Posted by Helen on: 12.02.2006 /
edited 12/4/06 to add a link to Dwight Friesen’s comments
I’ve recently posted about the PAF protest against Mark Driscoll and Rose Swetman’s open letter to Mark Driscoll.
On Thursday evening Rose Swetman, Paul Chapman (organizer of the PAF protest) and a few other people met with Mark Driscoll. Apparently the meeting went well. Paul has posted on his site that he feels PAF’s objectives have been met and so the protest is called off. However, since he probably can’t get the word out to everyone in time that it is, he will be there Sunday holding a sign saying “Thank you Mark For Apologizing”. I appreciate Paul’s response to how events have unfolded in the last few days.
Here are the blog entries related to the meeting by some of the people who were there:
Here’s my apology for some of my comments about Mark Driscoll:
I apologize to Mark and to people who read my blog for my own role in encouraging inflammatory rhetoric. In particular I apologize for the following comment I made on here to Paul about the PAF protest: “I suggest “Mark the misogynist” for some of the signs.”
Even though I have had concerns about some of the things Mark has said about women and the way he’s said them, it was inappropriate of me to use or encourage language which is inflammatory and implies he hates women. I have no evidence he hates women so I should not have gone there.
It was also hypocritical of me to complain about Mark’s rhetoric yet to use inflammatory rhetoric myself and encourage others to use it.
I appreciate Mark being willing to have the meeting which took place on Thursday. I hope it will be the beginning of a respectful friendship between Mark and the other people who were there.
This blog is based on the hope that people with theological differences can be friends in spite of those differences. And that such friendships can result in people working together to the extent they do have common goals - which will achieve more than them working alone.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1Helen
Thanks for the lead on humility.
This has been an interesting process to watch from the sidelines
Comment by: JG
2Delighted by this outcome and impressed by the apologies on both sides.
Jim, I’m not sure it is true to claim you have merely watched from the sidelines in view of some of your comments. For exmple:
http://conversationattheedge.com/2006/11/09/mark-driscoll-and-women/#comment-3296
I think it would be appropriate for you to add your own apology.
Comment by: Helen
3Jim wrote:
Thanks Jim.
Comment by: Eliza
4Interesting announcement at the bottom left of page B5 in the Seattle Times today:
And, just to mention as an aside, on the bottom right of the same page is an ad for Mars Hill Church:
Comment by: Rachel
5I’m going to send an email to Rose Madrid-Swetman and encourage her to apply!
Comment by: Eliza
6Fabulous idea, Rachel!
Comment by: JG
7I felt very positive when I read Paul’s report on the meeting on the PAF site but must confess to a sense of let down when I read Mark’s “Count it all Joy” comments on his site. For example:
I’m not sure that it is a question of inflammatory language being “scaled back” - it shouldn’t be used at all!
And I’m unhappy with the emphasis on how people interpreted his words, people who “FELT personally attacked” - I’m not sure Paul felt personally attacked by Mark but he did feel strongly about the way Mark spoke and treated women in his church.
I accept that we should not be held responsible for every strange intrepretation some people may place on what we say. But neither is it right to insist that it is only what “I meant” by my words that matters. This approach is really saying: “I’m a decent guy so anything I say is alright because I wouldn’t INTEND to say anything that was unhelpful.”
Instead, I believe our approach should be: “How would a resonable person interpret what I am saying” and, more specifically, “how would the person or people I am addressing these comments to be likely to interpret what I am saying?”
Comment by: JG
8In contrast, Paul and Helen’s apologies come across as very genuine and impressive.
Comment by: Helen
9JG, my experience is that whatever we might like to see from others, we can’t control them.
Paul had the choice to say “Ok, seems like you’re listening and you care and you’re willing to make some changes - that’s close enough to what I was hoping for for me to call off the protest” or “No, that’s not good enough - I want an apology that looks like how I would apologize”.
I think he made a wise choice to go with the former.
Him making that choice doesn’t mean he got exactly what he wanted.
Comment by: Rachel
10I agree, JG. I too had mixed feelings about Mark’s statement. There is a big difference between “I’m sorry you misunderstood me” and “I’m sorry I said cruel things.” And he still did not seem to understand that his comment about pastors’ wives who let themselves go was fundamentally sexist and insulting, regardless of whether it was intended to be applied to Gayle Haggard.
However, I do believe that Mark did genuinely listen and learn, as did the others at the meeting. Mark’s statement showed real growth on his part. And I agree with Helen that Paul was right to take responsibility for his own use of inflammatory language and to cancel the protest.
Comment by: JG
11I fully agree with both of you. I think Paul has shown considerable maturity and wisdom and nothing Mark says or fails to say now can take away from that.
There was a wider principle at issue here which for me is that leaders with a high profile ARE accountable for what they say and can be held to account.
As you say Rachel, although Mark may not now be saying everything we would like him to say, the mre fact that he met with Paul and the others on Thursday and genuinely listened to them showed considerable movement on his part.
