See part 1 below...
My question for those who are planning to protest Mark still stands- what difference does Jesus make among Christ followers with profound disagreements? What does being a peacemaker look like in this situation? What would it mean to bless Mark and Mars Hill (who are clearly here "the enemy")???
I asked the same question of the leadership at Mars Hill, and I think they are taking it to heart- here's one response I got:
I just wanted to say “thank you” again for the heads up on the protest. A MH member also came across the website and started a thread about it on our member’s site. I think you would be encouraged to hear that all of the comments around that thread have consisted of variations on the following: “let’s pray for them.” “I hope a lot of people come so that I can love on them.” “My wife and kids and I will be hanging out there with umbrellas for them.” and “I’m going to get to church early and make some extra coffee and tea for them.” Also, Rob Smith (from Agathos) seems to be engaging them fairly well on their blog. Hopefully his invitation to sit down will be accepted. Rob is a great guy.
I love that Mars Hill is responding to threats of protest this way. It shows a lot of maturity on the part of MH members...
So... all that aside...
I object to language games. I hated what Spencer did to the word "heretic," and in the same way, I reject characterizations of Mark Driscoll as a "brutal misogynist," as someone who "abuses" and "oppresses" women. His teaching may disempower women. It may hurt emotionally. It may lead to gifts given by God to the Body of Christ not being used to their full extent. It may even lead to some women making choices in life to forgo education and live a life that is more hemmed in and constrained than necessary...
But none of these things, bad as they are, are abuse, oppression or misogeny. Tragic, yes. Misogeny, no.
That having been said, Mark Driscoll is a male chauvinist. He frequently uses "feminine" as a derogatory. His version of manhood is becoming more of a ridiculous charicature every day. I have sat in the room with him and been told "If your wife is working, you are a selfish bastard. How dare you make her shoulder her half of the curse and part of yours as well." In addition to being erroneous theology (it really, really is), this kind of talk has some far reaching consequences, and communicates a lot of things that have the potential to really screw people up (guys- it's all on you! Perform! Women, hold back... don't shine too brightly!)
Mark is not a complementarian. He's a Hard Complementarian, who borders on a heirarchicalist. He gives lip service (I know he would say it's more- but actions and outcomes speak louder than words) to equal value of men and women, but effectively negates this as he teaches a view of headship that has some women promising to "obey" in their wedding vows, and seeking the "covering" of a fill-in dad when theirs is unavaliable and they would like to date.
Mark needs to smarten up and his elders need to kick his arse hard enough to help him smarten up. He needs to re-assess some of his views and soften how he presents others.
The elders of Mars Hill (IMHO) need to see at this point that Mark's blog, Mark's comments and rants, is/are a net-negative to their church community, and they need to shut it down for the time being. The best known church in the Acts 29 network, other than Mars Hill, has left the organization, in part in an effort to distance themselves from the blowback from Mark's comments. There are still personal friendships there, to be sure. But when people have to start organizationally moving away from each other- that's a sign to me that something is amiss. And it wouldn't surprise me if other A29 churches weren't moving in the same direction.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again- Mark is at a crossroads. What I'm seeing now is that a lot of people, his entire church community, and the leadership in particular, are there with him.
As his apparent pride grows, so does the danger- the danger of his words hurting, the danger of other emulating him, and the danger when/and if someone that big, and that prideful, takes a fall.
Not sure you are making a fair judgment about Driscoll. The straw man you are attacking is IMO (understand that I'm 23 yrs. old) based on a very tolerant post-modern ideal that reflects more of the American philosophy all-inclusiveness and less on the biblical concept of grace.
Your blog sounds exactly like Driscoll's. The only difference being that you're attacking a brother and he's laying waste to extremist false theology (i.e. the new Episcopalian Bishop).
Posted by: Chris Borah | November 14, 2006 at 08:44 AM
One- not a straw man. I'm dealing with actual things said by Mark and actual consequences of his teaching and attitudes. If you can show what I've said to be false, then please do- that would be a "straw man."
