So, yeah... here's what the whole Driscoll mess has done to traffic here:
Honestly- I'm a bit conflicted. That is, of course I enjoy traffic (of course!), but I hate conflict (seriously!) and I hate that the internet makes it so damn easy to get in a kerfuffle about any and every thing. Some things are worth fighting over, no mistake. But all things that are worth fighting over are worth doing so right and the flip side to the internet making fights easy is that it makes good, decent fights so very, very hard.
So, a few things in summary, and then we're done with Mr D for a bit...
It is wrong, as the organizers of the planned protest have, to characterize a sit down with the elders of Mars Hll as "sweeping things under the rug, hugging it out in the back room". Far from it. I imagine the conversation and results would be very difficult to keep quiet. This would be a conversation conducted, for all intents and purposes, within the public gaze.
Second, the general public in Seattle is becoming aware of this protest thing. And while at first blush, a positive response from something like the "the Stranger" might seem encouraging to the protestors, I would advise them to read the comments and understand that the net result of this whole matter will be a re-inforcement of the (unfortunately) often-true stereotype of Christians as being completely unable to avoid infighting. It will give those looking for a reason to demean faith in Jesus just that much more ammo. And it will pit churches against each other, as communities draw up sides. Again, this is the wrong way to handle the matter.
Scot McKnight has published an open Letter from Seattle pastor Rose Swetman asking for a sit-down with the elders and Mark. He's urging that they do so. I am as well. In addition, Rose asked that I publish the letter, so I will do so below.
All of this to say... my head hurts. Gotta get some real work done now...
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
Bob,
In situations like this, I use them as opportunities to learn. After all, you never know when you may find yourself right in the big middle of a similar situation.
The application and understanding of God's Word in situations is always beneficial, though the benefit may not be realized until later.
You're right, it is too easy to open one's mouth. Once you have though, it may be too late. You can't take words back, though you can confess your failure.
Just a few thoughts!
Posted by: Benjamin Bush Jr | November 15, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Oh, goodness.. with the added traffic, my concern would be for bandwidth overage, which I ran into earlier this year, and had to switch web hosting services. :)
I'm not sure how to deal with a increasingly heated label like "misogynist", which is so emotionally-laden with terms like cultist or racist or hate-monger, that meaningful understanding or dialogue is quickly thrown out the window. Just because of disagreement of convictions and practice, in this case with regards to the role of women in ministry or marriage, that difference in and of itself is not misogyny.
Posted by: djchuang | November 15, 2006 at 01:47 PM
As with many other "labels", to make the accusation is nearly as important as proving it.
Once "racist" is on the table, to deny it merely reinforces the idea that you are in denial.
I think it's the same thing here. Once the "misogyny" accusation is out there, to try to logically discuss it is nearly useless.
I've read some of Rose Madrid-Swetmen's blog and she's made no secret of her "equality" leanings. It's not very surprising that she's opposed to Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll and the gender roles that they teach.
From September of this years, she wrote about a a very big, inflential church in our city..."
The complementarian view in our humble opinion is oppressive to women. It seems the more influence this church gets the more we are hearing questions as to "why" do they teach oppression of women?
I don't think that Madrid-Swetman was "Driscoll-friendly" even before the Haggard thing.
Posted by: Ellen | November 15, 2006 at 01:58 PM
I have to agree with Ellen. I doubt Rose would have sent people to MH regardless of what Driscoll would have wrote about the Ted Harrared ordeal.
This whole situation has just become terribly sad for me. Yet I can not help but think that Driscoll honestly thought he was doing something good with providing some helpful hints on how men can better love their wives and be faithful to them in ministry. I know that trying to see that seems so hard for so many but I believe that to be the case.
All of this just reminds me of John Kerry's political gaffe of young people "getting stuck in Iraq" if they do not study hard. Most people who took the time to watch the speech on YouTube or investigate saw that his intention was not to insult the military. Yet sure enough people that hate him and his beliefs wasted no time in pulling them out of context and using them to injure him and his cause. I just wish Christians could be more generous and gracious with each other than the rest of the world. So that when one of us says something we do not immediatly grasp on to how we can distort it and go for their juggler. Lets be honest here there are many out there who dislike MD because of his values and theology, and this was such an occasion to use a political term "rally the base" against him. Republicans did it with Kerry two weeks ago, and now it is being done here with Driscoll. Sad.
I imagine right now that MD would love to take back that post, not because he does not believe what he wrote but because of how it has been negatively used against him. I pray Jesus that you would give us all the grace and love to not misuse blogs and soundbites, to cause harm to the body and one and other.
Posted by: ryan | November 15, 2006 at 02:29 PM
Posted by: ScottB | November 15, 2006 at 02:56 PM
And yet ScottB your entire response to my post proves my point, and reaffirms my prayer that we might be more generous with each other.
Posted by: ryan | November 15, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Posted by: ScottB | November 15, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Now Scott- you KNOW it makes baby Jesus cry when people point out that if Mark felt any regret at all over the distress caused by his remarks he could simply say so!
