Driscoll and a biblical counsel

As a Brit in Hong Kong, I only came across Mark fairly recently. I have mentioned him in my own blogs recently. Once to express repugnance at his comments over the Ted Haggard affair and the other to say how helpful I found an article he had written. Maybe it's because of my own cultural background that I find that Mark's assessment of himeslf as 'one of the most influential pastors in America at one of the fastest growing churches in one of the least churched cities' somewhat smug.

My suspicion, however, is that controversy is like oxygen to him and that comments such as mine will only up his already high testosterone levels (see his latest blog). I find this sad, but I think we are going to have to learn to live with him and his desire to out-macho wimps like me.

Boy, I think Rose might be more of a street fighter than she thinks she is. I have great admiration for her courage in taking this on and the way she has gone about it.

Scot,

I've noticed this tendency lately in certain sectors of conservative evangelicalism towards a kind of macho, confrontational Christianity which offers an extremely narrow and rigid definition of masculinity, and seems to confuse abrasive rudeness with standing up for the truth of the gospel. I first encountered this when debating some of the proponents of the "marriage-mandate" theology being pushed by people like Al Mohler and Debbie Maken. When I protested the rudeness and childishness with which myself and others were treated, I was told to "stop acting like a girl." Apparently, in the new version of traditionalist conservatism, speaking to others with gentleness and respect, as Peter admonishes us, is no longer a biblical requirement. I've even seen people try to justify this kind of thing by saying that "it's not name calling because I'm telling the truth," or by appealing to Jesus cleansing of the temple to justify their rude behavior. It's exasperating to say the least. I'm only marginally familiar with Driscoll, and hadn't realized that he was among this group. I'm sorry to hear it, as I have no doubt that the more we see Christian leaders who talk and act like this, the more we will see this kind of thing happening among lay Christians and the more we will see certain narrow definitions being promoted and affirmed as "true masculinity" to the exclusion and demeaning of anyone who doesn't meet this narrow criterion.

While I agree with much that Rose writes concerning the maner and verbage that Mr. Driscoll uses part of the tenor of parts of her letter bother me. She claims to be harmed and hurt by the words of Mr Driscoll. That is placing her in the role of a victim, and that is not a kingdom of God position. His words may be boorish or rude, ungracuious and wrong but they can only hurt us if we allow it. Dismiss them, disagree with them, argue against them, but don't be a victim of them. I am servant of Christ and he will judge my service, so whether or not someone else considers my call worthy or legitimate is not or ever will be the issue. Jesus wasn't a victim, we shouldn't be either.

Wow. This is pretty amazing stuff.

I have been troubled lately by how many conservative evangelicals tend to try to emulate Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh in their rhetorical style.

The question is, who is influencing whom? Christians think we are influencing culture; but as I look at it, it looks (again!) the other way around.

RJS- but you have to allow that to happen. You have to give validity and weight to the comments. Jesus never allowed the words of others to define him or hurt him. He knew where his apporval came from. Not to be too argumentative.:)

First off: Thank you Rose, for penning this letter.

SecondlY: I find it so sad that this man who has a voice to so many, would misuse it so blatently. It saddens me that his arrogance speaks louder than the grace and mercy offered on the cross to him...and me.

Not too long ago, I read and loved some of what Driscoll had written, but upon viewing his own blog and writing, for now, he will fall to the "Driscoll Drivel" category.

Thanks for showing us this sad truth and I truly hope (and pray) he will apologize publicly and see his potential to tear down a body.

Kent,

I think that it is a fallacy to say that words only hurt if we "allow it to happen". The natural course is that words that are boorish, rude, ungracious, and wrong will hurt. We must fight against them and not allow them to affect us unduly, with God's help and the support of fellow Christians. This, I think, is simply part of being human and created for community.

While I read Driscoll's comments about Haggard a few weeks ago
with somewhat of an open mouth of dismay, I am not altogether
comfortable with this blogpost.

Why?

It strikes me as a bit of a double-standard.

Yesterday's post dealt with Brian McLaren, and when a person or two
questioned some of McLaren's own approach, Scot responded with
"he who is without sin . . ."

So why is Driscoll fair game?

I'm troubled by this, and I am NOT a Driscoll supporter in any way
whatsoever. But once Christians start 'protests' outside other churches,
isn't there something equallly wrong with that??

Yes, I applaud the approach noted in Rose's letter of asking Driscoll
to sit down with some leaders to talk. That is bibllical, but protests
by believers outside of another's church? (And nope, I'm not saying
Scot or Rose are supportive of that whatsoever. I'm just not convinced
that giving this huge play here is necessarily helpful either.)

