Posted by Helen on: 11.14.2006 /
Rose Swetman is co-pastor of a church in the Seattle area. She has written this thoughtful and articulate open letter to Mark Driscoll which is also posted on her blog.
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
My name is Rose Swetman and I am the Co-Pastor of Vineyard Community Church in Shoreline, WA. This is an open letter and response to you concerning your recent blog post titled “Evangelical Leader Quits Amid Allegations of Gay Sex and Drug Use” and your next post, titled, “Ted Haggard Scandal 2.0.” I have followed and added some of my own responses to some of the recent flurry of reaction on various blog sites to some of your statements.
Several things are true about both of us. First, I am a woman, a pastor, and have a specific set of theological presuppositions. I am given to peacemaking. You are male, a pastor, and also have a specific set of theological presuppositions and by your own admission a street fighter. It is through each of our lens that we see and teach the things we do. We both bring different strengths and weaknesses to the body of Christ. Therefore, I speak to you as your peer and your equal before God.
I do not make a habit of responding publicly to church leaders about controversy (although I have placed the comments noted above recently). I rather, because of my leanings toward peacemaking, try to find and keep unity (not uniformity) in the body of Christ. However, recently I have felt like Jude. I find it necessary, in light of the protest planned on your church, to speak out as a pastor, not a feminist pastor, but a woman pastor, on this present controversy because it is effecting the local body of believers who I am called to serve.
From the things I have read, it is apparent that we do not share the same starting point theologically about “women in ministry.” You seem to place yourself in a view held by such noted biblical scholars as Wayne Grudem, called the Complementarian view of male and female gender roles. As I have read your posts and listened to some of your sermon presentations, I rather think you are theologically a Traditionalist and maybe without knowing it, you are masquerading as a Complementarian. On a recent post on the Act 29 website called “Is the biblical view of women applicable in our culture today?” (May 8 2006), your wife Grace writes on this issue. I assume for discussion that the two of you would hold similar if not equal theological views on this subject. In that article Grace wrote:
To answer the initial question that I asked about the Bible, we have to ask who our God is. Does what the Bible say about women really apply to us today in this culture (submission, can’t be a pastor, weaker vessel, more easily deceived, etc.)? Yes. God created us to submit, not because He hates us, rather because He loves us enough to protect us. Doesn’t it make us too vulnerable to ours husbands? As daughters of Eve we are more easily deceived, but like Ruth under the security of our husband and our God we are safe. Doesn’t it limit our ability to demonstrate our gifts? No. We can lead children and women, which is what a Titus 2 woman should desire.
This teaching alone leads me to perceive that you would follow more to a Traditionalist view of gender roles.
I believe the Egalitarian view of gender roles as closer to the intent of what Scripture teaches and held by such scholars as Gordon Fee and Rebecca Groothuis. I believe Scripture teaches the equality of genders in creation and that female submission, if that is what “rule” means in the fall story, started the idea of patriarchy. Patriarchy was the result of sin and the curse rather than God’s created intention.
My basic theological presupposition is Kingdom of God theology ala George Ladd and N. T. Wright’s theological input. I believe the Kingdom is here now, but “not yet.” This view leads me to the conclusion that the future of the Kingdom is here in the present and that we, the church, are to be a sign and witness of Kingdom order. When the Kingdom is consummated, the Scripture states that “we will all” reign with Christ. I believe that this is a fair biblical perspective. One you and many others may disagree with, but good Christians may disagree without using unchristian and uncharitable words when they differ. I would call your attention to the debates between N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg who have many differing view about the “Historical Jesus,” but in public conversation remained civil in their debate.
It seems to me that in your “Traditional,” or as some have stated, “hard Complementarian” view of Scripture, you seemed to have developed a rather unhealthy, vitriolic, abrasive, unchristian, and uncharitable form of rhetoric to describe women in your posts and sermons. You have been labeled with the descriptive word, “misogynist” by some. When I hear that word used, I don’t just think about a person that only “hates” women, rather I think of the word as also carrying an injustice ideology, similar to racism or anti-Semitism. For me a misogynist justifies and maintains a subordination of women by men for reasons that are not always apparent. I know you say that you believe in equality, just difference of roles. But, to hold a view that submission is in a woman’s DNA, which then disallows equal ministry with a man, is to hold both a far reaching and a destructive theology. The passage in Galatians about no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free seems to sum up God’s story in Jesus. For some, this issue injures the heart of God because of his desire for justice. It is for many men and women a justice issue as was, and still is to some degree, the issue of racism in and out of the church in the last century.
Here are a few illustrations of what you have said verbally or in writing that I personally find offensive. I have not referenced these quotes but can if need be.
First, there are varying degrees of “Christian” feminism and the more hardened variety is the battering ram on the church door that opens the way for homosexuality. What I mean is this: if we deny the Biblical tenets that we were made equal but distinct as male and female, with differing God-intended roles in the church and home, then homosexuality is the logical conclusion.
Remember, I believe in an Egalitarian view of gender roles. Your comments above seem to say that you would call me a “Christian” feminist. You teach that women like me are out of God’s intended roles for women in the church and home and that if the church allows women in ministry then homosexuals in ministry would be the next logical conclusion. This is not only offensive to me, it is demeaning of my personhood. I would consider myself a daughter of my Father in heaven rather than a daughter of Eve, as per your wife’s article. I believe the work of Jesus has reversed the curse and set me free. I no longer live in Genesis Chapter 3.
Women will be saved by going back to the role that God has chosen for them.
Sensitive men and women with only a passing acquaintance of a theological mindset would naturally hear how unchristian this statement is. It seems you hold the opinion that if I don’t follow the role that you think God has chosen for me, a role that you find favorable because of the theological lens you see through then I am not saved.
All of this has led this blogger to speculate that if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men. When asked for their perspective, some bunny rabbits simply said that they have been discriminated against long enough and that people need to “Get over it.”
It appears to me that in an effort to be cute or funny, neither of which works, this statement is one of the most mean-spirited I have ever read. Even if you had many valid points from your theological lens in your post, to name-call an ordained minister, whether you agree or not, a “bunny rabbit” you need to “man up” and retract such a demeaning statement and issue anapology. I wonder why you don’t use such inflammatory language when you write for the Seattle Times!
Now to the point of the Ted Haggard posts. I am going to assume you have not been totally insulated from the firestorm over your comments such as:
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.
And then:
“Contrary to some who misrepresented my prior blog, Gayle is in no way responsible for the sin of her husband and by all accounts seems to have been a lovely and devoted wife.”
