Haggard 'n' Driscoll...

I don't feel compelled to say much about Ted Haggard... Tim Challies (two Challies links in 30 days time... the sky must be falling!!) pretty much sticks the landing here as he responds to those who are responding to Haggard...

There are some who are seeking to make this issue into something almost prophetic, as if it is indicative of the state of evangelicalism. "The Reformed Gadfly," whose post was endorsed by Slice of Laodicea writes, "I'm sick and tired of being associated with a 'Christianity' that does not seem to care one whit about holiness or obedience to God's Word. Let me say this as perfectly clear as I can: I believe that 'Christianity' in America is nearly totally apostate. Why? We have abandoned the vision of the Holiness and Fear of God. We've built a false god that will cater to our flesh and meet our 'felt needs'. Our real need? Repentance. But we don't want to go there. We live in Laodicea. No apologies. Cut and dried. Stuff like this can only happen because contemporary Christianity is rotten to the core."

No, no, no! Stuff like this happens because we are rotten to the core! Stuff like this happens because I am rotten to the core. Oh, that we would all take heed! How can we be sick and tired of being associated with other sinners? I am the greatest sinner I know and can only delight to be in the presence of other sinners, others with whom I can share God's grace and from whom I can learn more about God's grace. The Christian I am most sick and tired of being associated with me, for my sin is before me always! Every day I have to peer into my dark heart and beg God for forgiveness. Every day I see again how my heart is dark and black and awful and filled with emnity towards God. Every day I see in my heart that I am no different than Ted Haggard. But for the grace of God I would do so much more and so much worse. Take heed. I sit here and weep for Haggard and his family and his church, but selfishly, I weep even more for myself, knowing that I, too, could be in such a situation. What is in Haggard is in me. What is in me is in you. But for the grace of God...

And of course... Mr. Driscoll :)
Actually- when I read his comments, I didn't think too terribly much of the parts that seem to be getting everyone upset. Probably not quite the time/context to talk about pastor's wives letting themselves go (yeah, he went there), but you know, that's Mark for you.

However, the response has been... good.

The passage in question from Mark?

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.

A good response from Emerging Grace.

And this kind of made me laugh... :)

Comments

[jason]

But there is an extra dimension, if you will, to the Haggard saga, and that is his vociferous activism on behalf of social causes for the extreme right wing.

Yes, but for the grace of God go I, but for many of us, the real disgust, and our consequent willingness to "judge" him for it, stems from his blatant hypocrisy, not his sin. There's a big difference, I think.

[Scott]

You know I brushed past some of the stuff that seemed out there but I did find the thoughts on travelling alone and meeting with woman alone and even being in vulnerable situations, good advice. Mark shoots from the hip as do I often times. It is an easy way to learn humility and lots of practice asking forgiveness.

I honestly just had to shake my head because he has really pissed some people off this time!

[bob]

Yeah- Like I say- it didn't really get me too much (though I showed it to my wife, and she was a bit torqued!:)
Most of his advice in this is right on the money and really good. It's the 5-10% of leaven that consistently trips Mr. Driscoll up...

[Rose]

Why do men in the church only have two choices in how to relate to women...first as a sex object or second as a secretary...wait Mark wouldn't even allow that but you get the idea...from all the points on how to keep a young man pure on his post makes me wonder what has happened to maturity, and learning mutual respect for both genders. I wanted so badly to post a headline - Thank you iddy, biddy baby Jesus for my hot wife...but refrained....btw sorry we disappointed you in our workshop - we never know where someone is in the conversation so next year will ask questions first :) peace

[ryan]

Funny, I showed it to my wife, and she thought Mark was right on. Then said it would be the same as if I started to withdrawal, made myself emotionally absent, and had more affection for my ministry then her. While this would not cause her to cheat on me, she said it would make things difficult on her, and leave her feeling let down by me.

I do not say any of this to say one partner or the other is every responsible for making their spouse have sex with someone else, but I am absolutely convinced they can contribute to it. I have seen this time and time again, with women in our church whose husbands becomes married to his work, spends all his free time with his buddies, and hobbies, and gives his wife whatever is left. This has been exactly what has happened at our church the last two times I have had to pastor couples through adultery.

So I just ask before we go, bashing Mark (as is usually the case) maybe we should put our PC tendencies aside for a second and ask if there is any truth to his statement. After all it seems like he is just calling for spouses to love one and other. Which can absolutely help with fidelity.