I'm not attacking Driscoll. I'm saying what many are thinking and saying, and trying, in fact, to temper and tone down what some of the more angry others are saying about him.
Second- I have no problem with someone speaking strongly. I want them to do so fairly. That's why I'm calling BS on those who want to protest Mark and call him a "brutal misogynist." I'm also saying that the reality is, both the way Mark says some things as well as the actual content of what he occasionally says is proving to be a distraction, and a danger to those who might emulate him. John Piper said exactly the same thing. Mark is not above critque.
Third- "laying waste to extremist false theology" is exactly the problem with Mark. He's in the middle of creating Ultimate Fighting Jesus to counter what he sees as Wimply Feminized Jesus and in the process he's getting just as out-of-balance as those he's critiqueing. As for the new bishop...I would have opposed her nomination as well, but not for being a woman. I would have opposed her taking the office of bishop because she voted to confirm a man who divorced his wife, took up with men and has an admitted problem with drinking. These things don't by any means disqualify him from relationship with Jesus, but if sexual immorality and alcohol abuse doesn't disqualify a man from leadership in the church, I'm not sure what would.
But I wish Mark could separate out her gender from her support of electing a man like Robinson and deal with each issue on its merits without conflating it all into one big messy ball, lighting it on fire and calling it the Fourth of July.
Please hang out on my blog a bit longer before you accuse me of a "very tolerant post-modern ideal that reflects more of the American philosophy all-inclusiveness and less on the biblical concept of grace." I'm coming from anywhere but...
I think you need to earn the right to make judgments like that, man.
Posted by: bob | November 14, 2006 at 08:59 AM
I doubt MH elders will kick him in the rear, as they could fire him tomorrow morning if they deemed it necessary. Huge portion of the Evangelical world hold similar complimentarian views on headship and responsibility in the church and home.
Finally, that #@$!@ Salon article again. The woman interviewed, Judy Abolafya, is "furious" at how Salon's "journalist" Lauren Sandler chose to carefully spin the interview. I would encourage you to read Judy's comments on this thread before you link to the article using link words like "traumatic choices"
Like others who've followed, supported, and occasionally cringed as Driscoll's ministry over the years, I, too, have hope that his new partnership with John Piper will go a long way to helping Mark be more like Jesus everyday. You say he's getting worse, but I've seen improvements. He's no longer saying "faggoty, limp-wristed" this and that (his formerly favorite pejorative) and the jokes about rednecks, NASCAR and other juvenile talk seem to be on waning.
Speaking of the Piper-Driscoll connection, Piper did rebuke Driscoll, from the stage no less, at the Desiring God 2006 conference. Driscoll took it well, though none of the Driscoll haters recognize that.
Posted by: Phil | November 14, 2006 at 09:12 AM
Driscoll's fleshly and unguarded words about sex and gender issues elicit such demonstrative resposes from all corners. Why? Because the gospel no longer engenders any response due to the lack of discernable and magnetic lifestyle differences that seem to reveal the Person of Christ. Issues are on the throne not Jesus and seratonin the power not the Spirit.
Many preachers are unaccountable heroes who can ad lib with superiority and breathe into any microphone with ad hoc authority apart from any parameters and fully free of humility, even pretended. And people waste their time protesting while others waste their time protesting the protest. The present day church which has morphed into a philisophical kaleidoscope, is full of sound and fury, and most times signifying nothing. Sad...
Posted by: Henry Frueh | November 14, 2006 at 09:20 AM
Phil...Actually- a good rear-kicking is what got Mark to apologize over his comments on Out of Ur. One good thing about Mark- he has shown he is teachable and will submit to friends/authority in his life when those friends and authorities try to correct him. I just hope that they will see the need to continue to help him.
Pipers comments at Desiring God were what I was referencing.
Glad to hear he's dropped "faggoty" from his vocabulary. I'll bet it was because someone gave him a kick in the rear over usage of that word. See- it works! :)
Posted by: bob | November 14, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Bob,
What church has left Acts 29?