These two comments, no matter how you explain them, are an offense to many women let alone pastors wives, and to me personally. Can’t you see how even posting that women have motives such as this — my husband is a pastor so he is trapped into fidelity so I can sit back and let myself go — is offensive? In the second post, you sound patronizing and demeaning of Gayle Haggard calling her “lovely and devoted.” Please don’t call me out as a feminist that does not want to be considered “lovely’ or “devoted” because that is not my issue. The issue is that Ted Haggard’s struggle is homosexuality. It did not seem to matter if Gayle Haggard was the most beautiful, devoted woman, and with her husband the most sexuality active woman on the planet, it would not have changed this situation one iota. So for you make this statement in these terms and make it an issue of sexual impropriety, failure, and sin, in my opinion, simply misses the point. It is offensive to talk to men and women this way and certainly reveals something about your character which for this reader seems rather prurient. One of the marks of a great leader is when she or he discovers that they have not faired well under their responsibility to not arbitrarily offend, is to make a public or private apology as the circumstances dictate. Because this was a public statement, it calls for a public apology.
Here are some examples where men have spoken out to support and correct you.
As someone who has spoken out in favor of women in leadership and against Mark’s often-times poorly chosen words and hurtful ideas… I still need to say that I have grave reservations about one set of Christians publicly protesting another set.”
Bob has called you out several times on what many perceived as hurtful ideas and poorly chosen words. I have never seen you apologize or retract. This is disturbing because you have been given a large stage from which to speak. As one Christian leader to another, I believe you need to take responsibility in choosing your words. This boils down to an issue with power and how power is stewarded by leaders. You have continually used your power to demean people with derogatory terms such as “limp wristed, and chickified“
And I might add, the PAF group do not identify as a Christian group and don’t seem to be attempting to operate under the constraints of any particular religious guidelines. This is a social justice issue.
These words might seem “hip” to you, but others don’t view it that way. Here are a couple of thoughts from Andrew Jones’ blog (I think Andrew would consider himself your friend). He has posted on the website that is organizing the protest against your teaching and irresponsible use of rhetoric. Here is what Andrew says:
I am not defending mark’s statement here, and i understand the tension and anger, but i just think this protest is too severe, too early, and too divisive. I have not heard yet of your failed attempts to chat with mark about it and I don’t see the love and godly concern for mark that should underlie an attempt at discipline. My gut feeling is that this protest is not a good idea right now and another measure should be found.
And here are a couple of comments from Andrew’s blog, highlights mine:
Andrew,
It saddens me even more that Driscoll (and those who know him) are aware of his tendency towards verbal violence & have known it for some time. Posted by: Bob C | Jan 28, 2006 8:13:28 PM
Here’s another:
Thanks for this piece, esp on the history of relations between the various leaders of Emergent and folks like Driscoll.
Two comments:
First, I have no idea where you get your definition of “midrash” for your definition sounds more like Hegelian dialectic. Midrash is interpretation of all sorts, not just the clashing of views.
Second, it is very pomo of you to say you like Driscoll so therefore you put up with his comments, for it shows the interpersonal relations inherent to all genuine conversation. But, as we learned from Aristotle, relationship does always mean condoning but involves correction and exhortation. Driscoll’s rhetoric is uncharitable and unchristian, even if one agrees with his overall stance (which is traditional) about homosexuality.
Andrew, I rarely see such vitriol coming from a Christian leader, and I’d like you to reconsider support of his rhetoric as something Driscoll is known for. Offensive rhetoric puts folks on their heals; conversation welcomes to the table; the pursuit of truth enables us to argue our differences. Posted by: Scot McKnight | Jan 28, 2006 8:49:35 PM
This open letter is an attempt on my part to ask you to stop your insulting rhetoric and not abuse the power that has been given you by using bombastic statements about people, both male and especially the demeaning way you name-call women. In my opinion, you are causing injury to your brothers and sisters. There is enough injury inflicted from our enemy without leaders of the flock adding to the amount of injury.
We are all free to speak our mind and choose the words we use when we speak. However, we as pastors serving in the greater Seattle area and beyond, also have a responsibility to not use our freedom of speech to cause undue harm on the members of the body of Christ. With that in mind, Andrew, Bob, and others have called for a meeting to sit down with you, in which those of us who are offended with the way in which you have used your voice and those who wish to protest you and your church, and have a conversation. I do not have any power to stop the protest, but as a woman, an ordained minister and fully committed follower of Jesus that has been offended by you, are you willing to sit down and converse?
I would appreciate a public response to this letter. You get to choose. I hope as a reformed street-fighter, which you have referred to yourself as, that you are able to find a way to be a part of the conversation. We await your response.
Peace and grace,
Rose Swetman
Co-Pastor
Vineyard Community Church
Shoreline, WA
Comment by: meg
1 11/14/06 7:04 PM | Comment Link |WOW! Great letter, Rose. I especially like the way you stand up for women in it. I hardly dare hope that Mark might have the wisdom, courage and insight to respond to your letter in the ways you’ve suggested. Miracles happen!!!!
Comment by: Diane
2 11/14/06 7:57 PM | Comment Link |Thank you Rose for the letter.
Mark Driscoll wants women to go back to the role he says God intended for them. On the Ooze website, to my shock, men are supporting Driscoll (apparently) by belittling the protest organizers as “hairy armpit feminists.” Can we see the inherent contradiction here? God intended women to have hair under their arms, but Driscoll apologists use that to demean them. Demeaned for being what God intended them to be? Then they support Driscoll for wanting to make women become what God supposedly wanted them to me. Is the contradiction here too glaring for words. Sorry, if women are going to be the way God intended them, they are going to have hairy armpits. Does this throw some light on the fact that maybe Driscoll is using the Bible selectively to make women the way HE wants them to be, a way he was conditioned to think women should be by a misogynist culture?
In addition to an apology, I think Mark should held to the fire on naming names of women who he thinks are lazy, “letting themselves go” pastors’ wives who are involved in a power play of forcing their husbands who can’t divorce to put up with their slovenly, sexless selves. Name names. Who are these women?
I have never participated in blogs before, but this truly has me upset. For the first time in years I have started thinking about myself physically in a critical way: I am 48 and that in itself probably puts me outside of the beauty paradigm and I am a size 12, not overweight, but not a stick, and I find myself wanting to tell the world that I do shave my underarms. Well, does any of this truly matter? And then, I looked at a photo of Driscoll and was shocked to see he is … what? overweight? And his church tore poor Ally to shreds over her so-called gluttony? I could not dream this stuff up. Is this what Emergent has become? Not just Driscoll, but the Ooze brothers belittling women for daring to be offended?
Comment by: Diane
3 11/14/06 8:01 PM | Comment Link |Basically, my questions is: if Mark is concerned that women be what God intended them to be, why does he allow his women flock members to shave their legs and armpits?
Comment by: Helen
4 11/14/06 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Diane, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. We appreciate having you join the conversation.
Rose your letter is wonderful! Like Meg I would love to see a response to it from Mark; and/or, if he would agree to the meeting you want to have that would be awesome too.
