Posted by Helen on: 11.11.2006 /
Please note: the protest date has been changed from November 19 to December 3
Also, I have closed the comments on here. Please express your concerns about, or support for, the protest on the People Against Fundamentalism blog
In comment #96 on Mark Driscoll and women, Paul wrote:
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 19Dec 3. More details & an e-mail list to join are available at http://www.endfundamentalism.org/.
Comment by: JG
1What really is the motive behind this demonstration? If it is to speak up up behalf of women and against misogyny are there not better targets? Take for example the case of Nazanin:
Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 — An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5184
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/
It is interesting that the website address refers to ending fundamentalisim rather than women or misogny.
So now certain “views” will simply not be tolerated?
Terms such as fundamentalists and “evangelicals” seem to get used interchangeably and generally as a term of abuse. Yet for example, the President of the Baptist Union in Britain is currently a woman - see:
http://www.baptist.org.uk/Structure/president.htm
I find it strange that the Revolution conference in Seattle only a few days ago emphasised kindness, yet here we are only a week later, and the first “fruit” of that conference is a protest in the same city. At the conference, did the speakers really intend their comments about kindness to apply and only apply to discussions over *theological* issues?
Lastly, however objectionable Mark Driscoll’s views are, is he really guilty of “grooming [thousands of young people] to be part of (what I perceive to be) his personal sexual addictions” as claimed by Jim Henderson?
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/11/09/mark-driscoll-and-women/#comment-3296
If he is guilty as Jim suggests, is it not more appropriate to place pressure on the police to take action against him. Isn’t grooming a serious criminal offence in the USA - it certainly is here in the UK. I’m sure Jim wouldn’t make such serious allegations without good evidence to make up such allegations so should he not pass such evidence to the police?
Comment by: Helen
2JG wrote:
I don’t think it needs to be an either/or. Why not speak up against all inappropriate treatment of women?
JG, since you are recommending loving confrontation, could you elaborate on what loving confrontation of Mark Driscoll would look like?
Comment by: JG
3Helen,
Thanks for your response. “Loving confrontation” is never easy or straight forward.
But on the basis of Matthew 18, I think the starting point would be to seek a private conversation with Mark Driscoll rather than a picket outside his church.
Ask him what he meant by his words rather than assume the worst.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
4The is not a Christian action - endfundamentalism.com is not a Christian group it is social justice group.
Comment by: Helen
5JG wrote:
His words don’t need clarifying though. They are clear enough already that we know what he means.
Comment by: Helen
6JG, have you actually read what Mark writes? This is the end of his latest blog entry:
Do you seriously think someone who writes like this can be reasoned with?
Comment by: David H
7Just a thought, but rather than protest against what you perceive as the wrong or un-loving attitudes of Driscoll, why not demonstrate for the attitudes and practices you would like to see modeled by all Christians.
A protest is, by definition, a public and often group statement against someone or something with which the protestors find themselves in opposition. A demonstration, on the other hand, could be good people (Christian or otherwise) showing — in statement (i.e. placards and words) as well as deed (how the event is done) — what love really means and how it should be done.
I’m thinking about what kinds of specific things could be done. But my initial take is that to answer his ignorance or stupidity with anger will only serve to solidify in his mind — and perhaps in that of many followers — that he is right.
Comment by: molly
8One of the things valuable about the US, I think, is the freedom to believe whatever you want. You can’t act on it in a way that would break the law (meaning, if you believe you’re supposed to murder, you aren’t free to do that), but other than that, you are pretty much free.
I grew up fundamentalist. I am coming out of my fundamentalist roots. But I can say that the people there are generally incredibly good-hearted, and have a passion for doing what God says. They believe God says these things about women, etc, and THAT is why they follow those teachings.
A negative reaction is going to do very little…they are already convinced that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, so one more angry voice pointed their way is only going to confirm their beliefs.
What really messed up my fundamentalist assumptions is when I met real people doing things that I valued at that time—for example, a homeschooling mom, an amazing wife, working in active ministry with her husband…and yet, she wasn’t a fundamentalist. I didn’t know that was possible. Finding out she was egalitarian in her marraige about made my brain circuits blow apart. I thought you had to be *our* way or you were miserable/rotten/faltering/sinful.