Ryan- I have to agree with Scott here- Mark's remarks are very different than Kerry's. Kerry was misunderstood. He was talking about Bush and people thought he was talking about the troops. The difference with this current situation is that no one misunderstands what Mark has said. He's been extremely clear. That's the problem...
Posted by: bob | November 15, 2006 at 03:19 PM
ScottB not sure what to make of your "baby Jesus" reference, if meant to be funny it is not, if meant to be rude the mission accomplished.
But since we are going over Communication 101 let us all sit at your feet and learn. After all I am sure every time you open your mouth your audience understands just as you intended. What you fail to admit is that often we are blinded by our dislikes and previous notions to take words in their context and we make them say, and mean something they were not intended for. Hence the John Kerry analogy.
My point was that you are doing the same thing to MD that Republicans did to John Kerry a few weeks ago. Once again rather than seeing that MD was speaking of helping men love their WIVES better by maintaining their sexual purity, you read in misogyny. This is what I mean by being more generous to our brothers and sisters. It is a shame we must all act like politicians ans worry that their is so little grace amongst our discourse that if we slip up our words will quickly be perverted and used to harm us. Personally I find this to be very un-Christian and I imagine it might make "the baby Jesus" cry (yes that is supposed to be humor).
Posted by: ryan | November 15, 2006 at 03:27 PM
And bob I do have to disagree with you, I believe it is the same as the Kerry situation. Driscoll was not writing to say that Gayle was responsible for the affair. Women make their husbands commit adultery. All women need to be a size two or look like a Hollywood actress in order to be a good wife. Yet all of these things he was accused of, right here on your blog!!
So to say that it is not the same is just wrong. Kerry said one thing and certain people ignored the overall message (President Bush) and turned one sentence into numerous false statements about Kerry's opinion. MD said one thing (wife's should continue to love their husbands and be lovely) and certain people chose to turn it into a chance to call him all sorts of names and to say he is against women. These seem really similar to me.
Posted by: ryan | November 15, 2006 at 03:44 PM
No- the problem is that Mark chose to inject an offensive sounding message to pastor's wives into a list of things Pastors can do to protect themselves. Strike one- really, really monumentally bad timing there.
Second, the statement, in and of itself was hugely offensive to many people. To single out wives, to fail to speak to husbands with the same admonition... and to do it in the context of talking about Haggard, for pete's sake?? Strike two for just plain not thinking before he typed.
But on second thought- Why don't I just grant that it's exactly analogous to the Kerry situation.
Kerry took responsiblity for how his words came across, regardless of how he meant them, and he apologized.
We'll see if Mark is that smart or that caring about those he has offended.
Posted by: bob | November 15, 2006 at 03:51 PM
touche bob. I guess we just see the whole thing differently. I personally do not know of a better time to speak of ways and things Christian couples can do to keep the marriage bed pure than right after a brother has a huge public sexual sin exposed.
As said else where MD is infinitely harder on the men at his church then the women. He rails on them all the time. Could he have said something to them yes, did he have to considering how much he already admonishes the men...debatable.
Last I guess I am just more cynical than you bob (maybe I should not be) but it just seems many people who have an axe to grind with MD see this as a great opportunity to do so. That is where the comparison to the Kerry situation comes in. My point still stands, can't we as Christians be more generous to one and other than organizing protests.
Anyway I will bow out here, because I am sure just like you are I am fatigued of the whole situation. Enjoy your blog and thanks for the conversation.
Posted by: ryan | November 15, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Thanks Bob. The way someone responds to a situation often is at least as important as whether they were to blame for it arising in the first place.
Posted by: Helen | November 15, 2006 at 06:55 PM
Bob, please note - this has been newly added to PAF's site:
Posted by: Helen | November 15, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Ryan's main point was ignored over and over again. THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW CHRISTIANS ARE UNGENEROUS TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER, AND ARE JUST AS VICIOUS AS THE REAL WORLD Which is the heart of what you have been saying all along Bob: Christians are suppossed to handle conflict differently.
Bob, your point is great about Driscoll failing to speak to husbands with the same admonition. Both my wife, and Ryan's wife could testify to you that we are much better husbands becuase we first heard Mark admonish us in that same way. Becuase of this (and many other reasons), our wives had no problem with the post. They actually liked it. It makes me sad that their voices aren't heard becuase they don't care about blogs. It is also sad that most people who are hearing this aren't hearing Mark admonish the men the way he does so well.
Posted by: matt | November 15, 2006 at 08:13 PM
correction:
"JUST AS VICIOUS AS THE REAL WORLD"
Change "REAL WORLD" to "REST OF THE WORLD".
Although the cast of this years REAL WORLD: Denver does look pretty vicious in handling comments.
Posted by: matt | November 15, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Matt - ryan has been perfectly content to be as ungenerous as he feels when he's attempting to make a point. For example, in his last response to me, he called me on the carpet for being rude immediately before launching into a nice barrage of sarcasm on his own part. I get suspicious when people start playing that card in the middle of a discussion after they've already made their own point. It always leads me to think that they're now attempting to stifle further dissent or that they feel they're on the losing end and need to gain back some ground.