I have little time so a short comment in support of Christine. I myself do not like nor agree with what Mark said on his blog, but Christine is right that there is a glaring double standard being applied by Rose and others who are angry with Mark but give Brian Mclaren nothing but praise. Let me be blunt. I find Mclarens descriptions of conservative/religious right Christians offensive, insulting, ignorant and dishonest. There is nothing "provocative" about what he says, its just hate speech of a type that is acceptable to many in emergent.

This blatant hypocrisy must stop.

Kent (#7, 11, 12) -

I agree with you that it is Christ who gives us value and affirmation and that he is the one who we should turn to as our defender. However, I also believe that Jesus meant it when he commanded us to go to our brother with our grievances (Matthew 18:15-16). As part of one body, the leaders of the Church have a responsibility to speak up, especially when the words of that particular leader are not only damaging the relationship between two leaders, but ESPECIALLY if those words are hurting the flock (i.e. the church at large). Rose Swanson has a duty here to speak on behalf of the women whom she perceives are being wounded by the words of this man. The Bible in Proverbs 31 says to "speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves". Would you have said that the men who protested slavery and spoke in contradiction to those who kept slavery in place were just victimizing themselves by speaking up about their grievances, even thought the Bible didn't say point-blank anywhere to "get rid of slavery"?

I understand that it can look like women are taking too much trouble to stand up for the right to not be continuously insulted and put down by a church leader, but how are we supposed to change a culture that allows these kinds of messages to be sent from the pulpit if we don't say something to the effect of, "Hello: I'm not sure if you're aware that what you are saying is damaging to the integrity of women within the greater body of Christ, but it is. I am hurt when you say things like that, and I would like you to stop"? Driscoll's words rob women of their right to be a part of the dialogue in an issue that affects their fate in the church the most, and this is perhaps one of the most devestating things of all. At the very least, the church should welcome the responses of the women themselves on both sides of this issue in the interest of valuing the voice of the members of this flock who are going to pay the price one way or the other for the decision that the Church at large makes regarding their freedoms within the institution of the church.

Christine and Shawn,
I'm not taking shots at Driscoll. I'm asking him, his leaders, and others from Seattle to get to the table soon. Look at what I wrote and why I posted this letter.

"While no one agrees with all of McLaren’s theology or praxis, they seem to respect his humility and character."

Sorry, but his caricatures of the conservative right politically are dishonest and arrogant. That for speaks volumes about his character to me. The double standard in emergent with this is sickening. Nor is Mclaren the only one who makes remarks like that. John Fry did it here recently when he claimed that those of us on the religious right dont care about poverty. Donald Miller has done the same in some of his writings. Dishonest hate speech against the right is given a free pass in emergent. Thats why, as much as I disagree with what Mark said myself, the response to him from those who praise Mclaren is plaiun old fashioned sel\ective hypocrisy.

Becky, I am not disagreeing with the fact that Mark Driscoll needs to be confronted, what I am saying is not to give his words more power than they deserve.

Scot,
Yeah: These folks need to get together and reconcile. I just scooted over to Driscoll's blog: it's a tough read, and I'd have to say: at some-not all-points along the way, I found myself agreeing with him.

But, how he depicted his points keeps me from aligning myself with anything he'd announce. Unfortunate, but true. Please this next statement is not about character! But, orthopraxis counts as much as orthodoxy, if I'm to understand Rose, Mark, and Scot. Feedback? Correction? Thanks for posting Rose's letter.

I've been watching this situation unfold with a kind of morbid curiosity. I think that Rose has done a gutsy thing here, but I'm not sure how hopeful I am. People with attitudes like Mark will typically fall into the "persecuted martyr" complex when their ideas and methods are opposed and will simply reinforce their "rightness" in their own minds.

It must be said that this is one of the Achilles Heels of Christianity in general. We expect people to not like it when we're right (Jesus said so, right?) so we find opposition to be an affirming thing. Even when we're dead wrong.

Matt,
You are correct when you say "People with attitudes like Mark will typically fall into the “persecuted martyr” complex when their ideas and methods are opposed and will simply reinforce their “rightness” in their own minds."

Many who hold to certain positions thought to be biblical and right have a difficult time "examining themselves whether they be in the faith." An attitude and practice of continually examining beliefs and positions requires humility and a committment to truth. Most cannot bring themselves to make changes in midstream. They have too much invested in their position. To change is to admit failure and wrongness. To many, this is unthinkable and unworkable.