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 11/14/06 10:36 PM | Comment Link |Rose–beautifully expressed. I’m thinking you are qualifying to be called child of god as a peacemaker. You almost cause me to hope that perhaps your letter will inspire Mark to respond graciously and honestly, but the cynic in me fights hard against this hope.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
6 11/14/06 10:38 PM | Comment Link |Way to go Rose! Very well said. I hope Mark really does have the courage to actually give you a public reply.
-Mike
Comment by: Mike Clawson
7 11/14/06 10:44 PM | Comment Link |Diane,
As someone who gladly self-identifies as Emergent, I would encourage you not to judge the movement by people like Driscoll or some people at the Ooze. Driscoll is no longer “one of us” (by his choice, not ours). His behavior in no way represents the emerging church. And theOoze is an open forum. Anyone, emergent or no, can post there. I was a regular there several years ago, but I can say that since then it has been virtually overrun by decidedly non-emergent types. Again, their comments are not representative.
People like Rose are. People like Brian McLaren are. People like Tony Campolo are. Regardless of labels there are people who I am not ashamed to be lumped together with, and others, like Mark, that I don’t want speaking for me in any way, shape, or form.
Blessings,
-Mike
Comment by: Jennifer
8 11/14/06 10:45 PM | Comment Link |Rose- Thank you for your boldness and kindness. Thank you for stepping into this conversation and leading with your own authority. It grieves me for the sake of the church communities most specifically impacted by the views of gender and the abuse of power as it must transcend many other categories. Yet, I have received most of the emails regarding Driscoll’s comments on Haggard’s wife mostly from unbelieving friends who are watchful, suspicious and perplexed by this as a reflection of Christian leadership. I think we have to hold this conversation up in many lights. I’ll look forward to hearing about the progress of this and will commit to praying for you most specifically as the only woman I see mentioned sitting at that table. With much gratefulness for what you reveal of God’s Kingdom in the here and now.
Comment by: Diane
9 11/15/06 5:41 AM | Comment Link |I spoke to a wise person who recommended the following:
The only people he’ll [mark]
listen to at this point are conservative Calvinist theologians - D. A.
Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller. Perhaps they should be the target of a
letter-writing campaign, urging them to take some action.
What do you think?
Comment by: Helen
10 11/15/06 7:29 AM | Comment Link |Diane, I answered your question over on PAF, here.
Comment by: Doreen
11 11/15/06 8:30 AM | Comment Link |Thank you Rose.
Comment by: Lisa W.
12 11/15/06 9:35 AM | Comment Link |Not only is this a powerful letter, but I think ROSE should replace Mark D. as a Seattle Times contributor.
Thanks Rose for your Grace and Fortitude.
Comment by: Helen
13 11/15/06 9:44 AM | Comment Link |Wow, that would be so cool, to have Rose be their columnist! Great idea, Lisa.
Comment by: Siamang
14 11/15/06 11:27 AM | Comment Link |Very well-reasoned, intelligent, articulate, empassioned and full of grace and humanity.
I’m sad to say it may be completely lost on this character.
Implicit in Driscoll’s theology, I fear, is the notion that God wants men to be like Driscoll. Somehow more akin to the drunken sexist frat boys in the Borat movie who got caught saying what they believed live on camera.
Pastor Rose, apologies for the louts among my sex. I can see that this deeply pains you, as this does reflect poorly on the Church.
If I might appeal to Driscoll’s overindulged testosterone, I’d say that sometimes being a man is doing the hard things, and right now, wallowing in his own pridefulness is the easy thing. He should be a man, step up and swallow his own ego. Because right now, he’s acting like a boy. A boy who down deep fears women and all they stand for. Time for him to grow up and be a man.
I have no doubt that the Emergent movement is in good hands after reading this letter. And yes, the Seattle Times should clean up their act.
(Oh, and everyone knows that God created woman without armpit hair. The hair came after the fall! ;-) )
Comment by: Rose
15 11/15/06 11:46 AM | Comment Link |Thank you for all the kind comments and encouragement.
Siamang - Apology accepted. Thank you
Comment by: wow
16 11/15/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |God has some awesome plans for Mars Hill Church as of late I’m seeing all these blogs against Mark Driscoll by christians and unregenerate alike and my prayer is that the members of Mars Hill and Pastor Mark himself will remain steadfast in their faith and continue to live their lives for the glory of God. I know that God is allowing these satanic attacks and I know they will only intensify as Mars Hill continues to grow and the more people begin to share the true love of Christ with their neighbors. But these attacks will only serve to refine the Church and mature it’s members. Praise God!
Comment by: Keith
17 11/15/06 1:24 PM | Comment Link |Wow,
Thank you for your expression of confidence in God, I share the same confidence. Help me understand how/why you believe that the happenings on this blog and others are from Satan or are “satanic attacks.” Also, please help me understand how the growth of Mars Hill and the sharing of the love of Christ will lead to more of these “attacks.” It seems to me that these “attacks” are in response to Mark’s comments on topics mostly relating to sex & gender issues, not from the growth of Mars Hill and the shared love of Jesus. Please help me understand the connections. Thank you.
Comment by: Helen
18 11/15/06 1:46 PM | Comment Link |Thanks, Siamang and Keith.
wow, as far as I know God may well have awesome plans for Mars Hill Church and they might include using this protest to bring about changes he wants to happen in that church.
Comment by: Rachel
19 11/15/06 2:03 PM | Comment Link |Rose, thank you for your mature and godly leadership.
Maybe THAT is where a letter writing campaign is needed.
Comment by: wow
20 11/15/06 3:03 PM | Comment Link |Kieth,
Here’s my view and I’m speaking as an outsider of sorts as I am not physically in Seattle and at Mars Hill Church though that is where my heart desires to be. I will be there in two months as soon as the military allows me to move back home. However I have long considered myself a long distance member of the Mars Hill family and have grown to know, understand, trust, and respect Mark Driscoll through his sermons, and through seeing the fruit of his leadership and instruction. With that said I know that Mark is not above reproach, and I have on several occasions heard him say the same thing about himself. The picture that the blogs are painting whether intentional or not is one of a man who should not be trusted, who should not be respected, who should not be listened to, and that is where I see evidence that this is a satanic attack, it is coming at a time when more people then ever in the city of Seattle are under good theologically sound bible teaching. Throughout history the times when the church is under the greatest teachers and the truth is being shared with the greatest effect is when the enemy launches the greatest attacks.
Again let me reiterate that I don’t consider Pastor Mark to be a perfect man and incapable of error however the thing that tells me that these accusations are not well founded and ultimatly from the enemy is the method that they are being delivered, on the one hand you have a group who is preparing to protest in front of the church on a sunday morning during one of the busiest services and on the other hand you have a woman pastor who writes a beautifully eloquent and wonderfully loving letter full of peacful correction but at the center of it I believe is still a misguided perception of Pastor Mark. So if you look at the big picture what do you see?