Yet she was breaking all of my stereotypes apart, and she did it unapologetically, yet with a warm smile. She didn’t hide the truth from me—we had MANY theological conversations, most of which I was rather emotional with and probably said things that were really offensive (without meaning to)–but she always treated me with respect and kindness. THAT was the kind of thing that took a hammer to my fundamentalist wall.
I’m sure that a site devoted against fundamentalist could be perfectly well and good…but I hope it will be done constructively and with compassion for fundamentalists (who are, generally, good people with good intentions, who have a deep love for God and are willing to obey what they think He says, even when it hurts). Just another angry voice isn’t going to do much. Nobody likes getting yelled at, and it shuts off our ability to hear like nothing else, whether one is a fundy or anything else.
If the point is a place to rant, or just to inform the rest of the world, then ignore the above. But if the point truly is to reach out to fundamentalists, to hopefully help them see and hear what you deem to be important truths that they’ve missed, then please consider which tactics would best fit with that agenda.
I really like what David said above and agree, and can’t help but think that meeting unlove with another form of unlove has, in the end, accomplished very little.
Comment by: Helen
9Thanks for your comments, David and molly.
Comment by: Helen
10I don’t actually know what the ‘tone’ of this protest will be.
Comment by: Rachel
11Wow. I’m speechless.
Comment by: Rachel
12David’s comments remind me of what Jim Wallis always says, “Protest is good; Alternatives are better.”
Molly, I relate to your story. I was also raised in the fundamentalist church under the patriarchial view of women. Something in me always rebelled against it but I genuinely wanted to obey God. Then about 12 or so years ago, I encountered the Christian egalitarian understanding of Scripture. It was transforming and liberating.
Comment by: Rachel
13OK, I take that back. I’m NOT speechless in response to Driscoll’s statement. I DO have something to say.
I am a follower of Jesus, the great liberator of women, the one who lifted up the poor and the oppressed.
In Jesus’ inaugural sermon, he quoted the prophet Isaiah: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has annointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come.
When the apostle Peter preached his first public sermon, he quoted the prophet Joel: In the last days, God said, I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams. In those days I will pour out my Spirit upon all my servants, men and women alike, and they will prophesy.
And the apostle Paul said in his letter to the Galatians: There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are one in Christ Jesus.
I AM a full member of the community of faith. I CAN be used by God to minister in any way he sees fit to use me. I am NOT a second class citizen but someone who is fully loved by God. Jesus has set me free and Mark Driscoll simply can not take that away!
Comment by: Julie Marie
14I don’t know that protest will do anything to effect change in Driscoll, however…if it shines light on the stark reality of his misogyny and his blatant disrespect for other faith tradiitons (I hadn’t seen the baby bunny bs) then perhaps his ability to influence will decrease.
Book sales go down, invitations to speak evaporate…right now he’s riding a wave of success that is giving him credibility and its a self perpetuating upward spiral.
If I lived in Seattle, I’d join in the demonstration. Part of the reason I react so strongly, and part of why I’d participate is that this sort of stranglehold creeps up on a woman slowly. I think, if I’d realized what the reality of my former church’s teachings were from the git go, I would have walked away. I got blindsided by the contemporary worship, casual dress, relevant teachings, and step by step I went, down that road….
Comment by: Paul
15Fundamentalism is inherently abusive. Mark Driscoll’s Christian Fundamentalism is of the same cloth as Iranian Islamic Fundamentalism.
I am calling people to stand up against the injustice of Fundamentalism everywhere. When we excuse Mark’s misogyny, we make it easier to tolerate even more radical abuse.
So, while I am against the injustice in hanging a rape victim, I am starting with the misogynist in my backyard. Others have tried the private route. I am going public because I seek to make his misogyny socially unacceptable, to showcase to the public the injustice of his views.
Comment by: JG
16Paul,
Do you regard Kate Coleman, President of the Baptist Union in Britain as a fundamentalist?
http://www.baptist.org.uk/Structure/president.htm
and
http://www.baptist.org.uk/Baptists/what.htm
If not, why not?
I’m not sure what value the phrase “fundamentalist” has these days. To my mind, a fundamentalist believes in fundamentals. Muslims believe in the fundamentals of their faith but it is quite wrong to suggest that therefore all Muslims support suicide bombings.
Love is a fundamental part of Christian teaching. Therefore if Mark Driscoll fails to show love, if he practices misogny, if he is arrogant, proud and abusive then he may be guilty of many things but to call him a fundamentalist is in my view an inherent contradiction.