Comment by: Rachel
12I couldn’t find an email address for Rose Madrid-Swetman but I did post a comment on her blog encouraging her to apply for the Seattle Times position. Perhaps those of you who live in or near Seattle could contact the Times directly and nominate Rose.
Comment by: Helen
13JG wrote:
I absolutely agree, JG. I would love to see leaders with high profiles held appropriately accountable.
Have you read the comments under Mark’s blog entry? To balance out these people Mark (like all of us) does need people who will treat him like a human being and help him grow as a person.
Comment by: Helen
14Rachel - I love the idea; I guess I’d like to hear if Rose wants the job first, before asking the Seattle Times to choose her.
Comment by: JG
15This is so true. We need people who care enough about us to tell us things we don’t want to hear! But in a way that encourages and builds up rather than tears down.
Comment by: Helen
16Exactly - and my sense is that that’s exactly what Paul and Rose and the others aimed to do in the meeting last Thursday.
Comment by: Ann
17Just wanted all of you to know that ALL of the RELIGION columnists are being replaced due to the two year contract being expired. Mark Driscoll was not asked to leave, rather his contract had expired. The timing just happened to occur at the same time as this protest.
Comment by: Helen
18Ann, are they all being replaced or are some having their contracts renewed?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
19Divine Providence?
Comment by: Rachel
20I agree. And even if Paul used language that he now feels was too inflammatory, I deeply appreciate his stand on behalf of women.
Comment by: Helen
21Rachel wrote:
Me too.
Comment by: Corrie
22I just found out about all the latest developments and I am also encouraged. I am glad the protest was cancelled and that Mark was willing to meet with others in his area to talk about the effect his words have on others.
I agree that it is not only the inflammatory rhetoric that is offensive. It kind of implies that what he says was true but he needed to tone down the way he expressed this truth. I am happy with what he expressed on his blog and I am praying that not only rhetoric but certain attitudes will be changed.
I never took his words as directly against Mrs. Haggard and I think it is nice that Haggard’s niece called and told him that they didn’t take it personally.
I have been reading in Romans and the way it treats sin in a person is for THAT person to recognize it and take responsibility for it. Romans 6 talks about living to please our sinful nature which causes us to go further into sin and living to please our spiritual nature which leads to further sanctification and holiness. I think that telling young pastors about Romans 6 and its principles would be much more helpful to their spiritual walk than trying to give ammo to a man who already might be steeped in sin. A man or woman who is already involved in sin will grasp at anything in order to excuse his sin and to pass the buck to someone else.
I have found it helpful to deal with my sin without looking to see how someone else is “causing” me to sin. This kind of thinking just breeds excuses and blame. No matter what, scripture puts the spotlight on ME and MY responsibility. So, when dealing with wives, we address them and when dealing with husbands, we address them.
I am glad that Mark is looking for a person to read over his stuff before it goes out. That is an encouraging development. It is so nice to see that there are still very public figures who are willing to try and rectify situations like these. There are many who would just fluff off people and treat them like they were unimportant.
My theology and Mark’s are probably very similiar on almost every issue, so this discussion has been of interest to me.
Comment by: benjamin ady
23I think Mark was pretty brave actually to go to the meeting with all the people listed. A bunch of *rather* strong personalities. I don’t know if any of you know any of the others–but for instance, I had to leave Nancy Murphy’s session at Revolution Conference because she said she was going to play a 911 (I think that’s 999 for people in the UK? It’s the emergency number) call from a 6 year old girl who’s parents were … fighting and who was frightened for the baby. Yikes I knew I couldn’t cope with that, so I left. I think she and Dwight Friesen both teach at Mars Hill Graduate School (*NOT* associated with the church of the same name) near Seattle which from all I’ve heard and seen is an amazingly brilliant place but also a place where people learn to see truth deeply and to not be afraid to speak it, which can be pretty freaking terrifying sometimes.
And then of course Paul and Rose, who clearly also aren’t afraid to speak truth. I would frankly be amazingly frightened to go to a meeting with all those people if I knew the subject of the meeting was going to be stuff they thought I needed to change.
Comment by: Helen
24Benjamin - I agree; I also think Mark was brave to go to the meeting. I appreciate him being willing to do that.
The Seattle Times has an article in it today Pastor’s apology defused demonstration at church in which Mark’s intention of changing his language is reiterated:
Comment by: Helen
25Here’s another local newspaper article:
Mars Hill pastor responds to uproar over blog posts on women
Comment by: Paul M
26well that’s good to hear, well done to all involved in talking and showing grace and still being able to agree to disagree over the theology :)
Comment by: Ally
27This is not the case. I believe the other columnists - Rabbi Glickman, Rev. Patrick Howell, Rev. Patricia Hunter, and Aziz Junejo - have been participating as long as Mark has. They all continue to hold their columns.