In no way, though, does this mean that we can't be right about an issue. How we proceed in our rightness is vitally important when ministering to the Body of Christ. It cannot be ignored without suffering the negative consequences, which seems to be the case with many.

RJS

I agree with the sentiment of your post but is it not the case that the Bible uses plenty of rhetoric without stating or implying that it is ungodly? I was just thinking of Paul's attack rhetoric against the circumcision party, his sarcasm with the Corinthians, and his comment about the mutilators and dogs in Philippians.

About #30 and #34,

AMEN!

What Scot is attempting to do is noble. I will be watching to see what actually happens. I am skepical, though. The evangelical church in America is not very good at acting like a united body. As Rod said, "There have been too many times when individuals with influence have done or said inappropriate things and other people with influence have done nothing."

This is definitely the pattern I've seen. We are so fractured into our little power ghettos and into protecting our idiosyncratic theologies that we do little to create a true community. Driscoll, as much as I've enjoyed some of his stuff, has been one may have fallen into this kind of pattern.

Let's pray that those in Seattle (including Driscoll) can model what the Body of Christ is supposed to be. Reconciliation is supposed to be our hallmark..."only with prayer and the power of God (RJS) is this possible.

Martin,

I agree with you that the Bible often uses these kinds of rhetoric, but I still think that Christians need to be careful to not give themselves a carte blanche to be rude and demeaning to other people and then use these verses as an excuse. I have seen this kind of thing done in the recent past where someone called another person an idiot and then when called on their bad behavior aluded to Jesus cleansing the temple as a justification. I think this is dangerous.

A great example of someone who was able to use sharp and witty rhetoric against his opponents while still maintaining a charitable spirit towards them can be found in G. K. Chesterton. He was merciless in his criticisms of people like George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, but, at least from what I understand, was actually on friendly terms with both of them on a personal level.

Dave,
Well, I didn't say -- did I? -- that the Mars Hill is suffering; I spoke of the Church in Seattle. Big difference.

Your question at the end is fair; I weighed that and came to the conclusion that I could offer my support for getting together.

I'm glad you're drawing attention to this, Scot. I believe it is good for the Christian community to call out leaders who are, by words or action, misrepresenting Jesus and hurting His people. We should give Mark every opportunity to admit his wrong and repent. "Uprisings" are not exactly redemptive in nature; Jesus never encouraged it, and we shouldn't either. But if Mark refuses to see the light, it would be quite appropriate to stop recognising his leadership as exemplary in any way shape or form, and to begin to minister to him with mercy as someone in need of repentance.

Thanks for posting this letter. This past week has been hard for many women in blogdom who have repeatedly been ridiculed, ignored, and called names because we tried to say that Driscoll's words were inappropriate and hurtful. To be allowed to take a stand and let the world know that Driscoll doesn't speak for all christians has been hard when so many merely rush to his defense or deny the validity of our response. Like I said on my blog, I'm not for sure about the public protest thing. I'm just hoping that it will serve as a wake up call to the Driscoll followers that perhaps some thing sare inappropiate and that the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of women just might be worth considering.

#45 - Kent

I'm sure there is a very large contigent who would agree about a woman's place in the church and in the home. But I have a hard time thinking that much of anyone (except men who need to have nice-looking wives to stay faithful) would agree with what he said here: 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.

Honestly, when I read Driscoll's remarks the first time, the first thing that came to mind was the mullah in Australia who said that if a woman goes outside alone without full covering, she is basically asking to be raped. How did he say it? "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

And before you jump on my head, I'm NOT calling Driscoll a wacky mullah! I'm hope he's a well-meaning brother in Christ who has some views that are just VERY different than mine. But both his and the mullah's comments were revolving around sexual sin and where partial weight of blame might belong in such cases. Their similar views regarding the inequality of men and women can easily get stretched to their logical conclusion and become distorted into a belief system that blames the woman for the lack of restraint in a man. The natural progression of thought from Driscoll's statement to the mullah's statement does not take a large leap to get from one to the other.