In Britain, ordinary Muslims have been attacked, have had their shops and homes burned down etc, because they have been wrongly branded as being part of the same group as those who carried out suicide bombings. Such fear driven hate crime and hysteria strikes me as more serious than comments by Mark Driscoll however ill advised and distasteful such comments may be.
Comment by: JG
17For example look at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/
I see this as the natural fruit of protests against fundamentalism.
By all means turn up outside Mars Hill, show your opposition to Mark Driscoll, shout your slogans, raise your placards and go home afterwards feeling morally superior and satisfied.
But in the long term will this bring more love or more hate into the world?
Comment by: JG
18Some Muslims in Seattle had been afraid to go to mosque all week, and when they went, they found non-Muslims standing there with flowers.
One woman had even approached Iqbal asking, “What can we do?”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/
Comment by: Jim Henderson
19JG
How is what Paul is so courageously suggesting different from what Rachel celebrates over at the Revolution Conference Blog
Here is her comment
Rachel Says:
“It got me searching for him (Jesus)over the weekend. I certainly found him in Sunil Sardar, who was so full of Jesus and the Spirit of God, it was palpable.
Amen, Jason! It was wonderful to hear Sunil talking about his “March for the Dignity of Womanhood” and about how low caste Christians call Christmas “Human Liberation Day.” We can definitely say of Sunil that “the Spirit of the Lord is upon him to preach Good News to the poor and oppressed.”
Comment by: Jim Henderson
20This is not a protest against fundamentals but fundamentalism (the worship of fundamentals)which turns us into mean and bigoted people (as well as dangerous to others)
BTW- In her seminal book Terrorism in the Name of God - Harvard Professor Jessica Stern identifies the primary practices of all Fundmentalists regardless of religion. One of the basic practices is to brainwash your adherents into “objectifying” those you want to control by using degrading and coarse terms that are dismissive and allow practitioners of fundamentalism to forget the “other” as being human and force them into a “group”.
This is how African Americans, Native Americans and Jews havd been dealt with for centuries. It takes a long time a lots of public protests to break down that kind of thinking once it has taken hold. Politicians NEVER lead this kind of change it always comes from the margins and then those holding public power act once their power is threatened.
That is the insidious nature of fundamentalism.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
21Jesus was so active protesting this kind of fundamentalism one wonders why we even need to discuss this.
Comment by: Doug
22Hey. Words have meanings. Let’s define terms here, please. I don’t think we’re all on the same page. Define fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism are NOT the same thing. Christian fundamentalists, Like them or not, do NOT terrorize innocent people, behead, keep women out of schools, prevent women from driving, force women to their own buildings, prevent women from showing their face in public etc…. Let’s be careful.
BTW, I’ve attended a fundamentalist church and I’ve attended Mars Hill. Mark Driscoll is NOT a fundamentalist as I think most of you posting here think. Many Fundamentalist do not like him because he’s not ‘Conservative’ enough.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
23While I agree with those who suggest that a demonstration of love would perhaps work better than an angry protest if the goal is to change minds at Mars Hill or even Mark Driscoll’s mind; on the other hand, I think a protest can have some good effects too.
As I understand it from my friends (new and old) in Seattle, Mark is highly influential there. For some reason, he is courted and coddled by the local media despite his blatant fundamentalism and the Seattle media’s own liberal bent. I can attest that he is highly influential in nationwide Christian circles too. Plus, as Jim alluded to, he is also influencing hundreds of young Christian leaders through his Acts29 church planting network. And I have to confess that I have rarely met an Acts29 pastor who didn’t display the same arrogant, aggressive and misogynistic behavior that Driscoll regularly does. I guess it must be part of the training.
Given all that, hopefully this protest will at least wake up a few people in Seattle, and perhaps beyond, to the fact that Driscoll is not necessarily someone worth taking seriously despite his big church, colorful language and “edgy” worship styles. Maybe the media out there will stop fawning over him and actually start noticing the outrageous verbal crap that he spews.