Comment by: Eugene
28this turned out as best as it could in my opinion. time will tell if mark will honor his word and desire to be more sensitive.
but, it’s time for us to all focus our hearts, thoughts, and prayers on the advent and christmas season.
eugene | personal blog
Comment by: benjamin ady
29…actually, I’m boycotting christmas. Why don’t Christians talk about the dark side of christmas—with that story from revelation where the dragon is standing there waiting for mary to deliver so he can eat up the newborn? yikes. that sort of matches up better with reality here on a planet which even by the christian account has been cursed by its maker.–that and herod murdering all those infants–that’s a lot more like what’s really going on in the world than this buy buy buy happy happy joy joy snowflakes and jolly elves and hot chocolate and cookies and biccies and turkey and dressing and roaring fires and so forth.
Comment by: Helen
30Eugene, thanks for your comment. I agree - time will tell whether Mark will make the changes he’s agreed there’s a need to make.
Actually, not everyone here is a Christian. Maybe you didn’t realize that.
Comment by: Helen
31Benjamin I expect this will be a hard Christmas for you, away from Meg and the girls :(
Comment by: Eugene
32helen,
right. my apologies.
as for MD, i was sharing with someonen that while some stuff will help him be more sensitive and such, i really don’t know if much will change in the long run. this is his theology and ultimately, his theology will shape his worldview.
anyway, let’s focus our thoughts on more significant matters whatever they may be. obama for president, anybody?
Comment by: Helen
33Hi Eugene,
I posted about Obama when TIME magazine included an excerpt from his book:
Barack Obama’s spiritual journey
If you read that blog entry you can get an idea what people who comment here think of him.
Comment by: Rachel
34Oh, this is that long separation you guys said was coming! ((Ben))
Comment by: benjamin ady
35no, not obama–how about Jeffrey Sachs for President.
The separation isn’t all that bad. I can more fully engage my enormous capacity for negativity without it having such a bad effect on anyone else … (or … maybe that’s *not* such a good thing …)
Comment by: Rachel
36Ben, that’s why you have Meg and the girls to be your sunshine!
Comment by: Driscoll Does Good at The Unnecessary Pastor
37 12/6/06 5:51 AM | Comment Link |[...] Helen apologizes as well [...]
Comment by: JL
38Paul Chapman did a radio interview yesterday regarding the protest.
Listen here
Comment by: JG
39Link doesn’t appear to work but think I found it at:
http://kiro.radiotown.com/audio/DORIPOST.mp3
Comment by: JG
40Ignore last post - this is the JL was pointing to:
http://kiro.radiotown.com/audio/dorihour1.mp3
though file is dated 6 Nov.
Comment by: Laura M.
41Mark Driscoll doesn’t deserve any of the kind words or apologies from you guys as near as I can tell. He doesn’t even actually APLOGIZE in his statement. I don’t see him admitting any wrongdoing on his own part at all. Apparently everyone has just misunderstood him, quoted him out of context, or deliberately looked for misleading statements to use against him.
Which part was misunderstood, what he said about female pastors, their husbands, homosexuals, feminists, women in general, ‘chickified’ men, the emergent and mainline churches, or how about , horrors of all horrors, Christians and non- Christians (gasp !) protesting together? Like on the same sidewalk, and everything?
Well thank goodness we have pastors like Mark Driscoll out there to set us ‘lost’ women, particularly non-Christian feminists like myself, on the path towards truth. Are we supposed to call ahead to reserve ‘our’ space on the path, to ensure we never accidentally brush shoulders with the ’saved’?
Comment by: Laura M.
42It strikes me that Mark Driscoll has a particular talent for playing the victim.
Am I the only one to note the irony? He somehow not only managed to deflect a potentially costly and embarrassing protest at his church, but got everyone involved to apologize to himfor their quite reasonable concerns and reactions to his bigoted statements.
Good for you Jim, for not playing into this man’s sick game. His comments were grotesque and perverted, imo.
Comment by: Helen
43Laura M wrote:
I did notice quite a few comments in Mark’s latest blog entry which seem to be seeking to elicit sympathy from his readers.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
44Laura,
Do you not believe that Jim Henderson should apologize for publically posting that Mark Driscoll sounds & acts like a sex addict? If not, why not?
Link
I noticed that when another poster called Henderson out on this the other day, I think it was JG, the post was deleted.
Comment by: David H
45Jeff, I felt Jim’s comments about sex addiction were a bit strong. I don’t know Jim, so maybe he has a basis in psychology or counseling that would tip him that this in fact the case. But my gut reaction was that what he said was a bit over the top.
However, what Jim said was obviously a reaction to what he was hearing from one man. If Jim needs to apologize — and that’s not my call — it isn’t to me. Driscoll on the other hand managed to insult, belittle and demean essentially everyone that doesn’t agree with him.
Maybe Driscoll is right. Maybe he’s got a hotline to God and all the rest of us are misdirected or stupid tools of Satan. His approach doesn’t seem directed to “save” us. His words and attitude are noticably lacking in love. Jesus didn’t command his followers to love those like them — he told them to love everyone.
Jesus obviously used harsh words on more than one occasion recorded in the New Testament. But for my edification, were any of those occasions directed at the lost and sinful (as Driscoll certainly seems to label everyone who disagrees with him) or were they almost exclusively for those who spent most of their time condemning the lost and sinful?