Comment by: Keith
21 11/15/06 3:31 PM | Comment Link |Wow,
Thank you for the response, and for your (or family member’s?) service in the military. You said …
I am personally not comfortable with the way this message is being delivered either, though I understand that Mark’s unavailability contributes to the need for such a delivery. However, do not mistake poorly (IMO) delivered correction for inaccurate correction.
Whenever I look at the big picture, I find it easier to see God than I do Satan. God (if he exists and I believe He does)is allowing this for a reason, and hopefully Mark, Mars Hill, and Seattle will all be better off for it. God is strong, so I wouldn’t worry about Satan. Also, Mark is machismo, and he will/should be able to accept strong criticism and get things right. Have confidence that when you return to Seattle in a couple of years, you may find a city full of healthy, frank dialogue about the implications of the gospel. This is the big picture I see. Thanks for your willingness to share, wow. God bless.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
22 11/15/06 4:28 PM | Comment Link |I am proud that someone associated with Off the Map like Pastor Rose Swetman has responded with such a strong voice of humility and call for a dignified meeting of minds and hearts.
Thanks for posting this, Helen.
Another voice of reason on this firestorm is Pastor Bob Hyatt of Evergreen here in Portland, where I live.
I want to be like Rose, and Bob, when I grow up.
Comment by: Karen
23 11/15/06 4:38 PM | Comment Link |I’ve refrained from comment so far, as this seems a matter for and between Christians rather than one for outsiders to weigh in on.
But I’ll just make the point that it’s Driscoll’s very words that are stirring the controversy. He himself has made these public statements that others are objecting to. He’s put himself forward as a public representative for Christianity in his community. As such, he has a responsibility to take care with his words.
It’s not “the blogs” or particular bloggers that are creating controversy. The man is doing it himself. As for Satan’s involvement … I’ll refrain from comment on that one in the interest of being tactful. ;-)
Comment by: Diane
24 11/15/06 5:21 PM | Comment Link |Rose,
I wanted to reiterate that I liked your letter.
Mars Hill people,
I think we need to make a distinction between the Mark that the Mars Hill people know and the Mark blogging on the Internet. I will accept that the Mark at Mars Hill is different from the blog persona. But for those of us far from Mars Hill, the ONLY Mark we have access to is the blogger Mark. He is not a pleasant character. I wish he would think more about this, for the sake of his followers who are forced to defend him, if for no other reason. The Mark I am disgusted with is blogger Mark. I can only take people’s word that the real Mark is a lovely person.
Comment by: Winn
25 11/15/06 5:22 PM | Comment Link |Hi Keith,
Thanks for serving in the military. Hope you arrive home safely.
Here’s my contention with some of your comments:
First, I’m not sure that I would call what Mark preaches “good theologically sound bible teaching.” He seems to be a curious mixture of a Calvinist and a fundamentalist at the same time. Of course, we are all theological mutts. The theological glasses he wares and teaches from produces the sermons that he delivers. This is true for every preacher/teacher. To say that what he teaches is “good theologically sound bible teaching,” is to say that what he says is “healthy,” that is if you take “sound” to mean “healthy” which is one way of understanding Paul’s use of the word. I’m not sure that what he teaches sometimes is all that “healthy.” Again, my opinion. Mark is not my enemy, he is my brother, and sometimes brothers, and sisters for that matter, need to be corrected. It is my further opinion that if he insulates himself from this controversy, he will only be doing damage to himself and his congregation.
There seems to be a mathematical equation going on in your comment. The size of the church is equated with the “good theologically sound bible teaching.” Would the following be true? A person who pastors say a church of fifty adults have the reversed said about him or her, i.e., they teach “no so good theologically sound bible teaching.” We must be careful to not equate size as the lens through which we observe church success.
Second, I’m not sure I would consider Mark as a “great” teacher either. But, that’s just my opinion. I would consider Jesus to be a great teacher, and Paul to be a great teacher. But, our interpretations of Jesus and Paul often fall short of what they may have really been saying. We must learn to take a more humble position as we teach and learn the text of Scripture.
Third, Rose is my pastor and I don’t believe that she has a “misguided perception of Pastor Mark.” I think she has a perception of Mark that has been forged by pastoring in the same larger city and being a shepherd of a community of faith where she see the effects of Mark’s ministry from a different point of view. You have a perception of Mark based on your participation at Mars Hill. Could you perception of Pastor Mark be misguided?
Forth, I do believe there are Satanic attacks in life. Could it be that one of the minions of Satan is using Mark to spread discord in the Body of Christ by his crass remarks in his public blog writings and sermons? He certainly has a right to believe and teach what he believes and teaches, but he also has a responsibility to say what he says without being demeaning.
Fifth, critical thinking is mandated in this kind of a situation not “emotive” thinking, which I have read a lot of over the last couple of days from both men and women on blogs. This is not pointed at your comment, but is a general comment. It looks like a lot of Christians want to extract a pound of flesh from other Christians? Somewhere a great teacher suggested that divided houses have a difficult time standing!
So when I look at the big picture I see a conflict between one pastor and a group of others. Conversation is needed, not verbal grenades which are pitched to light up each side’s argument, which causes more harm.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
26 11/15/06 5:28 PM | Comment Link |well said, Karen. It is a bad habit of followers of Christ to blame the devil for anything negative in our lives. (I’m guilty as well for having done this) It is so much easier to place blame on a hostile spiritual force than take responsibility for our own messes.
I now know that I don’t need the devil to make a mess of things : I’m quite capable of screwing up all on my own. And apparently, so is Driscoll.
Comment by: Rachel
27 11/15/06 5:59 PM | Comment Link |Karen, I definitely want to hear what those who are not part of the Christian community think about this issue. How the Gospel of Jesus is represented to the world at large really matters. And as Jim often reminds us, we need to have the humility to listen to how others view us. Thanks for your honest input, Karen.
Comment by: Helen
28 11/15/06 6:09 PM | Comment Link |Actually Diane, you can download sermons off the church site and find out what Mark says at church.
And if you read the long comments section on the other blog entry about Mark, you’ll see in there that evidently when a women disagreed with on the church members forms, Mark told her husband “Shut your wife up or I will”
From everything I am hearing, it seems that Mark at church is not that different from Mark the blogger.
Comment by: Helen
29 11/15/06 6:39 PM | Comment Link |Pam, yes, I am impressed with Bob Hyatt. I ran across his words to Mark in a January blog entry of his and I was very happy to see that at that time he urged Mark to be more careful with words.
Karen, thank you for pointing out that it is Mark’s own words that have led to this.
Comment by: Helen
30 11/15/06 7:23 PM | Comment Link |I just saw that Rose’s letter has been posted by Scot McKnight - awesome!