[ScottB]

So I just ask before we go, bashing Mark (as is usually the case) maybe we should put our PC tendencies aside for a second and ask if there is any truth to his statement. After all it seems like he is just calling for spouses to love one and other. Which can absolutely help with fidelity.

But that's not what he said. What he said was that wives shouldn't let themselves go, because it causes their husbands to stumble. Or, ok, to be fair he said that it's still the husband's fault - but if that's what he meant, why did he even bring it up? He wants to spread the responsibility around, clearly. And why frame it as if the woman is the one who lets herself go and the man is never at fault of this?

To be honest, I had a really strong reaction to this, for several reasons:
1. It objectifies women, implying that their responsibility is to look good for their husbands.
2. It reduces love to physical attraction.
3. It assigns a particular motivation to people who may struggle with real issues relating to weight and appearance - that is, laziness.
4. It implies that the wife of an unfaithful husband should share the blame for his infidelity. And that's wrong on every possible level.

Yeah, this one infuriated me. But I'm getting used to that from Mark. It seems like, as usual, his tendency to overstatement and outright offense has overshadowed the real contribution that the rest of his post might have made.

Frankly, I wish he'd "take one for the team" by having someone else read his stuff before he posts and choosing not to post stuff that's simply offensive and contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

[Scott]

Frankly, I wish he'd "take one for the team" by having someone else read his stuff before he posts and choosing not to post stuff that's simply offensive and contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

This is the reason I generally ask my wife or honest friends to read emails or posts prior to being made public. The 5-10% of stuff that would really trip me up get's edited, not true during a passionate conversation and 2 IPA's (Umm India Pale Ale to Non-Northwesters) This is a newer practice and seems to be working... :-)

-Grace- Peace - Love -

Scott

[ryan]

Hey ScottB

I would just point you to read Driscoll's blog again. Looks like he clarified his remarks because he found them to have been "misrepresented" in the blog world.

[Ross Royden]

I have read it again and I think it is every bit as bad as when it was first posted. Leave aside for a moment the comments on pastors' wives letting themselves go and the complete ignorance of how most pastors in the church are called upon to live and minister (my congregation want to be able to contact me), it was the whole tone of it that got me.

He just sounded smug. His position seems to be: 'I am a wise, heterosexual male pastor whom this sort of thing could not happen to because I protect myself from sexually predatory females who always seem to want to go to bed with me.'

As I hear about the whole sorry business involving Ted Haggard, one overriding thought in my mind is, 'Let him who thinks he stands, beware lest he falls.'

[bob]

To be fair- I think Mark has shared on a number of occasions tat he's exactly the kind of guy this might happen to (except for one particular aspect, of course...)

What bugs me is that his advice is basically good. Protect yourself. Be proactive. Don't put yourself in a place where things can go sideways if you can at all avoid it. Some of it is a bit extreme (I'll read my own email, thanks... at least until I have a church of 4,000!)

The problem is it's all wrapped in a big heaping helping of some really regressive language and thought. Not that Mark care about that, but...

[bob]

Hey Rose!

Just to clarify... I hope I didn't come across like I was disappointed in what you guys brought in your workshop... I should have worded that differently!
For me, two and half years into a church plant, a number more down the missional road, I'm/we're just at a different place than where I sensed the majority of your talk was aimed. I have a feeling I have a lot I could learn from you and would love to see if we could hook up with you and your husband at some point and pick your brains!
Sorry if I came off like an ass...

[Tina]

Okay I googled images of Mark Dricoll (I ahve never seen the guy) and well let's just say he isn't no GQ guy! I know that seems crass but when he makes comments about pastor's wives letting themselves go I wonder how he would feel if people put him through that same lithmus test! It feel gross and completely degrading. The double standard is utterly unacceptable. And maybe he would say there is no double standard and that husbands shouldn't let themselves go either but I would say that us utterly naive. The standards for women's physical appearance in our culture can in no way be compared to what the standard is for men especially post 40 years of age. To believe that a women's appearance is correlational to a husbands affair is unacceptably reductionistic. It is bad thinking! Must go calm down now.

[Tina]

I should have stopped but this "A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband" AHHHHHH! How many husbands are not sexually available to their wife because they don't get her! Or realize things work differently for her! Oh this line of reasoning that Driscoll puts forth is so .....archaic. Okay I am done.