Comment by: Corrie
24I don’t know that a protest will help. After reading that “fluffy bunny” comment, it certainly seems that this man can turn anything into an opportunity to mock others and put down women. I am actually in agreement with Mark concerning his stance that scripture allows only men to fill the position of elder. But, that fluffy bunny statement goes right back to giving us a look at what he really thinks about women. I hardly doubt that female pastors are the ones ushering in Peter Rabbit. After all, look at the state of our church. The vast majority of churches are run by men. Can it get any worse than it already is? I don’t think so. God might even raise up a “Deborah” to bring us back on track and do what no man in this time can do.
It grieves me that he knows how much his comments hurt but he doesn’t give a rip about the people he hurts. He doesn’t care.
Comment by: Corrie
25Speaking about “outrageous verbal crap”….
Can anyone tell me if this is true? It was written on Helen’s blog under another conversations:
“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.”
And he is worried about fluffy bunnies taking over our churches? I am worried about these perverse teachings being taught to my future son-in-laws.
Can we really support a man if he thinks like this?
Comment by: benjamin ady
26Doug. You raise an interesting point. Actually, thre are a lot of parallels between muslim and christian fundamentalism, and it is meaningful to use the term for both groups. I enourage you to read the wikipedia article. As to your list of things that muslim fundamentalists do which christian fundamentalists don’t do, such as terrorize people, I would ask a couple questions: who did christian fundamentalists vote for in 2004? What has been the position of the vast majority of christian fundamentalists on the Iraq War?What about 50,000 (rock bottom estimate!) dead Iraqi civilians? What about abu ghraib prison? etc. etc. etc.
Comment by: JG
27Jim, what do you mean: “this kind of” fundamentalism? I understood you believed there was only one kind of fundamentalism and that there was no need to distinguish.
Also on what basis do you claim Jesus was so active protesting this kind of fundementalism? Are you relying on biblical authority for this and if so how can you be sure the Bible correctly records what Jesus said and did? If not the Bible, what other evidence are you relying on? How do you know Jesus even existed?
I note no one has expressed concern over attacks on Muslims in the wake of 9/11. I see this as the natural consequence of protests against fundamentalism. Much as I dislike and abhor what I have read about Mark Driscoll I feel even more strongly about physical attacks on Muslims particularly Muslim women and about those who take pleasure in whipping up hysteria.
Comment by: JG
28Benjamin,
Was America right to stand aside and let the genocide in Rwanda claim one million lives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda
Of the Iraqui civilian dead, how many have been killed by US troops and how many by fellow Iraquis? Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original intervention, would the killing stop if US troops immediately pulled out?
My own belief is that the war has removed a terrible leader but that the current situation is even worse than the situation they were seeking to remedy.
Comment by: Helen
29Mike C wrote:
I agree. Maybe none of us can get a personal interview with Mark Driscoll; but if a protest draws secular media attention, he may well be willing to grant interviews to them. And if he does, more people will become aware of him and what he teaches about women.
JG wrote:
JG, perhaps we are not commenting on attacks on Muslims since that is not the topic of this entry. Unless someone actually posts “I don’t care about attacks on Muslims”, please don’t assume that we don’t care just because at present we are discussing something else.
I respect all those people who have said they think more loving methods would work better than a protest.
I respect JG’s concern over hate crimes against Muslims.
I don’t see why we need to argue about which is most effective or most important. Why don’t the people who prefer loving methods say to the protesters “Go for it - may you achieve some positive change!” and the protesters say to the loving methods people “Go for it - may you achieve some positive change!” Why can’t we try both?
And JG, if you want to take action against hate crimes against Muslims, go for it. I don’t see why your desire to do that means we shouldn’t take action against Mark Driscoll’s unkind teachings about women (and men).
Let’s not invalidate each other’s desire to effect change in the ways we are led (or God is leading us, if you believe in God). Let’s see if by each doing what we are led to do, alongside each other, we can effect change. I think that’s more likely to work than if we say “no, there’s only one ‘right’ way to do this” and alienate everyone who sincerely disagrees with us.
Comment by: Helen
30Corrie, I don’t know whether we would be able to get the church to verify that Mark taught what ex-member wrote here. However his wife Ally alluded to knowing at least one other man who was at the retreat and also heard it.
Comment by: JG
31But the topic of this entry is the 19 November protest. It has been made clear that this protest is NOT simply about Mark Driscoll but about “fundamentalism” generally. The protest website is called end fundamentalism. Paul states at comment 15:
And my point is that it is this sort of “protest” that leads to attacks on Muslim women by people so blinded by hate, prejudice, fear and hysteria that they fail to see the difference between 9/11 suicide bombers and ordinary Muslim women in Seattle.