I know there was a mass departure when the thing started and they tried to pass a TULIP statement off as a sufficient statement of faith and force the pastors and the elders of the member churches to sign them--thus undermining the autonomy of the local churches' spiritual authority. That departure included Solomon's Porch. Some little known "emerging church history". There was a handful of people who stayed, signed the document, but when asked were very tepid in their support for TULIP. IMVHO, It showed people were more concerned for the money coming down the pike than the doctrine being espoused. I guess the A29 thing has more "true believers" today. But all that's neither here nor there beyond showing an authoritarian and coercive approach to leadership on certain people's parts. The gender theology that is coercive and authoritarian isn't surprising when you think about it.
Anyway, what church left Acts 29?
Btw, how do keep such a connection to the guy? You talk about saying things to him. How does he respond to your admonitions and warnings? I really want to know because the guy gets in my craw and really bugs me.
I suspect he's not responsive because you don't have his stature which can only be spoken to by the likes of Piper.
AND
I wonder how responsive Mark would be if, say, Tony Campolo or Brian McLaren rebuked him with the same words as Piper? Would they not have the credentials to be able to speak simply because he doesn't like their politics/theology?
So much for TRUTH IS TRUTH.
I appreciate your thoughts on this stuff, Bob. Thanks.
Posted by: Nathan | November 14, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Sorry, but one more question:
is it possible that some of what drives the ethos and culture of the MH leadership has more to do with socio-economic background and the attendant stereotypes that inform certain class perspectives.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember Driscoll really touting his "blue collar" credentials in the past. I always took it as code speak for "down to earth", "real" with the implication being that his message and perspective is stronger and superior because he's "normal". In sociology there is a recognition of these "myths" of different classes that are a strange mixture of coping with the arrogances and fears of any particular social class.
Could this be a factor that fuels a constant, if not adolescent, need to identify oneself to everyone who will listen? Especially by knocking down others?
We have to admit that guy has been a firebrand from the start. He got his notoriety flaming people at conferences when the whole thing that has become Emergent was just starting. And some of his past "buddies" were there right along with him.
It seems that he kept on going being immature and a finger pointer and some others woke up to their excesses and now don't want to bump heads with anyone.
Sorry for the dissertation, but I think I'm waking up to some clarity on the so-called discourse from these different camps of young leaders.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks again!
Posted by: nathan | November 14, 2006 at 10:21 AM
To clarify- I've had a number of conversations with Mark over the years, but the last was in 2004. We don't speak, and I doubt if he'd remember me much or know me much beyond being the proverbial "blogger with a tiny church" who's become like a rock in his shoe :)
I wrote an open letter to mark awhile back, and I'm sure he's seen it. Beyond that, I've had some really good dialogue with one of the elders and one of the deacons at MH. Good, good guys.
The church that left was Imago Dei here in PDX.
I agree that a written response to Mark from Campolo and/or McLaren wouldn't do much.
But I would love to be a fly on the wall when Mark and Brian and or Tony sat down over a cup of Coffee. Mark is not unteachable. He's just very certain. Not beyond being pursuaded to change, but I think it has to come to him in certain ways, or else it serves mostly to harden him...
Posted by: bob | November 14, 2006 at 10:24 AM
As for your second question... I'm really not sure. Like our community here in PDX, Mars Hill is largely white, largely educated and largely middle class. Mark may have some working class roots, but he and his community are solidly middle to upper middle class now.
But you are right... there's a lot of self-description and talk about "where I came from." I wonder what that's about... hmmm.
Posted by: bob | November 14, 2006 at 10:28 AM
Bob, perhaps everyone is indeed being gracious and kind on the Mars Hill members' forums.
That has not been uniformly true elsewhere. There have been a number of sarcastic and/or invalidating comments posted by Mars Hill members on my blog and on the People Against Fundamentalism blog. Including some by Rob Smith, "the great guy".
If Mars Hill members are being polite and gracious I wonder where that comes from? Not from reading Mark Driscoll's blog, that's for sure.
Bob, you seem like a decent guy. I appreciate that you're trying to be kind and advocate a Christlike way of dealing with this.