Comment by: Diane
31 11/15/06 7:36 PM | Comment Link |All I am saying is that is not the Mark I have had exposure to. I have read the other blog and know how he silenced the woman who disagreed with him. I have to say that bothered me.
I do think there is a great deal of room for the Christian church to do a rethinking of feminism, which has often, if we are honest, not served women well. It saddens me when a church of younger people who could be rethinking feminism through a Christian lens is led by someone who seems bent on belittling and demeaning women and replicating the gender stereotypes I had hoped people at some point would leave behind.
Comment by: Ally
32 11/15/06 7:58 PM | Comment Link |That is true.
Comment by: Keith
33 11/15/06 8:09 PM | Comment Link |Winn,
Just for clarity … I believe your response was in regard to wow’s comments, not mine.
Comment by: bianca
34 11/15/06 9:40 PM | Comment Link |rose, thank you for your commitment to reconciliation and to women and most of all, to Jesus…
Comment by: Winn
35 11/15/06 10:37 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Keith, You’re correct!
My bad!
Comment by: Mike Clawson
36 11/16/06 12:32 AM | Comment Link |Fantastic idea!
Howabout if those of you who live in Seattle start writing the Times and suggest this?
Comment by: bryan
37 11/16/06 12:41 AM | Comment Link |Rose,
thank you. thank you. thank you. i whole-heartedly hope that Mr. Driscoll will choose to engage this conversation. He is in a dangerously powerful position to speak loudly in a culture where loud often mistakenly gets confused with authoritative. You have held up a graceful and inviting mirror. May Mr. Driscoll take the time gaze into in order to see himself in the face of the other. Again, beautifully done!
cheers,
bryan
Comment by: Diane
38 11/16/06 3:28 AM | Comment Link |Driscoll is quarrelsome, not gentle (by his own admission) and does not have a good reputation with outsiders.
Comment by: Rachel
39 11/16/06 8:16 AM | Comment Link |Excellent point, Bryan! And the more gentle and humble voices like Brian McLaren are those that Driscoll mocks as wimpy and weak. :-(
Comment by: Mike Clawson
40 11/16/06 10:46 AM | Comment Link |Very good point Diane… It seems that Driscoll and Mars Hill focus so much on the “husband” (i.e. male) requirement that they just overlook the other qualities of a church leader listed here.
Comment by: Ally
41 11/16/06 4:53 PM | Comment Link |Hi Mike!
This is a great idea. btw, Mark has commented that he’s been disappointed at the extent of editing that Seattle Times has subjected him to, and that they have neutered his topic range and breadth of expression quite a bit. This is why you will find his Times submissions to be more tame.
I know they are pretty strict with the boundaries. I wonder how they will respond to these blog postings? Perhaps some Letters to the Editor would help? Those can come from anywhere I think.
btw, Please tell your wife that I have been so impressed with her brave and courageous postings on TheOoze - that’s one tough crowd, and I have been very personally dismayed by many of the postings there. Many, many kudos to her.
Comment by: Winn
42 11/16/06 6:12 PM | Comment Link |Ally,
Where has Mark commented on his Seattle Times editing?
Comment by: Diane
43 11/16/06 7:19 PM | Comment Link |I would like to try once again to explain to the people who do not understand why some women were so upset by Mark’s blog, ONE reason I found it offensive. (Please don’t flame me, I understand and agree that there were many other ways it offended).
First, I understand completely that an attractive woman will be more sexually attractive than an unattractive woman. I don’t even understand why Mark seem compelled to make this obvious point.
Anyway, what would have resonated better with me is Mark looking a the whole woman.
Instead of just commenting that letting herself go would drive a pastor away, what if he had also said: I also would encourage pastor’s wives to keep up their intellects so they have interesting things to say to their husbands. A woman who becomes mindless and robotic by not thinking for herself can cause her husband to strayt. I would encourage wives to stand spiritually strong and not simply put on the outer shell of faith while empty inside. A woman without a strong soul can cause her husband to stray. But no: it was all about the body and sex. To me, it was saying a woman is nothing but a sex object to her husband and if that goes, nothiing is left.
Comment by: Helen
44 11/16/06 8:00 PM | Comment Link |I agree, Diane.
But I don’t recall ever hearing a complementarian Christian (i.e. one who believes men are in authority over women by God’s design) talk specifically about womens’ minds.
Comment by: Helen
45 11/16/06 8:00 PM | Comment Link |Winn, Ally might have heard him say it in person. She used to go to his church. Maybe it’s in a sermon somewhere.
Comment by: Diane
46 11/16/06 8:21 PM | Comment Link |I am definitely not in my professional persona in this forun and I am letting loose and letting my feelings out in a raw way, but in my professional life, I am a reporter for a daily paper. I can say without a doubt that no newspaper with any sort of ethics or reputation would publish the kind of rants Mark puts out on his blogs. Which says something about Mark’s excess. I can only imagine what kind of nut they think he is when his columns come in to the paper. Do they roll their eyes? Laugh? Does a woman edit him? The mind boggles. I am merely speculating here as to their reactions, of course. I was also thinking vis-a-vis my job as a reporter in a busy newsroom that perhaps Mark has too much time on his hands. I work side by side with men all day and I am too busy to be wondering about sex and if their clothes are sexy and sexual temptation, and I imagine they are to. Idle hands… Idle minds …. Maybe Mark needs to get out of his sheltered dome and do more missional work. I am very serious about this.
Comment by: Diane
47 11/16/06 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Oh and I proofread my work so that it is not misspelled as on this blog.
Comment by: Helen
48 11/16/06 8:25 PM | Comment Link |Diane, you can read his columns online. They are not written in the style of the blog entries we’ve been quoting.
His latest blog entry is also in a different style:
Thank You, Critics
Comment by: Diane
49 11/16/06 8:53 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
As you may imagine, I have been loath to read or listen to anymore of this man. I know you don’t want to listen to his sermons either. However, the latest blog, which I did read, sounds much more reasonable, responsible and professional than the first. I hope we have contributed to getting through to him, at least on the way he presents his ideas. I find it amazing that he could have written that original Haggard blog as professional mentoring to younger pastors. I hope he understands the kind of immature and negative message he sent. I hope he is not winking as he puts out this latest blog.
Comment by: Ally
50 11/16/06 8:55 PM | Comment Link |Hi Winn,
A couple years ago when Mark first got the gig, he remarked that he had sent in a whole article but that the Times refused to publish it; so he had to submit something much less provacative. I remember him expressing frustration about this in church that week and a few times after when it happened again.
Comment by: Ally
51 11/16/06 9:11 PM | Comment Link |- from Mark’s recent blog
Now THIS sounds more like the old Mark - the gentle, thoughtful one I once called Shepherd.
Thank YOU, Mark. It is good to read this.