Comment by: Helen
32JG I think I’m right in saying that the November 19 protest is specifically against Mark Driscoll’s unkind teachings. And this blog entry is about the November 19 protest.
JG, people who are that “blinded by prejudice, fear and hysteria” are not interested in listening to us. They will do what they are driven to do regardless of whether Paul protests outside Mark Driscoll’s church or not.
Comment by: JG
33Comment by: Helen
34JG I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Could you elaborate please?
Comment by: Rachel
35Amen, sister!
Comment by: Lois Dobrisnsky
36“Fundamentalism is inherently abusive. Mark Driscoll’s Christian Fundamentalism is of the same cloth as Iranian Islamic Fundamentalism……I am calling people to stand up against the injustice of Fundamentalism everywhere.”
This is ridiculous. You are going to launch a pogrom against Fundamentalism at MH Ballard where Driscoll does not preach when Driscoll is not fundamentalist. In fact the fundamentalists have more problems with him than you do.
Why don’t you go have your pogrom at an orthodox synagog. They don’t allow women be Rabbis and haven’t for thousands of years.
Holding a demonstration at MH Ballard will make Driscoll very happy. It is precisely the kind of thing Driscoll can make work for him. Being attacked by the left is what fuels his popularity and you are playing right into his hand.
BTW, Driscoll’s views on what wives should do for their husbands are not accepted by fundamentalists. He is an odd duck. Hardly anyone agrees with him.
I am neither a fundamentalist or an evangelical. Not a Driscoll fan. Don’t really care if you have you pogrom. It is a silly idea which cannot fail to increase Driscoll’s popularity.
Comment by: Helen
37Lois, thanks for your comments.
Comment by: JG
38http://www.urc.org.uk/iraq_2003/American_Church_leaders.htm
But Jim Henderson and Benjamin see David Coffey and Kate Coleman(amongst others) as nasty fundamentalists (after all, they believe in the Bible as the word of God) and see no difference between them and the 9/11 suicide bombers.
Now that is the sort of thinking that I find disturbing.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
39I never commented on Coffey or Coleman- try again
Comment by: JG
40Jim - oh but you have. After all, they are fundamentalists and you have made your views on fundamentalists clear.
BTW it is David Coffey and Kate Coleman. But if you want to insult them by just using their surnames so be it.
I think the term fundamentalist is unhelpful but if it is to be used I would use it in relation to people who see things as black and white, either one thing or the other with no in between. I have no time for such people.
Comment by: JG
41One further thought. A problem with this sort of protest is that anyone can turn up and pursue their own agenda. What if some pursue violence, assaulting members of the church? What if some start chanting “Death to Christians”?
How then will the media record the demonstration?
Well intentioned protests can be hijacked in this way.
I genuinely do not believe this is the best way to proceed. I do support letters of concern being sent to the local newspaper and if enough letters were written, this would generate much better publicity and I suspect register a greater effect.
Comment by: Helen
42We could write to the Seattle Times and ask them to choose a different columnist to represent Christians.
Here’s part of the latest entry on the PAF blog:
Comment by: benjamin ady
43yea. yippee. I realized yesterday that I couldn’t be at the protest, because I’m out of town on the 19th. And now it’s the 3rd. And I can be there. Very very kewl. Rocking A!
Comment by: Mike Clawson
44Ummm… just because someone believes in the Bible as the word of God doesn’t make them a fundamentalist. No one here is making that equivocation except you JG.
Comment by: JG
45Mike,
Thank you. Can we underline this please.
When I asked for clarification of what was meant by “fundamentalist” so that we can understand clearly which group of people was being referred to, Jim gave this response:
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/10/14/are-fundamentalists-fearful/#comment-2562
Comment by: Rachel
46JG, maybe I’m missing part of the conversation here, but I don’t see anywhere in Jim’s statement where he says that believing the Bible is God’s Word makes someone a fundamentalist.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
47Ditto
Comment by: JG
48http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/10/14/are-fundamentalists-fearful/#comment-2653
Jim
So if Karen thinks that say Vineyard churches are fundamentalist then by Jim’s reckoning that is all that really matters.
As fundamentalists, by Benjamin’s reckoning, there is no difference between them and 9/11 suicide bombers.