If you want to start somewhere with criticism for lack of generosity, how about admitting that *Mark's comment* which is what started this whole thing is in no way generous - it's disrespectful and damaging.
Posted by: ScottB | November 15, 2006 at 08:25 PM
Helen- I printed Rose's letter as well. I'm disapointed that the people organizing this protest would not agree to even consider postponing or canceling it if a meeting could be put together. They are bound and determined to be quixotic.
Matt- Mark D would have been smart to balance his advice. He would have been even smarter to place said balanced advice in a different context. That being said, my wife was appalled at his post, with no prompting from me.
Posted by: bob | November 15, 2006 at 08:29 PM
Has it occurred to anyone else that no one has the right to never be offended?
Now that's just silly. That's like a bunch of methodists getting together to say, "hey we think the pope is acting way to Catholic. You should get rid of him." ??????Posted by: Andrew | November 15, 2006 at 09:21 PM
"That being said, my wife was appalled at his post, with no prompting from me."
I'm with your wife on this one, Bob. Any woman who has ever had a baby and then struggled to drop the extra weight from the pregnancy while trying to care for an infant and a household while severely sleep deprived does NOT want to hear a man make references to "lazy" wives who "let themselves go"!
Posted by: Rachel | November 15, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Ryan, where is the "helpful hint" in what Mark wrote in bullet point #2 in his list to pastors to protect themselves against immorality?
Honestly, I am having a hard time finding any sort of helpful hint for pastors in what Mark wrote. He stated matter-of-factly how many pastor's wives do not sexually satisfy their pastor husbands and how they have become fat, lazy and evil in the way they have set a trap. Again, where is that hint you and others keep referring to?
Ellen, I am a complementarian like you and I do not agree with Rose's theology on female pastors but what about her other points? Put her viewpoint on female pastors aside, what about the other points she made about Mark's comments? Does she have any merit in what she said?
Posted by: Rosebud | November 15, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Rachel, I hear you. I also think about all the women who are having many babies because of teachings like Mark but they now sport massive stretch-marks, sagging flesh, c-section scars and sagging breasts from feeding those babies? I know many of my friends struggle with self-hatred because their bodies are very altered from bearing children.
I know men who cannot stand to look at their wives naked because of these things. What is a woman to do? Do we wonder where women get the notion that they shouldn't have children because they are afraid that their bodies will change and they will no longer be attractive? Where do they get this message from?
I thank God for the great genes He has blessed me with. I have had many children and I don't have one stretch mark and my skin seems to bounce right back but I know other women who loathe themselves because of the badges of honor they have received from bearing children. It is so VERY sad.
How does Mark's comments help women? And how does it help men who are entertaining thoughts that their wives don't look the way they first looked before having children? And how do his comments concerning women reflect a Christian worldview? It has given unbelievers an occassion to blaspheme the name of our Lord.
As a woman, his comments hurt me, especially because they hurt so many others and made a bad situation much worse in the eyes of the unbelieving world.
Posted by: Rosebud | November 15, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Andrew, you're absolutely right that no one has the right to never be offended, but that isn't the issue here. The problem is that Mark Driscoll is considered the face of contemporary Christianity in Seattle, and his words serve to reinforce people's existing prejudices against Christians. Therefore many of us are eager to make it clear that he doesn't speak for us. I personally don't think picketing outside the building is a great idea, but we need to distance ourselves publicly somehow.
Posted by: Dan Brown | November 15, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Ms. Madrid-Swetman reference a quote that indicates Driscoll thinks that when a denomination begins ordaining women, acceptance of homosexuality is not far behind...well...the Christian Reformed Church had to deal with this in Canada.
Then, a single line, "Women will be saved by going back to the role that God has chosen for them.", and a statement saying how "unchristian" that is. No context, no link to a context. Was Driscoll preaching from Paul? We don't know and we aren't told.
The quote about the Episcopalians - what part was offensive? The fluff-bunny part? Or the statement where Mark said, "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." That last part - it's accurate.
As far as Driscoll being using demeaning language, I blogged about his use of "redneck NASCAR fan" about a year ago.
His "name calling" women? I think that he name-calls men who act like women - way more than he name-calls women.
Let us not forget that Madrid-Swetman has an agenda. She says so, on February 4, 2005:
Here is my agenda that I won’t give up…
I want to see space created in the church for women to lead…
I think that Madrid-Stedman has an agenda, and she targetted Driscoll before he made that post.
Posted by: Ellen | November 15, 2006 at 11:01 PM
He stated matter-of-factly how many pastor's wives do not sexually satisfy their pastor husbands and how they have become fat, lazy and evil in the way they have set a trap.
I sat under a pastor several years ago (he has since retired) whose wife headed the women's ministry in that church.
She lectured to women, saying largely the same thing. And I know women who HAVE set a trap for their husband - if not by making themselves unattractive (yes, I do know women with the attitude "I'm married now, hello?"), then by their treatment (or lack thereof) in the bedroom.
There's a reason that some women have be to told to "keep the home fire burning".
Posted by: Ellen | November 15, 2006 at 11:05 PM