This is what Spurgeon called "The Down-grade Controversy" It looks like he was on the mark. I believe Machen mentioned this in "Chrisitanity and Liberalism" What strikes me odd is the fact these books and thesis were written at least 90yrs ago. The problem seems to be those who do not take rebuke. The Proverbs says "Blessed is the person who takes rebuke." If someone does not want to follow orthodoxy then it is on their head. But when you take the bible and teach it from the pulpit to fit your agenda it falls on the head of the church. Those who read the Bible know that we can not follow the law but we have a Saviour who delivers us from the law "The law is perfect to convert the soul Psm 19" So let me suggest this if lines are being drawn "squishy gospel Jesus told us to just get along" v.s. "The Law is my school master Galations" Then you send me to school and hopefully it will be one that Pastor Mark is preaching at. Can I get a Amen? Protest or no protest we follow Christ to become perfect, which cannot happen on this earth but on the new one. Our job on this earth is to serve and worship the one created us by following the words in HIS Cannon.

Martin (#35),

Although there are isolated and localized instances of rhetoric which could fall into one of my categories - I think that they are just that, isolated and "surgical". It is not the preponderance of the NT text.

Paul is much stronger on concepts like love, humility, and a gentle spirit - say in Phil. 4:1-9, (v. 5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.) Romans 12, Ephesians 4:1-5 and many many other passages.

In light of this I think that we should emulate the bulk of Paul's teaching, and be careful to emulate the exceptions only in appropriate circumstances and as exceptions.

It seems that most of the people who write on this Blog are theologically Egalitarian and anti-Driscoll. I would like to write as one who admires Driscoll's edginess, and also agrees with much of his theology. A fair and loving conversation would include all of us, would it not?

In following Driscoll's thoughts for the last several years, I find that his stength (and weakness) is that he never compromises his beliefs just because some find them offensive. There IS strength in that, is there not friends? If we are always so afraid of "what people think" that we begin to compromise ourselves, we begin to live in slavery to what others think of us. So I admire Driscoll for sticking up for what he believes in. I know that he crosses the line, and he would admit that this is weakness as well. But honestly, I can see that he is trying to be charitable, while still being raw and honest, which is his personality and strength. He fails sometimes, but are WE really being charatible to HIM, when we are so eager to jump on his words?

For example, I attended a conference recently where Driscoll spoke of Brian McLaren. While he was unrelenting in disagreeing with McLaren's theology, he also described him as genuinely good person and a friend. I believe he was charitable, showing restraint in not making personal attacks, yet sticking to his guns that he does not agree with much of his theology.

Our goal, friends, in my humble opinion, is to first Love God and his Word. Then we must be charitable to one another in the things that we disagree upon. But I would also say that I think many of us fly under the cover of "tolerant and charitable" language, but in reality are just resorting to another sort of maliciousness.

Cherly, I am not agreeing with Mark's position, I was just saying he is not the lone voice in this conversation, and it would be good to get more than just mark into the conversation so all can learn to speak in respectrful tones. That was my point. And I don't jump. I can skip, but jump - not so much.

the problem i am having with this whole firestorm is that not one person who objects to what driscoll says has put their comments on his blogpost that was objectionable. rather, they take the cowardly route and gossip and slander the man all over the net. why not post or send him your comments, emails, etc rather than create more gossip and division? i don't agree with his views either, but i think the way this is being handled is a poor reflection on the church.

linda (#60),

As I read Driscoll's blog, it doesn't seem that most people can post their comments on his blog:

"Currently accounts are limited to people that attended the Reform & Resurge conference."

If this is true, comments about the cowardice of his detractors are unwarranted (besides being offensive).

Richie (#49) - I am afraid that to categorize the subordination of women by extremely influential leaders in the Church as a "non-essential" is a statement that is flawed in nature unless you can explain how you categorize "essential" and "non-essential".

At the risk of this argument being subjective, I must insert here that the women's issue, as far as I can see it, is only "non-essential" to those who are not affected by what it means. There are scads and scads of women who look at this issue and wrestle with what it means for their purpose in life. If you said to somebody, "I feel called by God to do this with my life, but it seems like some influential people disagree with that," and then that person turned to you and said, "I'm sorry, but that's just the party-line in some places. Either learn to live with it or go somewhere else," would that seem non-essential to you?! This is, after all, God's call on your life that we're talking about!