I have a much harder time with those who use their righteousness like a wall between themselves and “sinners” than I do with those who use harsh words to challenge that practice.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
46I don’t know how beneficial it is to try to determine something as subjective as greater fault between the two. But if we’re making comparisons, I don’t seem to remember Driscoll directing comments to an individual by name as Henderson has done. Maybe the bunny comments could be interpreted that way.
Even if Jim is a psychologist, I’m fairly certain he hasn’t had any sessions with Driscoll! What he said about Driscoll was slander. For those who used the pastor-held-to-a-higher-standard argument concerning Driscoll, wouldn’t there be a leader-of-Christian-organization principle that would apply here?
Comment by: Helen
47Jeff if you look at comment #2, JG called Jim out there.
It’s very rare I delete anything here; but I did delete one subsequent comment because I felt it crossed the line into being a personal attack on Jim, rather than simply asking him questions.
I suppose you might say Jim personally attacked Mark Driscoll; however in thinking this through I’ve decided to go with IIDB’s guidelines. They are that you may not attack anyone who posts there. In other words, civility towards other users is required.
It seems to me that freedom of speech legislation and precedents are probably on Jim’s side regarding whether it’s actionable slander.
Actually, I use a related but slightly different principle than that. Mine is ’sphere of influence’.
Mark’s is greater than Jim’s because a) he has much more visibility and b) at least some people evidently see no difference between what Mark says and what God/Jesus says - as demonstrated by their comments I’ve read on blogs in the last few weeks along the lines of “If you disagree with Mark you’re disagreeing with God”.
Beliefs like that give Christian leaders a huge influence.
I think Christian leaders should be doing everything they can to discourage beliefs like that. What I’ve seen is that some do, others seem not to and a few at least even encourage it by calling themselves prophets of God, which implies that they are speaking God’s actual words.
I read somewhere that Mark calls himself an apostle - and it seems to me that traditionally an apostle is thought of as (among other things) a person who does speak the very words of God. But I’m not sure if that’s how Mark means it or not. For leaders to call themselves apostles does seem to be common in some branches of the church, for what it’s worth.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
48I hear you. How about this though. Let’s lay aside titles and spheres of influence for a moment and just talk about people as Christians. It seems reasonable to expect that one Christian wouldn’t go on a message board and call another Christian a sex addict unless maybe they had confirmed knowledge of this and maybe even the additional step of having received permission to share this knowledge publically. Or, short of permission, could at least substantiate this serious charge somehow. I don’t think the idea that - ‘well, Little Christian Leader only has a small degree of influence compared to Big Christian Leader so he doesn’t have to act like a Christian’ - is a legitimate defense.
Either its OK to publically claim that another Christian is a sex addict or its not. Comparing it to something that is perceived to be worse doesn’t make it better. Claiming that the person who called someone a sex addict doesn’t have as much of a voice as someone else doesn’t make it better.
But if I’m off-base somehow I’d be happy to hear why.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
49That’s fine. I wasn’t really trying to appeal to law but to basic Christian ethics. “Slander” in a more general sense than a strictly legal one.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
50Yes, that’s sad if people believe this.
Comment by: JG
51Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. For the record, as Helen felt I had crossed the line I was happy for her to delete my comment and support her decision to do so.
I felt I was challenging Jim’s failure to apologise but accept Helen’s view that I was doing so too strongly and was thus crossing the line.
I certainly wasn’t intending to make a personal attack and fully apologise for expressing myself too strongly.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
52No problem. I wasn’t necessarily challenging the decision to delete the post (I only vaguely remembered it) but was just curious about it. Thanks.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
53I have not been keeping up with this for awhile so forgive what might appear as lack of interest.
My colleague Helen has been managing this process quite thoughtfully I think.
I understand the dillemas expressed here about my opinion about Mark Driscoll (which is all they were). I will not apologize for my opinion just as I would not expect him to apologize for his of me. I hope I am wrong but it is tough to ignore past experiences.
I am grateful for Marks sake that he has been removed as a columinst at the Seattle Times and that he wrote an apology for his comments (although many dont read it as such we chose to take him at his word).
I dont expect this response to satisfy those who disagree with me either. So lets just say we disagree about my opinion and move on.
Comment by: Helen
54Thanks JG.
Jeff I appreciate you sharing your concerns here. I understand where you’re coming from; I also understand where Jim is coming from. I think he’s said all he is going to say on the topic.
Comment by: Laura M.
55In response to Jeff’s question:
NO.
No, I do not believe Jim owes Mark Driscoll an apology. Jim said Mark Driscoll sounds and acts like a sex addict, he did not say Driscoll is a sex addict. Jim was merely voicing his personal opinion on Driscoll’s observable characteristics and behaviors, not making a statement of fact about what Driscoll does or does not do privately. It was simply a statement of how Jim percieves Driscoll’s behavior.