Ally
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
52 11/16/06 11:58 PM | Comment Link |that is a good response. yes, critics are our friends when we are willing to listen. this is something i can cheer person about with a person. a little humility goes a long, long way…however, it’s still way shorter than an apology, which hopefully will eventually come. thanks for posting this bit, ally.
Comment by: Paul
53 11/17/06 12:04 AM | Comment Link |Diane — you nailed the issue! I hope you don’t mind my posting your excellent comment over at http://www.endfundamentalism.org/blog/20061116/mark-driscolls-non-apology-the-protest-is-on-dec-3/
Comment by: Helen
54 11/17/06 4:28 AM | Comment Link |Anyone who has been hurt by their experience with Mars Hill church, please note:
Share your Mars Hill story safely
Comment by: Helen
55 11/17/06 4:50 AM | Comment Link |Here are my thoughts on Mark’s clarification:
I hope this is the Mark of the future because I like him much better than the Mark I have seen recently on his blog.
I think only time will tell. This writing style (which I do prefer) is very different from other things I have seen and heard from Mark; and one blog entry doesn’t establish that he is ready to give up his brash, hip image.
Now, I thought there was a clearly established Christian process for if you cause offense. I thought it was, apologize, ask forgiveness and make restitution.
I sure hope there is no exemption clause for pastors which says “for you, it’s enough to clarify earlier comments and thank your critics and do so in a way which sounds much more humble than you often sound”.
However much you think this is a step in the right direction please let’s not overlook the fact that clarifying earlier comments and thanking one’s critics is not the same as apologizing, asking forgiveness and making restitution.
But then, I suppose many people think he never did anything wrong and will regard even this clarification as an unnecessary concession on Mark’s part.
Comment by: Winn
56 11/17/06 8:08 AM | Comment Link |Almost but not quiet.
Several years ago on Saturday here in the Seattle area we had a TV program that preempted “Saturday Night Live” called “Almost Live!” This program was almost like “Saturday Night Live,” but not quiet there. Maybe the Seattle culture has really affected Mark instead of the other way around.
Almost is an interesting word. It means slightly short of; not quite; or nearly. I read Mark’s response to his critics. That is what it is, a response. It was almost an apology. It was nearly an apology. It was not quite an apology. It fell slightly short of an apology. An apology might have sounded something like this. “I apology for offending folks with my rhetoric.” Or, “I am sorry for being offensive with my rhetoric.” Instead, I read a well crafted letter with the reasons for why he said what he said, with an attempt to exegete a passage in 1 Corinthians, in my opinion, not a particularly good exegesis at that, and to top it all off an advertisement at the bottom of the page from an insider in the form of a comment from one of the folks who can actually comment on Mark’s blog.
Well there’s my two cents worth. Hey Helen, maybe you could start a post where folks could hammer each other and then when called on it they could almost apologize. Maybe I should stop before I almost say something I am sorry for. It wouldn’t be the first time and probably not the last. I have found that a simple apology begins the healing process.
BTW: Thanks Ally for your input about the Times. Sources are always helpful! And Helen, your comments above (#55) are spot on!
Comment by: Mike Clawson
57 11/17/06 8:22 AM | Comment Link |I do appreciate Mark’s new tone, and willingness to listen to his critics evidenced in his last blog entry; though I too note that he stopped rather short of actually apologizing.
I still disagree with his opinions, but at least I can listen to and respect them when he communicates them in this manner.
However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the protest and all the controversy about Mark has to do with more than just that one post about Haggard. The Haggard post was just the final straw. Mark has a whole pattern of sexist chauvinism to be held accountable for. A more civil clarification of one bad blog post does not excuse 10 years of abusive words and behavior. Mark still has a long way to go.
Comment by: Helen
58 11/17/06 9:53 AM | Comment Link |Winn, I think I almost got your point ;-) Remember Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian”? Sometimes ‘almost’ makes all (not almost all) the difference.
Mike wrote:
Thanks Mike - good point.
Comment by: Jason
59 11/17/06 7:12 PM | Comment Link |I admit I have attended Mars Hill off and on. Partly because I like controversy and being challenged. Yet I must agree Mark has poor choice in choosing his words and his platform for stating them. Worse, he hides behind his computer not caring the damage that his words do. Any responsible theologian will at least pay attention to their critics. Mark doesn’t even care. He comes across as being having everything figured out. Worse, his flock speaks of him and looks too him as the only licensed interpreter of Truth who holds some time of verbal; infallibility.
His words do a lot of damage, especially where women and sexuality are concerned. James 1:26 states that 26 “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”
Comment by: Helen
60 11/17/06 7:38 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Jason.
Comment by: Lisa W.
61 11/18/06 1:23 AM | Comment Link |regarding Mark’s ‘close but no cigar’ response…
Frankly, I’m not interested in hearing from him until he directly responds to Rose Madrid-Swetman’s open letter.
Comment by: Paul
62 11/20/06 8:29 AM | Comment Link |I think Mark has done a good job explaining the context in which he was writing, the audience he was writing too (which we were eavesdropping on) and to thank his critics for pointing out how he was coming across and therefore explain himself further.
Now some people may have wanted Mark to apologise and be disapointed that he did not. I say that it is not my responsibility, my responsibility sa a christian is forgive Mark for any offense he may have caused us, regardless of whether he wants to apologise or not.
I therefore think we should thank Mark for his response, for listening to his critics, extend the hand of generous friendship and dialogue, forgive and move on…
Comment by: JG
63 11/20/06 8:52 AM | Comment Link |Paul,
LIke you I have reservations about this protest. But how much are you aware of what is being taught at Mars Hill? Take for example:
http://www.endfundamentalism.org/blog/20061113/faq-taking-action-against-fundamentalist-misogyny/#comment-38
I do believe in the idea of atonement. But what sort of culture exists at Mars Hill that could lead members to think in terms of God “murdering” his son?
Comment by: Winn
64 11/20/06 10:00 AM | Comment Link |Scot McKnight on his Jesus Creed blog has put up a post about one man’s journey to the egalitarian point of view on the question of women in ministry. It’s well worth the read.
Comment by: Rachel
65 11/20/06 1:45 PM | Comment Link |Do we have two bloggers named Paul? I’m getting confused here.
Comment by: Helen
66 11/20/06 1:53 PM | Comment Link |Rachel - yes, we do - it IS confusing isn’t it?
Look at the links their names go to (if any). The Paul in comment #62 is Paul Mayers, who has been posting comments here for a while now.
The Paul who has posted comments about the PAF protest is a different Paul. I don’t remember seeing him here before I posted about Mark Driscoll.
Comment by: Paul Mayers
67 11/20/06 5:32 PM | Comment Link |There you are, I’ll go with the full name :)
JG I appreciate your quotes/link, I am not sure if that is Kristain’s interpretation of the teaching or the teaching - it could just be a poor expression etc something that I am frequently guilty of when I write.