So by this reckoning there is no difference between say Jason Clark and a 9/11 suicide bomber. And doesn’t Jim comes from Vineyard?
All I am doing is pointing out the consequences of some of the comments that have been made.
What one person means by fundamentalist can be very different to what someone else means. From previous comments, it appears to me that one definition of a fundamentalist could simply be a Christian who voted for George Bush. Or from Karen’s comments, could be any Christian who is not a liberal.
The response? Hit over the head - twice - with a “nasty oughty-should hammer” on the basis I should not be using the word we: quote: “[I] refuse to assent to them being used to refer to me”
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/10/14/are-fundamentalists-fearful/#comment-2564
This protest IS about fundamentalism - the website makes that clear. If you are going to protest about something, it makes sense to me to be very clear about what you are protesting about. If in fact it is a specific protest about Mark and some of his teachings and attitiudes then why muddy the waters by setting it up as part of a wider campaign against fundamentalism generally?
Comment by: Helen
49JG wrote:
Exactly. People’s definitions of ‘fundamentalist/fundamentalism’ vary, don’t they?
Since Jim has never spelled out his definition, is it really wise to assert you know who he thinks is a fundamentalist? How can you know? How can anyone know unless he tells us? I don’t see how we can.
Comment by: Helen
50JG wrote:
I agree that more clarity about this would be helpful.
Comment by: JG
51Helen - I agree. Hence my original question:
Jim’s response:
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/10/14/are-fundamentalists-fearful/#comment-2562
Apologies for continuing to press this point but for me, I feel there is an important issue here.
I agree with you Helen that Jim has failed to spell out his definition.
For me, if I was going to say I oppose something - particularly if I was claimining it was THE main problem today or at least one of the top two today, I would want to spell out what I thought it was so there was no risk of confusion.
Jim might argue he has defined it by his words at the beginning of his comment. But if someone is a fundamentalist only if they satisfy all 9 attributes, I suspect we are only talking about a very limited group of people - quite different from what “it means on the street” - IMO.
Comment by: Helen
52Here are the 9 characteristics quoted in that discussion you linked to:
This is quite different from ‘a fundamentalist is someone who believes the Bible is the Word of God’
Comment by: JG
53I agree. But Jim then goes on to say:
What it means “on the street” is very different to the 9 characteristics, particularly if you need all 9 to be a fundamentalist.
Far better to avoid using the term at all or, if it must be used, be very careful to define exactly what you mean by the term.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
54Fundamentalism is not going to go away. It means what people think it means.
Like all public arguments it is used by both sides to accuse those who disagree with you.
That is fine.
We will have to wait and see who eventually “owns” the word.
People do what they feel not what they think
Comment by: JG
55So that’s clear then.
Comment by: benjamin ady
56JG,
I agree. And I feel sad that we elected a presedent who is so amazingly ignorant that he thought it was possible to correct, all on “our” own, a situation that is hundreds and hundreds of years old, without using the same brutal methods (or worse) which the leader “we” deposed was using. We Americans tend to have such an amazingly short term, military power can solve *everything* perspective. It looks to me like we learned megazilch from Vietnam. It was not at all surprising to learn recently that Kissinger has been advising the Bush white house right along.
I never commented on Coffey or Coleman either. And it seems silly to me to say its insulting to call people by their last names. I wonder if Coffey and Coleman are available to speak with people in their communities? I bet they probably are, unlike Mark.
I think I have a *great* gut feeling for a powerful abusive system when I see it. Call it whatever you want. There’s something inside that recognizes it immediately becuase I lived in something very similar for years, and it was hella hard to get out of, and to get healed from. Driscoll and Mars Hill Church set that feeling off big time, and the more I read about and interact with them, the more conscious evidence there is for my head of what my gut is telling me. It seems to me that perhaps the major problem over there is a misunderstanding of power. I really think that the leadership doesn’t understand the level of the power they have, and the damage their uncareful use of that power is doing. I think there are two possible paths for them. Either they will just continue to be the way they are–this happens to some people–they never really change, no matter how much pain they cause others and themselves. My hope is that it will go the other way for them–that they will come to understand and feel in their heads and in their guts the pain that their misuse of power is causing, and repent, and start to repair. That would be awesome. the sense I get from Mark, and from Lief, is that they have not yet experienced the depths of brokenness that they need to experience in order to *really* understand their desperate need for love, and for jesus. Mark gives very flippant lip service to being a sinner. It’s scary to see unbroken people wielding power.