For the record, I do not believe Mark Driscoll owes anyone an apology for voicing his personal opinions either. I’ve never understood the PC police demanding public apologies from bigots. Bullying people into closing their mouths only reinforces the closing of their minds. If our goal is to open their minds, and hearts, then we should encourage them to open their mouths…this is how we reach a point of dialogue.
I just didn’t feel that Driscoll’s statement added anything to the dialogue on this issue. It came across as though he were just concerned about preserving his job security, to me. Now why didn’t it surprise me to learn about his contract not being renewed at the paper?
Jeff, when you wrote:
You seem to be implying that Driscoll’s comments were just general statements of opinion, and therefore not as offensive as if they were a personal attack or criticism. As if his comments were along the lines of-
A. “Women tend to be submissive, and that is a good thing.”
When in reality, Driscoll’s comments would be more appropriately paraphrased as-
B. “Women should be sumissive, and when they’re not, that’s a bad thing.”
Statement A is a generalized statement of opinion. Statement B is all inclusive. It emcompasses all women, each one individually. If you are a woman, statement B is about you.
Mark Driscoll doesn’t have to publicly call me out in church, on his blog, by email or by phone, and say to me, “Laura M., you should be submissive, and when you’re not, that’s a bad thing.” He has already said that, to me and about me, when he makes statements like statement B. And make no mistake about it, it’s personal.
If it is not Driscoll’s intent to make every woman (or any other individual who is a member of the various groups he singles out for public condemnation) feel personally criticized for not conforming to his particular worldview, why not choose his words more carefully? From his very public platform, why is he not in the habit of ensuring that he chooses precise words which cannot be construed to be personal attacks.
Oh that’s right, he’s not promoting his personal worldview, he’s speaking from the authority of the bible, and God.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
56You’re right. That’s just basic, isn’t it? There’s a big difference between saying that general comments are not offensive (which is not what I claim) and saying that personal attacks against an individual are more offensive than one generally directed toward a group (which is what I do claim).
You chose to take his general comments very personally but it seems to be basic common sense to see that his comments would indeed have been even more offensive to you if he had singled you out by name.
If Henderson directed his comments to a general group of people, such as American men or evangelical pastors, Driscoll may have been offended but the offense is of a much greater nature if Henderson specifically directed his charge against Driscoll, which is what he did. If you don’t see this then we’ll just have to disagree on this one.
You’re really splitting hairs here. He called Driscoll a sex addict. Read the entire post. Henderson says, “…when in fact what he was really doing what sharing his own personal struggles.” What personal struggles is Henderson referring to? Driscoll’s closeted sex addiction. Henderson also said, “he is grooming them to be part of (what I perceive to be) his personal sexual addictions…” He’s not mincing words here. Open your eyes. Sounds like you’re giving Henderson some home cooking here. You think Henderson didn’t call Driscoll a sex addict because he used the word “perceive” here? C’mon. If I said to someone, “I perceive that you are a fool,” does it really make sense to conclude that I didn’t actually call them a fool? Of course not. That would be silly.
Comment by: Laura M.
57Sorry Jeff, just can’t go there with you on this. There is a huge difference between saying someone sounds and acts like something, and saying someone actually is that something.
If I tell my husband the kids have been behaving like pigs lately, that’s not at all the same as my implying I think they actually are pigs. Now that’s basic, isn’t it? Anything else would be just…’silly’.
This is not at all about splitting hairs. To the contrary, I feel there is a major distinction here. I’ve read Jim’s post numerous times and I really think you are projecting your own interpretations into it, rather than ‘opening your eyes’ and reading the words as he wrote them.
You know, you might have a point (although truthfully, I’d still disagree) if you kept your remark to-
“Either it’s OK to publicly claim that another Christian sounds and acts like a sex addict or it’s not.”
I can’t see what’s wrong with Jim saying he believes Driscoll sounds and acts a certain way, if he believes Driscoll …sounds and acts a certain way.
As far as my ‘choosing to take Driscoll’s comments very personally, I took them that way only because he systematically and deliberately chooses to deliver them that way.
The point that I thought I made perfectly clear in my previous post is that Driscoll’s comments are obviously not general statements, but rather, are very specific. He doesn’t say that some women are or should be submissive, he clearly is saying that all women should be. That would include me, specifically, as I am specifically, a woman.
I also clearly said in my last post ,No, I would most definitely not be any more offended if he called or named me specifically. By talking about all women, specifically, rather than some or even most women in a more general sense, he is already talking about me.
For some reason, you don’t seem to undertand that his comments would not have been even the teeniest-tinyest bit more offensive to me if he had singled me out by name. He was talking about all women, meaning each and every one, which means me. Or do you think he didn’t mean me? I and which other women, specifically , do you think were excuded from Driscoll’s personal tirade against non-submissive women. Which females among us do you believe Driscoll was clearly saying are not required to be submissive? I think I must have missed that part.
Then we obviously just disagree. If Driscoll makes a statement about all evangelical pastors, and I am an evangelical pastor, then Driscoll doesn’t have to name me. I, and everyone else, already know he is talking about me. With or without my name inserted, either way, the statements are equivelant.