It’s not that far to leap from a calvinist position to one where it’s God beating up on his son - cosmic child abuse I think Steve Chalke called it. I think it’s worth exploring the different atonement theories of which there are many altho us evangelicals are rather taken with the substitutionary model almost exclusively to anything else.
I think when it comes to atonement it is more constructive to say it is like… or like… but that is just me.
Unfortuantly I am very unaware of the teachings of the church, I do not attend regularly, i do not download their sermons to listen to either. I am therefore in no position whatsoever to comment on what Mars Hill teach or don’t teach. I would suggest that for me to be in a position to really comment on their teaching I would have to go and experience it for awhile, not just as a spectator but as an active member of their church. Who has the time to do that in this age of instant judgement and opinion shaped on soundbites? Not me, I have not even had time to go to their website to see if they have a statement of faith which would have their key doctrinal positions.
Of course I may have been missing the point that the protest is because Mark has not apologised for hurting folk with his remarks?
Comment by: Oliver
68 11/21/06 1:32 AM | Comment Link |http://theresurgence.com
http://www.marshillchurch.org
It’s some good reading….check it out!
Comment by: Helen
69 11/21/06 6:15 AM | Comment Link |Oliver, it was reading one of those sites which led me to have concerns about Mark Driscoll.
I think it’s good to ‘go to the source’ so thanks for posting them.
Comment by: JG
70 11/21/06 6:57 AM | Comment Link |Paul (Mayers) thanks for your comments. The cosmic abuse comment came to my mind as well and was mentioned in my last comment back to Kristian but he hasn’t responded.
I also throw out an invitation to anyone else at Mars Hill to comment but again, they have declined to do so.
See http://www.endfundamentalism.org/blog/20061113/faq-taking-action-against-fundamentalist-misogyny/#comment-156
By highlighting Kristian’s comments as an example of what is happening at Mars Hill, I am not minimising the seriousness of other issues. But whereas people may give Mark the benefit of the doubt (If there is any) over his comments about women, I find it harder to find any excuse for references to God committing murder and hating everybody.
This comes across to me as taking a truth but then distorting it out of all recognition.
Comment by: Paul Mayers
71 11/21/06 7:33 AM | Comment Link |Thanks JG, I just wonder about giving the benefit of the doubt? I guess my point is JG that lots of christians have lots of screwy ideas that are often more to do with how they are raised then anything they are taught at the mo…
In fact the number of times I had to bite my fist when someone would come up with a wonderful theory/idea that was so loopy is well countless - but then i think i probably have some ideas that sound pretty loopy to the rest of the world as well, so who am I to talk.
Incidently I find it better to engage with the idea holder as an equal with plenty of healthy respect, i could be just as wrong afterall. So I am still at a loss to see why a march is needed for that. Unless you are going with banners that say heh we’re wrong too?
Which of course is one reason even if I lived in seatle I wouldn’t be able to go myself. Have i said dumb things, oh yeah! have i ever said dumb things and never apologiesed for them, oh yeah, just ask my wife! I am a pretty stubborn, prideful person so probably deserve a march of my own lol. But then again as Jesus once suggested, he who is without sin can cast the first stone, or i guess in this case take the first step on the march, or raise the first placard…
Comment by: Paul Mayers
72 11/21/06 7:41 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Oliver, pretty normal conservative evangelical thought really…
Comment by: JG
73 11/21/06 7:52 AM | Comment Link |Paul (Mayers) - many thanks for your comments. I agree with you, I don’t think the protest is the right way forward.
But perhaps if we had lived in Seattle for the last 10 years, we would feel differently. We are both very detached from the situation - which I think is both a strength and a weakness when contributing to this debate.
Comment by: Helen
74 11/21/06 8:08 AM | Comment Link |Paul (Mayers), I agree - let’s not stone anyone to death!
But surely there’s Biblical precedent for speaking up when we find someone’s teaching hurtful and demeaning? To me that’s what the protest is about.
Comment by: Paul Mayers
75 11/21/06 8:48 AM | Comment Link |Oh I agree, lets speak up, let’s proclaim and live out the theology that we believe - for us who have not a problem with belieiving women are equal in every way, including preaching/teaching and leading men then let’s do just that. Encouragage and thank the women who lead in our churches, encourage those who we see with the gift of leadership, gladly submit to them and let them lead and teach us.
Let’s celebrate all the women of faith who have been just as important as the men of faith, lets look back on that great chain of saints over 2000 years and remember that maybe more of them are actually women. I would not be a christian today without the faithfulness of so many millions of men and women.
But more, let’s not just be choosy about our theology, let’s use this as an opportunity to get serious, real serious… let’s start taking applying the Kingdom to us first… how can I love my enemy here? How can I pray for him? How can I forgive him even when he does not ask for forgiveness? Who have I not asked for forgiveness? How can I love someone who I really don’t like for his views on women? How do I wrestle with this whole judgement thang at the same time as I am asking people to stop judging me or indeed judging anyone else?
I think we need to be honest enough to model what we believe and I don’t think that protesting one man and his dumb comments is really a campaign for justice… I tell you what it feels like to me in my heart. Inside me part of me says heh i like this campaign its a great way of getting even, it’s like so good to tear Mark down, it’s so sweet to give these folk with big mikes a taste of their own medicine, i’m angry, i’m tired of people hurting, let’s go and take something back - loose his job, loose his pulpit, make a grovelling public apology - oh that would be good…
And then i think man i am as bad if not worse than he is, where did all this hate, pride, arrogance, anger come from? When did I appoint myself mr right theology? When did i forget that I have done some pretty crap things and believed some pretty crap things and in all honesty been wrong like 9/10 times i’ve opened my mouth and more than likely i am wrong again now…
I think i am tired of riding that fundamentalist horse that says i’m right you’re wrong, see it my way or no way… you don’t have to be christian to be a fundamentalist and this whole conversation just sucks be towards destructive rather than constructive solutions…
which is why i think it is probably not a good idea me giving into my demons, even those who dress up as good intentions and constructive criticism, the former more often does not is my excuse to make mischief and the latter is that velvet coating of love that I wrap my iron bar in truth in before i go out theo-bashing…
Comment by: JG
76 11/21/06 9:07 AM | Comment Link |Paul,
I like your approach.
Comment by: Helen
77 11/21/06 10:36 AM | Comment Link |Paul (Mayers) I agree - don’t give in to your demons.
But I support those who truly believe protesting is what God wants them to do. Who have asked God to search their hearts for wrong motives. Or - if they have no belief in God, they have done whatever they do to check they are happy about their motives for being involved.
If Jesus could turn over tables and say “Woe to you hypocrites” to the Pharisees without sinning, I believe there are human beings out there who might be able to have a peaceful protest without it being wrongly motivated.
I think a common error in Christendom is to believe ‘one way fits all’, which means if it’s not ok for one person to protest, it’s not ok for anyone to.
