Posted by Helen on: 11.17.2006 /
Rachelle is kindly offering hurt people a safe place to share their Mars Hill stories. She writes:
If you are a woman (or man) who has been damaged by the harsh complementarian doctrine that has been passed down at Mars Hill Church, I would like to offer you a place to tell your story. Out of a pastoral concern for the former Mars Hill women I have known — and for the many I’ve yet to meet—I would like to offer my blog as a place to tell your story in safety. May this, my virtual living room, be a place where you can curl up under an afghan, hold someone’s hand, and tell your story. It’s okay to use a whole box of Kleenex. We’ll still be here.
She will post your stories anonymously and close comments wherever someone posts a story. If you want to affirm someone who shares their story, e-mail your comments to Rachelle and she will post them for you.
Thank you, Rachelle!
Comment by: Karen
1Maybe this is not the right place to ask it, but I’m curious. Several times in this overall discussion the notion of “complementarian doctrine” has come up.
Can someone define it for me? It’s not something I heard about growing up in fundamentalist, evangelical churches. Why?
Comment by: JG
2Like you, I have never heard of it before.
From what I have seen, Mark Driscoll’s background is “Emerging church” rather than evangelical or fundamentalist.
What has led him to his current position? Has anyone been a particular influence for him?
From my point of view, the capacity for things to go wrong exists within any and all parts of church - and all other groups for that matter. It is not restricted to any particular part of the church.
Try typing nine oclock service sheffield into a google search and look up one or two entries to see what went wrong in this case. One site refers to it as postmodern alternative worship - which started out within the Anglican service.
Comment by: Helen
3Karen and JG here’s a PDF explaining the complementarian and egalitarian positions.
Position Summaries
Very briefly, egalitarian is: men and women are fully equal; Complementarian: men have higher authority than women and certain church leadership roles should be restricted to men only.
Karen my guess is that you didn’t hear about it because everyone was a complementarian. Being the only position, it didn’t need a name.
Comment by: Rachel
4Karen, “complementarian” is the new, nicer sounding term for the same old traditionalist patriarchal view of gender roles that we were taught in the fundamentalist church. The term originated with a group called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (Oh yes, they are just as delightful as they sound.) They emphasize that men and women are “equal in value, different in function” and that God created them to “complement” eachother.
The term “egalitarian” describes the view that the Biblical ideal is for men and women to share leadership in the church and home. While the complementarian view is still dominant in evangelicalism at large, egalitarianism tends to be the prevailing view in the emerging church movement. Mark Driscoll’s views make him an anomaly within the emerging movement.
Comment by: Jim
5Like all movements and eventual denominations there are a range of adherents from conservative to liberal- Using that measurement Driscoll is to the far right . His association with fundamentalism is more about his style than his theology. His use of the bible to express his meaness and the objectification of women is what make him a practitioner of fundamentalism.
Comment by: Eliza
6Rachelle, thank you for making this safe arrangement available for people.
Comment by: JG
7Jim,
Using your measurement, where would you place the Nine O’Clock service I mentioned at comment 2?
Also, is it not his misuse of the Bible and lack of use of the Bible that has led to this situation?
After all, whilst parts of the Bible may be unclear to some, I don’t think there is really any doubt over the importance the Bible places of being loving and humble.
Comment by: Rachel
8Well said, JG!
Comment by: Helen
9JG to Jim:
JG, I think that’s what Jim meant if you read these two sentences together:
“His association with fundamentalism is more about his style than his theology. His use of the bible to express his meaness and the objectification of women is what make him a practitioner of fundamentalism.”
I don’t expect Jim will have time to read about the Nine O Clock service if he doesn’t already know about it.
He knows a lot about Mark Driscoll because he lives in the same city and knows lots of Christians there (Jim used to be a pastor in Seattle).
I see a strong emphasis on those in the Bible also. However I am hesitant these days to say anything about the Bible with certainty.
Comment by: JG
10Helen,
Have browsed the internet and the following appears to be a fairly short summary of what happened:
http://members.tripod.com/neil_hopkins/docs/nos.htm
I believe this sad story is highly relevant both to the debate over Mark Driscoll and the issue of abuse generally. I believe it is important to spend time seeking to understand how abuse arises by looking at what has gone wrong in the past so that lessons can be learned for the future.
The article I have linked here says:
“There are lot of ins and outs to the story at this point - suffice it to say that Chris Brain was involved in abusive relationships with a lot of very vulnerable people, and exercised his power and the hard work of a lot of people towards satisfying his own particular goals.”