How did Jesus deal with people who were very 'certain'? I don't see that he was a 'peacemaker' in those situations. But feel free to show me passages which indicate otherwise.
Posted by: Helen | November 14, 2006 at 10:40 AM
All of you guys are totally feeding Mark's ego right now.
Posted by: aaron | November 14, 2006 at 10:50 AM
good point by Aaron.
I've counseled people to just ignore the guy before too. But sometimes it all just gets under my skin.
Aaron, I dig your blog and your "eventual job" link. Blessings on you as a "doer" and not just hearer, bro.
Best,
Nathan
Posted by: nathan | November 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM
I just got off the phone with an "old-school" Acts 29 pastor who loves MD but is really tired of having to deal with all the messes that MD seems to cause.
Also, MD represents hundred's of pastor's via the A29 network. I think A29 is awesome, don't agree with ALL of their theology, but I wonder if the "outsiders who are looking in" a29 network assume all those pastors have the same theology and gender issues as MD?
IMHO, A29 would be better served with a more balanced figure-head. You wonder how they are going to deal with this?
Posted by: Chris | November 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Bob, thank you for your very balanced and fair critique. I think your statement was a good example of speaking the truth in love. Or as Proverbs says, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."
Posted by: Rachel | November 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM
"I wonder if the "outsiders who are looking in" a29 network assume all those pastors have the same theology and gender issues as MD?"
I would have assumed that, Chris. When I first heard about MD and his views, I was seriously bummed thinking that the emerging church was not what I had hoped. It's more clear to me now that there is quite a bit of diversity of views in the EC.
Posted by: Rachel | November 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Hi Bob,
Judy Abolafya here. Do you mind doing me a huge favor, please? That whole Salon article nonsense just about gave me an annuerism when it first came out, and I really can't stand the idea of being referenced in regard to it anymore. Of course, you're free to reference the article however you choose, but would you consider editing your initial post to remove the misquote that Lauren Sandler attributes to me?
I was trying to figure out how to email you directly, but couldn't, so hopefully you'll see my post. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Blessings,
Judy
Posted by: Judy | November 14, 2006 at 01:58 PM
I am the pastor of an A29 church which also happens to be a daughter church of Mars Hill. In addition to that, I have a long-standing friendship with Driscoll that goes almost to his conversion.
I say that only to say this...while Mark has undeniably created a lot of controversy with his words, I have no reservations whatsoever in standing by his character as a Christian man and pastor. I can also testify that he is under the accountability of both the Mars Hill elder board as well as the A29 board...none of whom are family members (which should weaken some of the cult accusations).
Mark is not perfect nor does he claim to be. Sometimes he says things that he has regretted, but I admire the fact that he has been willing to publicly accept responsibility and repent. As I see it, a big part of the problem is that like the rest of us, Mark's words frequently require some familiarity with Mark the person (rather than Mark the blogger or Mark the pastor) - which as you know or can imagine isn't easy to come by. Since most of us lack that kind of context, we are left to reconstruct Mark from his sayings alone which almost inevitably leads to caricatures.
Please don't hear me as saying something like "don't touch the Lord's anointed" here nor am I saying that your griefs are not legitimate. Rather I plead with you as a fellow Christian to approach this with a sober and humble heart. If Mark has sinned against you, you are obliged by Scripture to go to him privately - in other words, you should not be informing us of his sin against you. As I understand Matthew 18, it is at least a few steps before we get to blog-sized allegations. But even then, please note that the goal of church discipline is not punitive but restorative. Note also that Jesus follows up his instructions about discipline with a parabolic warning about not forgiving. My fear is that behind some of these accusations is a veiled hatred for the man and the ministry he has been given...an odd thing to find in a Christian.
Please pray for Mark, Mars Hill and A29. Pray that God would truly lead them into all truth and that Jesus Christ would be the one man who is lifted up for the world to see.