[Jon]

Scott said:

Frankly, I wish he'd "take one for the team" by having someone else read his stuff before he posts and choosing not to post stuff that's simply offensive and contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

Scott,
I did read this before I posted it for Mark. So did Mark's assistant. I think that you're all over reacting. The problem here is that everyone who reads that statement injects their own version of what "letting themselves go" means.

I would suggest that you take it in context with everything Mark says about openness in marriage. "not letting yourself go" does NOT mean wives should conform to whatever mental picture you have of "modern beauty." It does mean that husbands and wives should have open communication and that they should strive to remain attractive to the other (in whatever form that might take in each individual marriage).

[bob]

Hey Jon- Thanks for weighing in... This is wild stuff. I think there's a lot of reasonable and some unreasonable reactions to Mark's statements...
I was actually going to email you today and ask you what you thought of this latest!

I'm wondering if we can say that at very least, Mark's timing and context for this remark is really, really poor?

Here's a comment lifted from TSK's blog... insightful, I thought:

The thing about his comment concerning fat, lazy pastor's wives that is interesting to me is that it really doesn't fit at all with the other points. The other points are written directly to men in the ministry and things they can do to protect themselves. After all, that is the whole point of his blog post. Mark Driscoll has just signed his name on a cheating husband's permission slip. He has given them an "out". A person who is in this sort of sin always looks for an out no matter how desperate it appears. Mark just shored up the majority of the cheaters' excuses. "Honey, I am sorry. I take full responsibility. But, if you would have just lost those extra 20 pounds and swung from the chandelier when we had sex, I wouldn't have had to go elsewhere." That one lone comment sitting at the top of his list is written towards women and a pastor has no control over it (if it was true). People are saying that this list was directed at men but that comment certainly wasn't. What is a pastor to do who has a fat, lazy slob of a wife at home who refuses to give him oral sex in the tradition of Song of Songs? What control has he over that situation and how is saying what he did going to help men protect themselves? I am sorry but he may take one for the team but he doesn't get a walk from me. But, then again, I am not on "the team", I guess? It wasn't edifying, timely or helpful. And he should have apologized for it instead of justifying it. If he would have told pastors to take care of themselves and to treat their wives lovingly so their sexual relationship doesn't suffer, then it would have been a good bit of advice. After all, he was speaking TO pastors about protecting themselves from this sort of sin. I think that there is a time and place for that sort of advice and if he cares so much about reaching people for the Lord he would do well to approach such subjects with less disgusting and offensive tactics. Does he realy care about people and helping them? Does he care about women? And we wonder why eating disorders are rampant among middle age women? "Pass me the botox and a breast lift, my husband might leave me for an 18 year old." I am all for fitness and beauty. But, we should not be defining beauty in the way the world does. Kind of like his recent post: "Porn Again Christian" about a female porn star. Is THIS the kind of beauty he is referring to? What exactly is "beautiful" according to him? What happens when many women fall far short of this "beauty" that has protected him and his male assistant? And, Charity, I am glad you are not offended personally by that post. I am sure you don't have a weight problem. I am not going to brag about my looks but after 10 children people are amazed that I look so young and I look so "good". But, that doesn't mean I don't feel empathy for the poor fat, manipulative slob of a pastor's wife that Mark was referring to. You really can't be defending his statement and the way he said it and the context he spoke it in, can you? If you are, why? How does his comment fit with advice TO pastors? And why isn't this bit of advice TO pastors, telling them to be the best they can be so their wife WANTS to have sex with them?

[robbymac]

I think it's fair to say that Mark has (successfully, even if unintentionally) hit upon a very raw nerve for men and women in blogdom.

[Scott]

Jon,

I appreciate the fact that it was previewed before being posted. I really feel like Mark has a lot of great stuff to share and as one of my close friends said “Mark rubs you wrong because he is to much like you” All I can say is I wish I had more in common with him.
I do have one similar fault to Mark though and that is passion and the willingness to express it in a provocative enough manor that people will listen. The difficulty is that people are always waiting to pounce on the provocative points and ignore the rest. Mark has a significant platform and with it he needs greater sensitivity to the results of his words. If you don’t think so just imagine all the women who have had husbands f*#k up their families in order to pursue the cute young secretary, or those who through no fault of their own have been disfigured.

