s the personal responsibility gone?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
92 11/10/06 6:03 PM | Comment Link |do James’ words about the tongue, originally written in a time when writing was for the privileged few, now apply to our use of the blogosphere as well?
I’m rather of the opinion that men end up with the wife they deserve, so I think Mark should rather be saying “hey, guys, if you find your wife to be physically unattractive, and sexually unavailable, perhaps you should look in the mirror and say to yourself “Self, what is it about me that has helped to lead to this situation?” (I have the creepy sensation that I could get in some trouble with certain individuals over this comment. so please feel free to tell me where I’m totally off base!)
Comment by: Marty G.
93 11/10/06 6:25 PM | Comment Link |Wow. This commenting on Driscoll has really taken off. I have no more to add. What blows me away is that churches like Driscoll’s and Joel Osteen’s and others attract so many people. It’s scary to think about that many people being deceived en masse. I guess it’s like one of my old pastors used to say…”The brightest light attracts the most bugs.” What he didn’t say was…”And eventually kills ‘em.”
That was all me.
Comment by: People Against Fundamentalism » Take Action on Nov 19: Mark the Misogynist and Mars Hill
94 11/11/06 1:25 AM | Comment Link |[...] ‘Preaching’ may be too staid of a term. He has been relishing in his misogyny, rolling around in it like a feline in catnip. His latest women-bashing came in a blog post about former pastor (and former head of the Christian umbrella organization National Association of Evangelicals) Ted Haggard’s marital infidelity. As is typical with misogynists and other abusers, Mark blamed women for the terribly hard time pastors have controlling their sexual urges: “It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go…” The post makes for an interesting read; Helen, over at Conversation at the Edge dissected it well, so I won’t rehash it here. [...]
Comment by: Paul
95 11/11/06 1:30 AM | Comment Link |Allright, everyone. Time to turn rhetoric into action. If you live in Seattle, we’re going to picket Mars Hill and Mark the Misogynist on Nov 19. More details & an e-mail list to join are available at http://www.endfundamentalism.org/.
Comment by: JG
96 11/11/06 5:10 AM | Comment Link |http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/11/07/almost-an-atheist/#comment-3428
Comment by: Helen
97 11/11/06 5:55 AM | Comment Link |JG, I understand why you would quote that here. Why would I quit one protest because it was ‘unloving’ and yet support this one?
Maybe you’re right and I’m being inconsistent. But to me this is very different from the protest I was involved in six years ago. That one was simply based on “this teaching opposes what WE think the Bible teaches”. End of story.
This one is about opposing Mark Driscoll’s teaching because it hurts women.
It is more complicated than this - as it always is. If you think I’m being inconsistent, maybe I am.
One thing I can say is, that this time I am making my own decision to say “this matters” - rather than simply going along with what I was taught. We all choose our battles and we all decide what it means to ‘love God and love others’. I own my choices; I realize that other people will disagree with them.
Thanks for your comment, JG.
Comment by: Corrie
98 11/11/06 8:10 AM | Comment Link |Doreen, good points. Not only “where is the personal responsibility” but where is self-denial and the practice of putting the needs of others above one’s self?
I was thinking about this and the people who are the most vocal about men and their wild sex drives are comps. They use it to unduly burden women and make them feel as if there is something wrong with them. These same people believe very strongly in the submission of the wife to the husband. Now, where do you hear them preaching about self-sacrificial love for their wives? Where is the laying down of their lives? Does this only mean that they would take a bullet for their wives? No! It means they deny themselves.
I have a feeling that many of these men were promiscuous before marriage and they never learned self-control or denial. That is my theory. I was not at all pure before marriage and I didn’t become a Christian until I was 23.
With marriage and sex comes children. Priorities shift and it isn’t always about us. Where is the preaching on denying one’s self and putting other’s “needs” above our own? I hear a lot of it aimed at me, a woman but when it comes to this issue I don’t hear much in regard to men.
What about the relationship between lack of self-denial and the thought that we are basically unable to bring our sex drives under the control of the Holy Spirit and sexual immorality? Has that thought ever been considered? I didn’t find that in Mark’s bullet points.
In an age when people are whining about the “feminization” of the church why are we not hearing more about denying one’s self? I will tell you, it is not that the church is too sentimental and “weak” and girly and that is why men stay away. It is because being a Christian means you prefer others above your own self, it means self-denial, it means self-sacrifice, it means looking at our own selves and seeing that the problem lies with us. In short, it means that one has to take personal responsibility and grow up.
Benjamin, you don’t have to get creeped out. I agree with you. There are many men who have lousy sex lives that would do well to look in the mirror to find the problem. I am not saying it goes for all men or even most men but many men. A woman feels used when she is ignored, neglected and shelved and then taken off of that shelf only to be used as a thing for urges to be released. Maybe cultivating a little intimacy in the marriage relationship will lead to more intimacy in the bedroom? And maybe more women would like sex if they didn’t feel so utterly mistreated and used.