Comment by: Laura M.
58Sorry I’m such a bad typist. I should learn to hit ‘preview’ before I post.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
59Silly because you compared them to something that it is impossible to be. Not the same as what Henderson said.
What do you think about these two quotes from Henderson. After reading these words, you still think that Henderson didn’t call Driscoll a sex addict?
[there are errors when you use block quote and I didn't fix them all]
Comment by: Laura M.
60Thank you , Helen, for fixing my post. I’ve a feeling I’ll be needing that kind of help a lot, I soooo cannot type well!
Comment by: Laura M.
61Jeff,
Short answer: no
Long answer: NO, after reading those words I do not think Jim Henderson called Mark Driscoll a sex addict.
Here’s the thing, I can’t read Jim’s mind.
Do I believe Jim THINKS Driscoll is a sex addict? Probably. I would lean towards yes. Why ? Because (beating a dead horse here) Jim said Mark Driscoll sounds and acts like a sex addict.
So to make it as clear as possible-
Jim said he believes Driscoll acts …a certain way, because he thinks he acts that way.
Not the same thing as saying he is one, just that Jim thinks he is one based on his behavior..I think he even used the terms
I really do think that qualifier, “what I perceive to be” makes all the difference in the world.
Really?
I just read that as sharing his struggles dealing with sexual ‘temptation’. I thought that was a universal human issue, but especially difficult for pastors who find themselves in the position of counseling young, emotionally needy and vulnerable women. I thought that was the whole point of Mark Driscoll’s blog entry that day?
I think what Jim was saying was that it is pretty weird (I’m putting words in his mouth here) that Driscoll occasionally gets so personal and detailed when publicly discussing his (what should be) private sexual issues.
Comment by: Helen
62Laura, re: fixing your post - you’re welcome!
I’m sure it does have to do with how often Mark talks about sex and how much unnecessary detail he shares.
Also, in the much-criticized blog entry Mark talked about how wives need to be sexually available to their husbands, in order to help them not be tempted.
Perhaps it’s a coincidence but that’s exactly what a sex addict would say. It would have been wise of Mark to emphasize the importance of mutual consent right there, but he didn’t. There’s something wrong anyway, it seems to me, in throwing in asides about how wives should behave in an article evidently addressed to husbands.
A married person can technically stay within the boundaries Bible-believing Christians ascribe to, yet he/she can also be a sex addict.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
63So to sum it all up, what’s the difference? I think Joe is a sex addict because he sounds and acts like a sex addict. The difference between that and calling Joe a sex addict is what exactly?
I’ll let your response be the final word on the matter here. Thanks for the exchange. Have a good weekend.
Comment by: Helen
64You have a good weekend too, Jeff.
Comment by: Jeff Wright
65Your anticipated response to post 63, that is.
Thanks, Helen.
Comment by: Laura M.
66Well Jeff, I don’t know what I can say to you at this stage of your life that can help you with your comprehension.
I feel pretty confident that most people can figure out the distinction.
How about this?
If someone says to me,
“I think your friend is such a clown because she sure does act like one,”
do you see that is different from saying,
“I saw your friend’s clown act”?
Here are some ways by which Mark Driscoll(MD) could actually have been called a sex addict(SA):
*Driscoll is a SA.
*MD sure is a SA.
*Driscoll, yeah he’s a SA.
*I just know MD is a SA.
*Are you talking about that SA, Mark Driscoll?
*Watch out for that SA, Driscoll.
Comment by: Laura M.
67I’m worried we’re getting into the area of the thought police here.
It seems to me that your objection is not exactly about what Jim Henderson said about Driscoll, but more about what he thought about him.
It would surely have been unethical if people were saying things about Driscoll that they knew weren’t true, or that they didn’t believe to be true.
That certainly doesn’t appear to be the case here. What exactly is the objection to someone saying what they believe to be true, or describing things as they perceive them?
If an individual has what appears to be an emotional/psychological illness or disorder, and his bizarre behavior is pointed out to him giving him an opportunity for self-reflection (possibly even resulting in an eventual health screening and treatment)-
other than the possibility of his hurt feelings, where is the negative impact or downside?
Comment by: JL
68Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:5
Comment by: Laura M.
69JL,
I believe Helen pointed out earlier that it seems incongruent for Mark Driscoll to have been discussing how wives need to be ‘available’ (and other topics, including women ‘letting themselves go’)when the blog entry was supposed to be aimed at male pastors.
Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for him to discuss men in general (or at least male pastors specifically) letting their appearance/health/hygiene ‘go’, and/or men and male pastors not being sexually or emotionally ‘available’ to their wives?
Comment by: Helen
70JL as Laura points out Paul didn’t address his comments only to women.
Shouldn’t Mark be following Paul’s lead if he’s addressing men and women? Or, if Mark is addressing men, shouldn’t he limit his comment to mens behavior and attitudes and save his comments for women for a time when they are clearly intended to be part of his audience/readership?