If you have a question for me about any of this, I'd prefer that you emailed me privately.
pete
Posted by: Pete Williamson | November 14, 2006 at 02:03 PM
"His teaching may disempower women. It may hurt emotionally. It may lead to gifts given by God to the Body of Christ not being used to their full extent. It may even lead to some women making choices in life to forgo education and live a life that is more hemmed in and constrained than necessary...
But none of these things, bad as they are, are abuse, oppression or misogeny."
I agree that he obviously is not a misogynist. He doesn't hate women, or his wife probably wouldn't still be with him!
But abuse might be a legitimate word from what I understand. It seems that hurting women emotionally or disempowering them to use their gifts in the body of Christ could be called "abuse". If not abusing women by "hurting them emotionally" etc. it is at least abusing his power as a leader.
But again, I have a limited understanding of what is actually going on at Mars Hill, all I hear are the chauvinist statements that he posts every week on his website. I'm not sure how that plays out in their church community.
Posted by: Dustin | November 14, 2006 at 02:06 PM
Oops, sorry...I just figured out to email you, Bob. Email is on it's way. :)
Also, thank you Phil for having my back on this. :)
Posted by: Judy | November 14, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Does this apply for female Episcopalian bishops, too?
Posted by: daniel | November 14, 2006 at 03:06 PM
Someone posted on my blog that they asked if he could talk with Mark and was told he would have to wait two years.
I never heard of a pastor saying that a person would have to wait two years to talk with him. (Is the line that long?)
That makes going to him privately a little difficult, don't you think, Pete?
Posted by: Helen | November 14, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Somewhere, there's a middle road.
I don't believe I have to pursue mark privately about publicly made comments. If I want to discuss those things he says on his blog on my blog, that's reasonable.
I do think that before I show up with a group of protesters at a church service of any churchl, I should seek a sit down with the elders of said church.
I understand where Mark is at- he has enough pastors/elders and deacons in his church that just meeting with them regularly would be a full-time gig, not to mention the 2000 members Mars Hill has who get the next crack at him, nor the 3000 some odd attenders who'd be next in line. This is one of my main beefs with mega-churches like MH.
But, I don't blame him a bit for not being avaliable to joe random who was offended by something he said.
That being said, when a large group of people register that they are concerned with his tone and the content of some of his writing, if a group of local church leaders seek to meet with him and the elders for a couple hour talk so they can get some things out on the table and listen to one another, I'd think that the elders of MH would want to accomodate that.
Posted by: bob | November 14, 2006 at 03:42 PM
Bob, not to be nit picky but...
I understand that you disagree with how Mark applies and works out headship, but don't you think it's a bit off-base to call that "really, really poor theology"? For one, there's a long tradition of Christian fathers who are in line with that. Along with the decent Christian leaders over at The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood today.
Gen. 3:14-19
You have to admit, it seems pretty clear which curse belongs to which party. I get that you don't like MD's theology. But you should say that, and not stoop to devaluing a legitimate interpretation that has been and still is held by many others besides driscoll.
Posted by: Jon | November 14, 2006 at 03:45 PM
of course it's difficult, but consider what you're asking. it's hardly realistic to expect that a blogger - who isn't a member and doesn't even go to his church - should have the same kind of access to the pastor's time as the members, is it? keep in mind that he is the pastor of a large and rapidly expanding church as well as a husband and father. that's not an excuse, it's just asking for some gracious realism in your expectations.
if your grievance is serious enough, then by all means I strongly encourage you to do what you can to see him but also to stay within the guidelines of biblical correction. even if you are convinced that he has strayed from Scriptural conduct, you aren't therefore free to do the same.
Posted by: Pete Williamson | November 14, 2006 at 03:46 PM
Exactly.
Well, again, I think it's a problem with megachurches that trying to talk to the pastor is not much easier (evidently) than trying to talk to the President of the USA.
I would hope so - although, would they be willing to talk to pastors who don't quite share their theology, do you think? Or would they consider it a waste of time talking to people who 'distort Scripture'?
I see that one local pastor has called for a meeting between some local pastors and Mark - here:
Open Letter to Mark Driscoll
Quoting from it:
Posted by: Helen | November 14, 2006 at 03:59 PM