Comment by: Ingrid
57Hi everyone. I wish I didn’t enter this conversation so late but for what it’s worth I stand with Paul. I live in Seattle and have been aware of Driscoll’s abusive teachings for sometime now. I am extreemly passionate about the voice of women being heard in our communities, not just behind the sense but publicly, so for someone to come along and limit how women contribute to our world, community, and families is a personal offense against what life/God promises.
Comment by: JG
58Benjamin, thanks for your comments - I feel the same way! I emailed some details to Helen just before seeing your comments which I think will demonstrate this though I have asked her to keep the details private. Despite my concerns I don’t want to name the church in question publicly.
When you write in this way I am happy to support you 100%.
Comment by: JG
59PS brokenness is one of my key themes! All the people I really respect within the church have experienced considerable brokenness. 2 Corinthians 4:17-19.
I fully agree.
Comment by: Beyond Words
60I stand with you but fear you’re going to end up being lumped into the same mold as the Kansas homophobic preacher who shows up at military funerals to pronounce God’s judgement on the U.S. for homosexuality. Have you considered seeking some of the women who are being wounded under Driscoll’s rhetoric and banding them together–holding a public prayer vigil with them instead of a protest? Maybe there are other ideas, but I think a protest is just going to label you as liberal feminazis they want to believe you are and your voice may not be heard. My fear for Driscoll goes way beyond his treatment of women. The fruits of the spirit are patient, humble, edifying and unifying. Driscoll really scares me, more than Ted Haggard. I pray for him, weeping, every day and pray for the men who are being influenced by him.
Comment by: benjamin ady
61Thankyou. Feeling lovely warm fuzzies. My 4 year old is in preschool, and they are learning right now about warm fuzzies and cold pricklies. So that’s why I’m using this relatively juvenile language. (feeling a bit silly)
Comment by: Blog - People Against Fundamentalism » FAQ: Taking Action Against Fundamentalist Misogyny
62 11/13/06 6:43 PM | Comment Link |[...] And cute and fuzzy bunnies. We are for them. Why are you dumping Christian Fundamentalists like Mark into the same bucket as Islamic Fundamentalist? (New 13 Nov 2006) On another site Doug stated: “Christian fundamentalists, Like them or not, do NOT terrorize innocent people, behead, keep women out of schools, prevent women from driving, force women to their own buildings, prevent women from showing their face in public etc….” [...]
Comment by: Paul
63The question was asked above
Good question. It is both.
As I’ve now clarified at EndFundamentalism.org:
Comment by: benjamin ady
64well, actually, one has to ask: who did christian fundamentalists in america, by and large, vote for for president in ‘04? What is the position of Christian fundamentalists in the USA on the war in Iraq, by and large? And what about 655,000 dead Iraqi’s, mostly civilians, and what about Abu Ghraib, and what about Fallujah and white phophorous, etc. etc. etc.
Comment by: Helen
65Benjamin and JG I respect where you’re coming from. You might be interested to read the blog entry I just put up about Spiritual Abuse Recovery Resources.
Comment by: JG
66Benjamin,
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/11/11/november-19-protest-against-mars-hill-church/#comment-3541
Comment by: JG
67Paul (Comment 63)
Following this logic, are atheists all cut from the same cloth as say Pol Pot, Stalin and Chairman Mao?
Was/Is Saddam Hussein a fundamentalist? If not, are all non fundamentlaists cut from the same cloth as Saddam?
Of course not! I don’t think this line of thinking is helpful. It lets Mark Driscoll off the hook because he can just dismiss his opponents as anti Christian etc etc. It blunts, divides and confuses the opposition.
A fundamental of Christain faith is love eg second greatest commandmant, love your neighbour as yourself. 1 Corinthians 13 - if you have not love, you are a clanging cymbal.
Has Mark demonstrated love in some of the things he has written? In my view no. Therefore challenge him on his failure to follow Christian fundamentals not because he is a “fundamentalist” a term over which there is evidently great disagreement and confusion.
Comment by: Helen
68Thanks everyone for your comments on here.
I’m going to close this comments section now.
If anyone wants to express further concerns about the planned protest, or support for it, please do so on People Against Fundamentalism blog.