Latest on the Driscoll, pt 2

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.

Comments

[Ellen]

Rosebud, you are reading into my words what I am not saying.

You just go ahead and do what you need to do in order to destroy Driscoll. If you need to believe that he hates women (a strong accusation) do it.

Disrespect (which is still wrong) is a far cry from hatred.

[Rachel]

"Perhaps if a pastor's wife gets all defensive about it, there's a reason."

Ellen, that's just cruel.

[Rachel]

"You just go ahead and do what you need to do in order to destroy Driscoll. If you need to believe that he hates women (a strong accusation) do it."

We don't want to destroy Driscoll. It is because we love him as our brother in Christ that we want him to correct these problems which are harmful to his ministry and to the public witness for the Gospel.

[Dan Brown]

Ellen, who has claimed (on this site) that Driscoll hates women, and who has expressed a wish to "destroy" him? I know that I'd much rather see him redeemed than destroyed, and I know he doesn't hate women, although I don't think he gives them due respect.

[Rachel]

"I know that I'd much rather see him redeemed than destroyed"

Well said, Dan! I agree with Bob that a public protest at a church service is not the best way to proceed and I personally would not choose to participate in it. I appreciate the protesters' desire to speak out against sexist, hurtful speech but I'm afraid that their own rhetoric has gotten over the top. And I'm concerned that the protest will only encourage Driscoll further as he will see it as "persecution for the gospel."

But I do think that we need to hold our brother accountable for his public testimony. I think that Rose's open letter was a good way to address the issue and I hope that Driscoll and MH will agree to a meeting for dialogue and reconciliation.

[Rosebud]

Hi Ellen,

I do not believe that MD hates women nor do I want to destroy him. Those accusations are unfounded.

Do you ever write about anyone in the public eye that is teaching things you don't find to be biblical? Does that mean you want to destroy them? Something else?

I didn't read anything into your words. I clearly asked you questions to clarify what you were saying. You wrangled with the meanings of words and evaded answering any direct question.

I do not agree with the public protest and I have advocated for a sit down so that people can reason with one another as believers are told to do.

As a believer, I pattern myself after the noble Bereans who did not accept any teaching unless they thoroughly compared it to scripture (or what was taught). I do not accept a teaching until I own it.

I truly hope you can see that most of us are legitimately concerned with no malice.

[Shari MacDonald Strong]

Hi, Bob, I haven't read all the above comments, but I'm planning to attend the protest and I wanted to address your questions: "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 think the main differences Jesus makes are: 1) there's the common ground of loving the same Jesus; and 2) we should be examining our differences in the light of Jesus' words and actions.

What does it mean to be a peacemaker? To me, bringing peace is about healing division. The division already exists: I've heard many reports of people who have been greatly damaged by Mark's teachings and have left the church. Some have sought therapy, perhaps others haven't. Some have left the greater church altogether. The reason I want to participate is, I want to help bring attention to this problem; only when people see it and start dealing with it can it be healed. I'm less concerned about what looks peaceful than what I ultimately see as a more big-picture peace: ending the abuse of women by Mark's words. I don't see disagreements or peaceful protests as "unpeaceful." I see them -- like the civil rights protests and the suffragette marches -- as a means to bring attention to a problem, in order to bring about a greater peace. Just like families have to confront their "dirty laundry" before they can be healed in therapy, problems in the church have to be brought into the light and dealth with.

What would it look like to bless Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill? In my opinion, the most loving thing to do is to stand up and say: "Please stop saying horrible things about women (and homosexuals, and Brian McLaren, and men you don't think are macho enough, and people who disagree with you theologically, etc.)." If he stops, the church will be a healthier place, and the people there will, in fact, be more blessed.

It's interesting to me that people are up in arms about a peaceful protest outside Mars Hill, saying that it's divisive. Why didn't people think it was divisive to the church when Mark Driscoll implied on the Christianity Today Leadership blog that Brian McLaren (who accepted gays in his church) has sex with sheep ("I would strongly recommend that all farmers, particularly those surrounding Minneapolis, lock up their sheep at night effective immediately")? Why doesn't anyone think it's divisive for him to repeatedly make demeaning comments about women: including mocking them for having "opinions" and regularly using the word "feminine" as an insult? Saying that anyone who is a feminist is "godless" ("an ungodly woman with a godless feminist agenda that she borrowed from the serpent, like her mother Eve in Genesis 3")? (Guess what? I'm a feminist. And I'm not godless.) Why don't people think it's divisive for him to call people names, mock people he doesn't agree with? For the congregation to laugh when he makes these "jokes" (Mark, in sarcastic voice: "I went to community college. I have a degree in women’s studies. I have a pushup bra and clear heels and opinions!" Congregation laughs.)? Since when has making fun of people been compatible with the gospel? How is it that nobody at Mars Hill is holding him accoutable for all of this? That no one requires him to apologize after such horrible accusations and statements? In light of all these things, how can holding a protest sign at a peaceful protest be the thing that's most divisive to the church?

In my opinion, standing up an saying, "Please stop saying these hurtful things" isn't divisive. Saying the things in the first place is.

[iggy]

Hey Bob... let's sell some t shirts!

Anti-Fundies
Fundamentaly
Against
Fundamentalist

Mark driscoll
You
Say
Outragous
Garbage
You
Now
Illicit
Social
Tyranny

or for the other side

Mark
Always
Responds
Kindly

what ya think?

Am i gonna get can of driscoll opened up on me now?

Blessings,
iggy

[gelowano]

first I had to fly, in the sky so high so high,