Scott

[Jon]

Yeah, I debated on whether or not do wade into this. In general, I think that taking time from ministry to argue about stuff like this gets our eyes off the mission. I also worry that by posting and identifying my position, what I say will come off as some sort of official position (which this is not).

You're right Scott. Mark has a reputation for saying potentially inflamatory things, and people have come to expect that. They even look for it when it's not there (like now).

I don't want to want to waste my time defending Mark. He can defend himself if he feels that he needs too.

But I would suggest that you are all free to like or dislike Mark. And you're free to agree or disagree with what he says. I would hope though, that Jesus is more important to you that proving that Mark is wrong or a jerk or whatever agenda you might have. Take whatever you can from Mark (or anyone else for that matter) and ignore the rest if you don't like it. The most important thing is to not get sidetracked and to not forget about Jesus.

That's all. I'm done. Bob, if you're still interested in some further private dialog on this, shoot me an e-mail.

[ScottB]

ryan - I can't see any changes, to be honest. If there were any, they weren't the ones that needed to be made.

Jon - if you reviewed the post prior to submitting it, can I ask what in the world you were thinking when you ok'd this sentence:

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.

Read this sentence again. And this is one where context doesn't improve things; please don't tell me I'm taking this out of context because its meaning is basically about as straightforward as anything I've read. Let me ask two questions:
1. Do you think this is a true statement? That it is not uncommon - meaning by extension that it is common - for pastor's wives to become lazy, letting themselves go so that their husbands no longer find them physically attractive?
2. If this is, in your opinion, a true statement, do you think it's an appropriate one to voice in this particular context?

You also said:

I think that you're all over reacting. The problem here is that everyone who reads that statement injects their own version of what "letting themselves go" means.

Please tell me how else I should interpret the phrase "letting themselves go". There isn't exactly a huge semantic range for that statement in our culture. If Mark didn't mean physical appearance, what did he mean? At the least, if that's not his intent, then he should clarify and apologize - because that's exactly what the phrase means in every instance that I've ever seen it used.

You also said:

In general, I think that taking time from ministry to argue about stuff like this gets our eyes off the mission.

Jon, here's where you're wrong. These kinds of statements are read by the watching world. They read in statements like this that Christians do not value women, that we treat them as objects, that we do not respect them and that we do not have a concern for the dignity of all people - both men and women. And Mark's other comments on marriage do not matter because this is the statement that has been made; this is the statement that needs to be clarified or retracted. I'm sorry that you don't see this as important. When I read posts like this one, I find that it suddenly becomes very much a missional issue.

[Rose]

"You're right Scott. Mark has a reputation for saying potentially inflamatory things, and people have come to expect that. They even look for it when it's not there (like now)."

Jon people come to expect it because he does it. If you don't think his rants and tirades about moral issues are not inflamatory I would suggest you and Mark are very out of touch with the very people you say you want to reach.

This was clearly inflammatory and I would agree with Scott that Mark needs to apologize and retract rather than continue to paint himself and his church more into the corner of fundamentalist/legalism.

There is a watching world and the Haggard story is tragic enough without Mark adding to how the world is viewing us right now. Where is his sense of pastoral care for the watching world? It would be good for all you that surround him to ask him to stop his ranting and arrogance -- really, I am not trying to be mean, if you don't get the severity of what is happening right now then my fear is "pride" will get you. You would do well to quit defending and posture yourselves with much humility and grace right now.

Peace

[bob]

A smart man once asked Mark "What do you want to be known for."

Man, that question is getting answered, but probably not to Mark's or the elders of Mars Hill's liking...

[ScottB]

Ok, it's being discussed on Andrew Sullivan's blog as well. Mark seriously needs to do some apologizing, because we're all "taking one for the team" because of his remarks, whether they're being misrepresented or not.

I have to ask this: if Mark is as gifted a communicator as he seems, how can he not know that this sort of comment is going to be harmful?

"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!" (Matt 18:7, NASB)

[John]

Maybe Mark needs to make an exception to the male assistant he espouses and hire a female to preview his stuff before posting. With the electronic media, she wouldn't even have to work in the same building (since that might be too tempting, especially if she's really hot).

[grace]

Bob,
Thanks for the link. It's been an enlightening conversation.