But I don’t see why it can’t be wrong for some people and right for others.
Comment by: Paul Mayers
78 11/21/06 10:58 AM | Comment Link |Helen, ol bean I do like you dearly. I am not saying don’t protest,I’m just saying why I as a christian don’t feel able to protest about this. Now if someone was telling the world this is the way it has to be for everyone, you women must shut up and sit down and I am going to campaign with all might to make this so and join with a coalition who want to make it so - then sod the cost I’d be flying out to protest as that is injustice being perpetuated.
To mount a protest cos one guy has said some dumb things over the last 10 yrs and refuses to apologise even if he does admit to being helped by his critics seems a lil like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It seems to me to harden divisions not soften them and make things more destructive rather than construtive. Rather than recognising a shift in Mark moving away from the lone ranger and welcoming constructive criticism by seeking to build on this ‘opportunity’ as critics, we want him to come all the way over are side and won’t budge ourselves…
But if that’s the sort of protest people want to mount than so be it.
Comment by: JG
79 11/21/06 11:15 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
I think for me, there is a time and a place for protest and agree that each of us have to make up our own minds on this. What is right for one person is not necessarily for for another.
But again, for me, I think there is a place for saying to those protesting, is this the best way to achieve your goal? There may be no disagreement over the goal, it may be a shared goal but there may be a difference over how best to achieve that goal.
From what I have seen, I don’t like Mark’s teaching or his style. I also have concerns about someone in leadership who has never experienced life “in the outside world” - if he has been a church leader since the age of 19.
I think there is great wisdom in the idea he should have a sabbatical during which he seeks to get an ordinary job and experience what it is like even if only for 6 months.
But is a protest outside his church the best way to achieve this? People may reject the analogy but whilst few liked Saddam Hussein was going in and removing him the best solution? Or has it only made matters worse?
If it is okay to encourage protests outside churches because a group of people don’t like the message that church is preaching then whilst the protest may well merited in this case, what sort of precedent is it setting?
Would it be right for Christians to stage protests outside every mosque because they did not agree with the teaching of Islam or with the way women are treated in the middle east? I don’t think so.
I may be proved wrong. The protest may go very well, without problems arising and the goals may be achieved as a result. There may be no adverse conequences as a result of the protest. I am open to this.
Comment by: Paul
80 11/21/06 12:04 PM | Comment Link |Lol, on the lighter side, i am thinking you just can’t take the protest out of protestants ;)
Comment by: JG
81 11/21/06 4:36 PM | Comment Link |Two thoughts occurred to me on my way home from work tonight. Contradictory thoughts I’m afraid.
1) In the Indpendent national newspaper is an interview with Sasha Baron Cohen - of current Borat fame. It includes a quote from Ian Kershaw, a major historian of the Third Reich:
“The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference…I think it is an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic.”
I have enormous respect for Paul (of PAF) for caring about this situation and for caring enough to be willing to get up and do something about it rather than sit back and do nothing. For caring rather than being apathetic. And this is so even if I have reservations about the wisdom of the protest on 3 Dec.
2) I have been thinking about why I have reservations about the protest and in some ways it is simply a gut feeling. But it occurred to me that one principle I feel strongly about is the right for minorities to be protected from pressure from the majority to conform to the will of the majority. That the majority should not allowed to impose its will on everyone - we see terrible consequences of this in nations which are ruled by the majority tribe and where minority groups are persecuted.
We may have no desire to protect Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill but the protest may set an unfortunate precedent.
Comment by: Paul M
82 11/22/06 6:27 AM | Comment Link |I hear what you say JG, but I wonder if we should not be more patient. I went back and read Mark’s words again…
It sounds to me like Mark is reaching out to us so maybe we (as the critics) should reach back to him?
will a protest help do this, I don’t know? I hope thatit will not harm this opening for what sounds like more constructive future dialogue, but then again it runs the risk of pushing Mark back into a corner and cornered people tend to fight…
Comment by: Rachel
83 11/22/06 8:21 AM | Comment Link |I love the way you Brits talk to eachother. :-)
Comment by: Helen
84 11/22/06 12:36 PM | Comment Link |“ol bean” - LOL Paul!
I like you too :) Happy Day-just-like-every-other-Thursday to you tomorrow ;-)
Comment by: Paul M
85 11/23/06 8:38 AM | Comment Link |Lol, well we did invent the mother tongue ;)
It’s a great ordinary thursday here, most revolting! :)
Comment by: Paul M
86 11/23/06 8:38 AM | Comment Link |But I hope you have an awesome thanks giving!
Comment by: JG
87 11/23/06 8:51 AM | Comment Link |Paul,
Mother tongue perhaps but don’t Americans speak a different language to us?
eg pants for trousers etc etc etc.
And even when they do use the same words as us they leave letters out eg color instead of colour.
Then again, I don’t understand my childrens’ text language either!!
Comment by: Paul M
88 11/24/06 7:07 AM | Comment Link |lol, yes i have the honour of being half english and half american so i guess i’m i am half and half :)
Comment by: Helen
89 11/24/06 8:09 AM | Comment Link |You too Paul? I didn’t know that. One of my parents is American. I was born and raised in England. Now I’ve lived here (in/near Chicago) a while I’m bilingual in understanding, but I don’t have a very good American accent (Jason can verify that! ;-))
Comment by: Paul M
90 11/24/06 8:12 AM | Comment Link |Lol, yes me too. Altho i have never had the priviledge of living in America, unlike my bro and one of my sisters who both do… in fact my bro lives in chi town :)
Comment by: Helen
91 11/24/06 8:15 AM | Comment Link |Paul if you visit your brother here you had better let me know ;)
Comment by: Paul M
92 11/24/06 8:33 AM | Comment Link |lol, you’ll be on the itinary for sure :)
Comment by: Blog - People Against Fundamentalism » Mark Driscoll’s non-apology; the protest is on Dec 3!
93 11/29/06 5:43 PM | Comment Link |[...] By saying “I will … take one for the team,” Mark was deliberately and self-consciously making the degrading and demeaning statements that followed. He took pride in his remarks! How can we misconstrue those statements as anything other than claiming women’s role as a tool for male pleasure? [...]
Comment by: Anonymous
94 02/16/07 12:04 PM | Comment Link |Rose,
If you have an ax to grind with Mark why don’t you pick up the phone and call him. For crying out loud you probably live within 20 minutes of each other. Personally, I did not get a sense of love or grace or peace from this letter. What is so sad about this is the division an open letter like this causes. It grieves my heart to know that this condemning letter comes from a fellow believer.
Comment by: Helen
95 02/16/07 12:41 PM | Comment Link |Anonymous, actually Rose and a few other local Christian leaders did have a meeting with Mark and an elder from Mark’s church and it seems that it was quite productive. Here’s the post where I wrote about that:
Update on Mark Driscoll.