Doesn’t that sound relevant to you?
Comment by: Karen
11Thanks, Helen and Rachel. I appreciate the information, and I think you’re right. The complementarian position was the accepted and understood “norm” and thus didn’t need a name or definition in the church circles I frequented.
It’s always interesting to me who gets to do the bulk of the interpretation of these scriptures and then who gets to do the bulk of the “complementing” in these arrangements. ;-)
Comment by: Karen
12Yikes. It’s situations like that and what I’m hearing about Driscoll that makes me thankful to be a skeptic, and glad I’m teaching my kids to be skeptical. It’s unbelievable what people get sucked into when they’ve seceded the right to think for themselves.
Comment by: JG
13Karen - I agree! Strongly. If a church says to its members, don’t challenge what we say, alarm bells go off in my head.
A healthy church says - check out what we say, think it through for yourself, ask questions.
I have had some really bad experiences of “church” but have survived. Not sure why but perhaps partly because I am an independent thinker - that is partly what has caused my problems - I don’t toe the line!
I like the story of the Emperor’s new clothes - if I see someone who appears to have no “clothes” on I just can’t go along with it and pretend that I can.
Comment by: anomalous4
14“Complementarianism” in 10 words or less:
The gender equivalent of the old “separate but equal” racist bullshit.
OK, that’s 11. But you get the idea. These bastions of male insecurity want to do exactly the same “Jim Crow thing” to women that was done to black people - and we all know how “equal” that was (NOT!).
I’m a lifelong Christian and a Baptist preacher’s kid, and the brand of “Christianity” the Ministers of Male Insecurity (one of whom - I’m not making this up, you can’t make stuff like this up - actually said on his TV show that God is represented by “all things that are in the shape of a penis”!) are hyping bears no resemblance whatever to anything in my Bible.
God help them when they get up before the Judgment Seat and have to answer the question:
[cue the Alanis Morrisette voice from Dogma]
“WHAT MADE YOU THINK YOU KNEW BETTER WHEN I CALLED MY DAUGHTER TO MY MINISTRY?”
I’m way over on the other coast, but on December 3, I’ll be standing with the protesters in spirit.
Comment by: Helen
15Thanks anomalous4. I absolutely agree with you and I have no idea why complementarians are so convinced it’s better to err on the side of not allowing a woman called into leadership to lead, than to err on the side of saying “I dare not stand in your way if you truly believe God has called you to do this.”
I do think it stems from insecurity. And then there are sites like church for men whose analysis of why men aren’t in church and how we can get them back drives me nuts…
Comment by: Corrie
16Helen, I was just reading at that site. I check in on it from time to time over the past couple of years. Did you read that new article on worship and why worship turns off may guys? Because they consider it “homoerotic”. No lie!! The article states that a guy can’t sing “you are beautiful” or “lover of my soul” to a “MALE GOD” because guys just don’t love other guys like that!
I am not making this up. They say that God is male and that is why men feel uncomfortable singing some words to Him.
Well, that is about the most perverse thing I have ever read. If they read their Bibles they would see that they are the BRIDE who is going to be married to Christ, God’s son. Their response to God IS feminine. CS Lewis once recognized this fact in his space trilogy.
The guy also makes fun of men who raise their hands in worship.
That site really causes me to have to practice my Lamaze breathing. :-)
Comment by: Helen
17Me too, Corrie!
So…Charles Wesley who wrote “Jesus, lover of my soul” was gay? Is that what they are implying? How come a man could write that but men can’t sing it? How does that make sense?
Comment by: Diane
18I think it’s important to cue into language. If a la Mars Hill you keep hearing you are a pouty child or a spoiled child if you disagree with a church leader, that’s a serious red flag.
Comment by: JL
19I haven’t seen any stories posted. Any idea why?
Comment by: Helen
20I don’t know why but my guesses would be, either no-one has a story, or no-one with a story knows about Rachel’s offer, or those that do have stories (if any) have found other places to share them.
Comment by: JL
21I have a hard time believing that anyone with internet access could miss all the blogging about Driscoll right now. Seems as though hearing about Rachelle’s offer wouldn’t be too hard, but what do I know?
I’ve seen Jen & Ally’s stories on several blogs, so perhaps those are the only ones. Curious that those haven’t made it on to Rachelle’s site, though.