Comment by: Paul
99 11/11/06 9:26 AM | Comment Link |‘Love’ is all nice and good and appropriate for *theological* issues. But this is an issue of justice and oppression, not mere theological disagreement. Men like Mark who get their kicks out of oppressing women need to be stopped. They are abusive. They are the pharisees of our day. They are the modern day Brood of Vipers.
Comment by: Rachel
100 11/11/06 10:04 AM | Comment Link |Here is a link to a blog article about Mark Driscoll & Mars Hill from Christians for Biblical Equality. It was written a few months before the latest controversy, in response to the Salon article.
Comment by: Helen
101 11/11/06 12:03 PM | Comment Link |I reposted Paul’s comments about organizing a protest here:
November 19 protest against Mars Hill Church
If you have comments specifically about the protest please post them there.
Comment by: An ex-Mars Hill member
102 11/11/06 1:54 PM | Comment Link |Hello,
I wanted to chime in here and say that I at first related to Mr. Driscoll. A few years ago I attended a Men’s retreat and sat in on a sermon that he gave for married men only.
I was pretty shocked when he launched into a long explaination of why our wives should make themselves available for anal sex when they are on their monthly cylcles or if they are pregnant or otherwise vaginally unavailable. I confess that at first I was a bit too excited by the prospect and even felt anger at my wife for not agreeing. Lets just say I was in the dog house for quite a while.
My family and I no longer attend the church, but I still struggle with the feelings of unadequacy that was instilled in me by Mr. Driscoll’s teaching. I was convinced for a long time that I am not much of a providor and that I am simply not a good enough man for my family. I didn’t feel that way before and now I still do. I am in counceling for it and I want to be the best dad and husband I can. I do not think Mr. Driscoll is aware of how harmful his comments are to men. Allot has been said about his affect on women but I want everyone to know it’s men too.
Comment by: Rose
103 11/11/06 2:32 PM | Comment Link |Umbelievable …please ex-Mars Hill member don’t take this wrong but are you serious? Can you tell us where this retreat was and when? Do you know if it was recorded?
Comment by: An ex-Mars Hill member
104 11/11/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |Dear Rose, I wish I was kidding. The worse part for me was I pressured my wife in this direction and tho she’s forgiven me I still am needing to forgive myself. I am ashamed but all I can explain is that Mr. Driscoll get’s in your head and is very pursuasive. I do not think he meant it for bad and was only trying to help, but it made me have allot of lustful fantasies I otherwise would not have. I believed for a long time that my wife’s purpose is to please me sexually because its what is taught at the church. But I now know that my own urges are my own responsibility to control.
The retreat was back in 2004. It was at a retreat camp down Mount Rainier. I do not know of it was recorded or not but I do remember some guys who were not married tried to sit in on the sermon but were asked to leave do to it being a sensitive topic nature which I am at least glad for and think was wise. So I doubt they would have the sermon out for the public. I will say that a talk by Pastor Lief was good and edyifing about believers not knowing scripture well enough, so I did get something good from going. But I never did go to another retreat there.
Pray for Mars Hill Church. The people who attend are good people believe in the teaching and I did and my family did.
Comment by: JG
105 11/11/06 4:13 PM | Comment Link |Many thanks ex-Mars Hill member for your comments, I haven’t had your particular experience but given what I have been through can very much relate to where you are coming from.
What do you think about the planned protest on 19 Nov? Do you think overall in the long term, it will have a positive or negative result?
Comment by: An ex-Mars Hill member
106 11/11/06 4:21 PM | Comment Link |Dear JG, thanks are you an ex Driscoll follower too? I don’t think the protest will accomplish much except maybe the media attention will be a good thing but I do know that MD isn’t even at that service. They do a video cast of his sermon at that service. But even if he was there he wouldn’t come out and will just crack jokes about it from the pulpit. And you will see lots of debates with members probably. MD’s followers are pretty rabbid to defend him for any cause and you will find most of his defenders will likely be women.
Comment by: Rachel
107 11/11/06 4:38 PM | Comment Link |Ex Mars Hill member, I’m so sorry to hear that you struggle with feelings of inadequacy as a result of bad teaching. I will pray that you will experience God’s wonderful grace, healing and freedom.
I definitely relate to your story. When our daughter was small, my husband was employed full time and I was employed part time outside the home. Our combined income provided us with a modest lifestyle - small rented apartment, one older car, always tight budget. We had loving child care for our daughter and we felt we were good parents and doing our best. What I was not prepared for was all the criticism and disapproval that came with being a “working mom” of a preschool child, especially from my fundamentalist church and family members.
My mother-in-law pointedly told me about a sermon she’d heard preached at her church. The pastor said that in Genesis Adam was cursed to work by the sweat of his brow and Eve was cursed to experience pain in childbirth. Therefore, any husband who did not provide enough for his family for his wife to stay home full time was making her labor under a “double curse.” Personally I felt hurt and indignant at that teaching. But mostly I was grateful that my husband was not sitting there hearing that. How cruel to make a hardworking, loving husband and father feel that he was inadequate and actually putting a curse on his wife because he did not make more money! (BTW, the area we live in had at that time recently been listed as one of the least affordable housing counties in the nation.)
Comment by: JG