JL how would you feel if Mark was talking to your spouse - and you thought it was an exhortation to your spouse - and you found out he commented on how “Wow, your spouse has really let themself go. They really should be making more effort to look good for you (and be available to you) as part of their responsibility to you.” Do you think that would be an appropriate thing to say to your spouse when you weren’t even present? I don’t think it would be.
In effect that’s what Mark did, corporately, by talking about pastors’ wives who let themselves go in a blog entry to male pastors.
There are a number of ways in which what he said in that particular blog entry was inappropriate. My impression from reading the comments across the blogosphere is that most of those ways went woosh! right over many peoples’ heads. I don’t know why. I suspect it’s because
a)we don’t teach respectful conversation 101 in church
b) we don’t teach it in seminary
c) for some reason pastors get special allowances other people don’t get
What do you think?
Comment by: JL
71Helen,
To be honest, I was really convicted when I read that portion of Mark Driscoll’s post. I realized that I make a point to do my hair, dress nicely & put on make up whenever I leave the house; otherwise, I “live” in sweats & walk around the house with “mom hair”. I don’t give my husband the same respect that I give the general public in regard to my appearance. He rarely comments on it, but does that mean he doesn’t care? I’ve seen his eyes light up when he comes home from work & I’ve made a point to fix myself up. He appreciates it when I look pretty rather than disheleved, and who can blame him? I don’t think I’m the only woman who does this. Why do we think it’s permissible to “let ourselves go” like this just because we’re used to the man we’re living with? These men love us (respectively); and I for one feel bad that the man who loves me takes a back seat to the people at the grocery store.
Comment by: Helen
72JL, if you found that part helpful, great. It IS easy to slip into taking our spouse for granted in various ways. And you’re right - we shouldn’t make more effort for strangers than for our spouses.
However I still think Mark should have emphasized husband and wife responsibilities equally if he was intentionally addressing a mixed audience; and if he was addressing men only he should have stuck to husbands’ responsibilities and not thrown in any asides about lazy wives. What can that do in an article for men, except subconsciously give them more excuses for giving in to temptation?
Comment by: JL
73Here’s a simple example of saying something that could be offensive when it wasn’t intended:
I work at an exclusive member-only club. It’s part of my job to know my client & provide them with exceptional service that is different than any other establishment. The contact for the event I was working was Jewish. She was hosting a holiday party for her employees, which included a gift exchange. At the end of the evening, as she was leaving, I said “Merry Christmas” to her. As she left, I thought “Oh no! She’s Jewish”! My heart was loving in my sentiment, but she might have taken offense as I should have known to say “Happy Hannukah”.
The point is that we all say things sometimes and then realize that it came out wrong or could be perceived as disrespectful. Mark has acknowledged this and has said he will keep it in mind moving forward. Can we not give him grace in this??
Comment by: JG
74In Rose Swetman’s open letter to Mark Driscoll, Rose said:
Laura M. wrote:
In Mark Driscoll’s case there was a very strong objection to what he said. Was the issue what he thought or what he said?
I think Rose was making the point that whatever Mark believed, he was using highly inflammatory language and being mean spirited and it was for the reason as much as anything else that I believe she called on him to “man up” and apologise.
I believe Rose was right to do so. I do not believe Rose was acting like the thought police.
Having re-read Mark’s statement about bunny rabbits, I think it is fair to say he did not actually call any ordained minister a fluffy bunny rabbit but his remarks were inflammatory and inappropriate none the less.
Comment by: JL
75Well, whoever wants to continue to be upset is certainly free to do so. I think it’s a shame to condemn someone and harbor unforgiveness - whether or not that person has apologized to the degree that any given person feels is appropriate. I personally, believe that it’s more God honoring to give grace, but that’s just me. Others will feel that the pursuit of “justice” is a better way to glorify God (or “mankind”, I presume, if they don’t believe in God).
Blessings be to you & thanks for the conversation.
Comment by: JG
76JL,
Just for clarity, I was responding to Laura’s comments rather than yours.
I agree with you that now is the time for grace on both sides in terms of the individuals involved who have apologised.
There are issues about when is it right to challenge things that people say, when is it right to call for an apology, when is it right to apologise and when and in what way is it right to stage a protest. I hope that debate will continue.
When references are made to the protest against Mark Driscoll (and I believe it will be necessary to do so), may hope is that it will be in the genuine pusuit of that debate rather than going over the old ground of that particular issue.
Comment by: Laura M.
77JG,
Thanks for the clarity. I personally have no idea if Rose Swetman’s objections were to what Mark Driscoll said or to what he thought, or to both. I had nothing to do with her letter or the protest. I know neither her nor Driscoll, nor Jim Henderson for that matter. I have no connection to any of them.
I hope we don’t try to correlate my comments here about my own personal opinion as to whether Jim Henderson owes Mark Driscoll an apology, or not, to anyone else’s statements about whether or not they think Driscoll owes them (or anyone else) an apology.