I cannot choose to believe that the debate over women's roles in the Kingdom of God is a second-class debate not worth dialoguing about, especially when it gets ugly. You may say, "Well, it's just a matter of who gets to serve where, who cares if it's at the pulpit or in the nursery?" But my claim is this: what the Church says about a woman's abilities and her role in God's kingdom is SUPPOSED to be in line with Christ. So if a woman walks into a church that says, "Jesus says this," then she will feel obliged to follow it most of the time, and unless she somehow gets another message somewhere else, she WILL believe that this is what Jesus says about her. So we need to take very, very seriously what we say a woman can and cannot do here on Earth, for Jesus or otherwise. The church is the body Jesus ordained to guide his sheep. This, I would wager, is the whole point of having a dialogue with Mark Driscoll: that the DIALOGUE, not just the message about a woman's role must be taken seriously and with utmost respect, care, and love for a woman as being equally loved by God.

b-w (#62),

you are correct. only certain people can post comments on driscoll's blogpost. my apologies. i do hope others will email him their comments. i just hate to see christians biting and devouring one another with the world standing by watching in morbid fascination. and apologies for calling others' behavior cowardly. i just don't like passive-agressive behavior by christians. we need to learn to confront one another in love rather than gossip and backbite. imo, this is one of the most destructive things that happens within the church.

peace,
linda

I'm trying to get a handle on this today, and it has not been easy. I want to mention two things that I'm thinking right now:

First, whether you and I agree with him or not, Driscoll affirms a view that is usually called complementarianism and most of the substance -- perhaps all of it -- not easy to tell sometimes -- of what he says reflects that viewpoint. Again, whatever you think of it, many Christians agree with his basic understanding of women in the church and home.

Second, the unfortunate thing is that many react (1) to his rhetoric and (2) to a history with him, and this series of posts he did recently is experiencing reaction to an entire history of how he has chosen to express himself. So, I think there is merit to the notion that the reaction to his posts is a reaction to the whole "Mark Driscoll thing."

Mark,

This is the sad thing. Christians are often kinder to unbelievers than they are to their brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus said that the world would know that we are his followers because of our love, especially our love for each other.

When I look through the qualities of the fruit of the Spirit, I don't see anything about doctrinal purity. I do see love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness.

We can disagree about doctrine, even in areas we might consider "essential" (though Paul's list of essentials seems to be rather short) without demonizing those with whom we disagree.

Doctrine is important. But one aspect of that doctrine is found in 1 John 4:20, "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar."

I personally think it is time to enact a zero-tolerance policy toward unloving behavior.

Scot has taken a great risk in making this stand. And I applaud him. This is not about who is right and who is wrong concerning the role of women.

It is about not abusing power. It is about being "peaceable and considerate." It is about showing true humility toward all.

And this doesn't just apply to one person (or one side) in this issue.

Hard on issues, soft on people--Christlike.

Rod

Dude, it's Mark Driscoll. I expect a certain level of what I saw on his blog. However, I will keep my focus on providing a safe and accountable environment for those I minister to as well as myself. Let all things be done with a spirit of humility. Thanks to Pastor Swetman for her response, to Scot for posting it, and prayers for the body of Christ. We clearly need a good washing.

Sillyputty,
sometimes I am kind of dense. Would you please explain your comment #72? I think it's sarcasm, but just checking...

Dana

Linda (#71)

I think you have the right idea as far as first steps in dealing with conflict. Absolutely solid first steps.

My understanding, and direct experience, is that all of those have been tried (and some for multiple years in a row) with Mark, there is still no desire on his part to hear concerns or dialogue.

No one wants to jump to having a protest as a first approach, and my sense is that isnt happening here (I know the organizers and they have been dealing with this for years). This is something that comes after many many months and even years of this going on. It’s not like the organizers of the protest read his blog, and immediately decided to form a protest. This issue has a long history and a context.

Personally, I am not hot on the idea of having a protest, but after years of this kind of thing going on, with no response from Mark, I'm not sure that its a terrible idea. I'm totally open to other ideas of how to get someone like this to dialogue who has refused to for years. As much as I hope Mark will respond to Rose's letter, I am very skeptical that he will since he has a long history of not dialoguing about this kind of stuff.

I know a protest seems absurd, but it's not so absurd when you realize that all the things you mentioned have been tried for years. My real hope is that it doesnt have to come to that, but I'm a lot more open to the idea than I ever thought I would be because of the context and history.

Scot,

Thanks for your response (#41). I see your first point. On the second, I am not convinced, but that is the glory of these sharpening exchanges.

Best,

Dave

Scot,

On a serious note. What role do guys like Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Tim Keller, etc. play in a situation like this? Do you think they would try to speak into his life about this kind of thing or that he would listen?

Jason

Helen (#81) says: "it’s Mark’s disrespectful remarks which are making him in particular the particular target."

I think that's the point. Mark is not the only one who's made disrespectful remarks, yet his remarks are "rhetoric" whereas McLaren's are "provocative."