First of all that would be unfair to everyone here and misleading to the discussion.
Secondly, as I made clear on this thread earlier, I,for one, don’t believe Mark Driscoll owes any of us an apology for speaking strongly about things he believes in. I still stand by that statement. I think it takes great integrity of character to stand on a public platform and speak out forcefully about what you believe in, particularly when what you happen to believe may not be very popular or what people want to hear.
I agree.
I see nothing wrong with debating all the issues you mentioned above, as well as debating, discussing the appropriateness of Driscoll’s statements /behavior.
I am just one person here giving my personal perspective on these issues. I’m happy to hear everyone else’s, even when we disagree. I’ve learned much more in my life from those with whom I disagree than from those with whom I have no argument.
I believe his remarks were more insulting and demeaning than inflammatory. I don’t believe he was trying to be insulting or inappropriate, I think he was trying to be funny.
You see, my problem is what he thinks, not what he says. If it weren’t for him speaking out on his blog this way we who do not attend his church would have no idea that he counsels pastors and others to think of and treat women in such dismissive ways.
I never believe it is appropriate to apologize for saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. If you meant it, don’t apologize for it. When one person points out to another person that what they said was hurtful , rather than asking for apologies, I think it is better to ask questions. Discuss it and get to the heart of why it was hurtful.
As far as I know, that is the only way that real change comes about. Not from demanding, but asking. Not by calling someone out, but by calling them over.
Although I think I recall that attempts were made to discuss these issues with Mark Driscoll earlier, before the protest was scheduled- to no avail. I don’t sense a true spirit of dialogue and mutual respect from him, based on his ‘Count It All Joy’ statement.
BICBW (but I could be wrong).
Time will tell.
Comment by: Helen
78JL, I’m happy to wait and see if Mark makes the changes he’s indicated agreeing that he needs to make.
Comment by: JG
79Laura M,
I think I larley agree with all you have said in comment 77.
Strongly agree with you on this one. A hollow apology is worse than no apology at all though in this case I’m happy to have accept all the apologies that have been given as genuine.
But I know from my own experience that what you think and what you mean are one thing, the way you express them can be quite another. Too often we state our case too strongly and end up being in the wrong ourselves. When we have expressed ourselves badly or too strongly and as a result have said things that others have found unhelpful, I believe it is right to apologise for that. I think of it as basic courtesy and good manners. It helps build and where necessary restore and heal relationships. No one should be too proud to apologise.
In my mind, by apologising you are helping make your original point more strongly rather than taking away from it. The apology is like stripping away unnecessary clutter that gets in the way and obscures the genuine point you were trying to make.
Comment by: JG
80Typo again - I meant largely not larley!
Comment by: Roy James
81I don’t know what to say…I walked away from the church when I was in my teens for reasons like the ones I’m reading here…I observed unrelenting attacks on people that split my church while I was growing up and it makes me sick whenever I see it. These are issues that to this day would keep me from the church and make it difficult for me to even say I have anything to do with the church to my friends who are not followers of Christ.
Jim, if you’re married, how would you like it if someone said that you acted like a sex addict publicly and then tried to justify what they had just said (as something that would undoubtedly hurt you as a person and would likely make you angry not only because of what was being insinuated by the accusations, but also because of how it would affect your family) by saying that they hadn’t done anything wrong because they didn’t actually say that you were, only that you acted/seemed/talked like…come on…the anonymity of the posting on the internet seems to breed a cavalier attitude with words.
You may not like Mark, but remember he’s a human being that you should respect regardless of all the terrible things you think he is….
Jim, what would be taken from my saying…”You know Jim, you remind me of slanderers in my past who almost destroyed my ministry by telling others that I smoke weed…” (actually happened, and no I’ve never smoked weed). I could say…”well, I never actually said that Jim was a slanderer, I’m just saying he sounds like people I know who in the past have slandered”…you might be thinking as you read this…”He’s doing exactly what he’s accusing me of doing…” If you’re thinking that, yes you’d be correct as I do think you are slandering, and I think it happens a lot on blogs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the comments you posted didn’t seem to come from a heart attitude of building up the people around you, or showing love to Mark. Unless you think everyone who reads these posts is going to have more loving attitude towards Mark because you think he’s seems like a sex addict, or that we’ll all be uplifted by knowing you think he is, or by thinking it ourselves? Do you?
Why don’t you at least make an attempt to contact Mark and ask him about this. If you get in contact with him, great. If you don’t, refrain from commenting about someone’s sin that you suspect is there on the internet when you have no proof. Try that before you start damaging a man’s reputation by insinuating things as serious as sexual sin.
I’m writing what I write because slander hurts everyone and is a barrier to loving one another, and achieving unity. A good reputation is worth more than gold we’re told. Let’s not rob or threaten to rob one another on baseless accusations .
Comment by: Helen
82Thanks for your comments, Roy.
In Jim’s last comment on this topic he wrote “lets just say we disagree about my opinion and move on.”
I think that’s a good idea and so I’m closing this comments section.