Hermenuetics

Comments

The best response I've seen on this complicated myriad of issues. Thank you.

Posted By: Karen Swallow Prior | July 15, 2011 9:26 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful, gracious commentary on the past week's events--and the many good links. I've only recently found the hermeneutics blog, and I'm grateful to have found it--because of articles like this.

Posted By: Anne @ Modern Mrs Darcy | July 15, 2011 9:53 AM

Sharon, this is a very gracious and spot-on analysis. Thank you.

Posted By: Marlena | July 15, 2011 10:08 AM

Well said, Sharon.

Posted By: Gina | July 15, 2011 10:27 AM

It's easier to remain charitable when Mark hasn't aimed such hurtful words directly at you personally. But for every thoughtless thing he says publicly, he's said 10 privately to individuals left wounded on the sidelines. As for the "consistently positive feedback" you've heard from his church members -- there are literally 1000's in Seattle chewed up and spit out by his church who would be glad to offer different feedback. He is out of control and wounds many, many people each time he gets angry, frustrated, or simply flippant.

Posted By: Fran | July 15, 2011 10:31 AM

It seems we hold 'successful' leaders to a LOWER standard of accountability at times when scripture seems to do the opposite. We all sin but in a world of instant communication via twitter and other social media we have to understand the power of words.... and attitudes even more.

Posted By: Jim Mather | July 15, 2011 10:51 AM

" and in comparison with St. Augustine’s misogyny, Mark Driscoll could pass for a feminist."

This is a bit anachronistic, and unfair to Augustine.

Augustine's views reflect the prevailing attitudes of his culture, and his theological attention was largely elsewhere.

Driscoll goes out of his way to flaunt his resistance to culture and makes his specific views of gender one of four pillars of the church's beliefs:

1. Reformed Theology
2. Complementarian Relationships
3. Spirit-filled lives
4. Missional churches

http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/files/2011/01/30/20110130_mars-hill-church-annual-report-fy10_document_9299.pdf
- it's in their annual report.

Emphasizing "complementarianism" at the same level as the work of the Holy Spirit is terribly skewed, if not downright unbiblical and perhaps even heretical.

No doubt God can work through broken vessels, but the early church (including Augustine) worked to define doctrine against popular heresies, no doubt propagated by charismatic communicators, such as Driscoll.

I do not wish to attack him personally, and being "gracious" does not mean that distorted ideas need to get a pass. As Christian women, we are certainly allowed to speak up for ourselves, to criticize Driscoll's views and ideas in light of Scripture and tradition.

In fact, I think it's a good idea for us to do so. Particularly since evangelical women have historically been in the background, it's good for us to have a vigorous debate about these ideas among ourselves.

That's why I like this blog.

Posted By: Hannah | July 15, 2011 10:59 AM

Mark Driscoll is no Augustine, so the comparison is moot. His theology and attitude to women is demeaning and disempowering. Further, Driscoll has a macho swagger that is repulsive and un-Christ-like. A smirk exhibits no fruit or gift of the Holy Spirit, and he smirks often.

Posted By: Douglas Groothuis | July 15, 2011 11:07 AM

As a missionary wife and mom, I weigh every syllable that comes out of my mouth or onto twitter, facebook, blog, email or prayer letter. Self-censorship, self-control, and self-discipline comes with the territory. Unfortunately, Driscoll has yet to learn that, as evidenced by his verbal and scriptural faux pas and miscues. When one investigates this further, one learns this isn't just a once-off foot-in-mouth incident.

Instead of releasing a book to further clarify his prejudices, maybe he should consider counseling and we should consider looking elsewhere for a celebrity pastor.

Posted By: karen | July 15, 2011 11:10 AM

Hannah, you may want to check out the link I embedded in reference to Augustine's misogyny. His beliefs about women are indeed complex, but his words in De Trinitae are anything but orthodox. Given the particular quote about women not being in the image of God apart from men, I don't think we should give that statement a pass anymore than we should Driscoll's. Neither is excusable.

However, I don't want to go throwing around the word "heretic" in reference to Driscoll, nor do I feel confident assuming his motives by accusing him of "flaunting" his counter-cultural views.

Where I whole-heartedly agree with you is that we should express disagreement with ideas that are bad for the church, especially ideas that target historically oppressed members of the church and the world. I do, however, think we need to disagree with one another in a manner that is qualitatively different than the mud-slinging we see so often in the world around us. This piece was a gesture toward that end.

Thanks for your thoughts. They matter.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | July 15, 2011 11:15 AM

I should also add that it was not my intent to place Driscoll on the same level of influence and authority as Luther or Augustine. Instead, my aim was to highlight a hermeneutic within our tradition. As we look back on the history of the church, we have a tradition of receiving our teachers with a grain of salt, rather than nullifying all that they say because they are profoundly wrong on some things. We inherit a legacy of tremendous sinners, used in spite of themselves, by the grace of God. I don't want to make light of that.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | July 15, 2011 11:21 AM

I appreciate the gracious way Sharon addresses the most recent faux pas of Mark Driscoll. As a leader he is held to a higher standard, as a leader he is accountable for the words that come out of his mouth for they affect many. I concur with some of the comments above in regards to the need for Mark to submit humbly to the Spirit of God and stop demeaning half the population with his patriarchal theology. I am continually amazed at the following and the press given one who seems to preach with words that are hurtful, divisive and often offensive. Yes, grace needs to be given, but frankly we continue to reward him despite his lack of humble acknowledgement of his running of the mouth.

Posted By: Lori | July 15, 2011 11:22 AM

I actually agree with most of his theology. But he still needs to be held accountable for his words, and not just these recent words on facebook. He does this kind of thing over and over again, and evangelicals have excused it over and over again. At some point, you have to recognize that he's saying these kind of ugly things because his heart is ugly, whether you agree with his doctrine or not. ("Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.")

Posted By: Fran | July 15, 2011 11:30 AM

Amen, sister!

Posted By: Beth | July 15, 2011 11:31 AM

I appreciate the focus on our response as a church, as members of Christ's body, to such imbroglios.

Thanks for walking us through the situation.

Posted By: Sheila | July 15, 2011 11:48 AM

I didn't know this was happening and I have a couple of his writing on my blog but I like what you said in the last part of your piece,
"...I may not always agree with Mark Driscoll, but I believe in the Holy Spirit who works through him. If I find myself totally unable to learn from Driscoll or any other Christ-preaching teacher in the church, that probably would say less about the preacher than it would my own faith in the power of God."

I think it's very important that we don't forget that because it's not us that chose to follow the Lord, He chooses us and what we have to do for Him. As long as the Word is being taught, then it gives glory to God.

Posted By: Ingrid | July 15, 2011 11:48 AM

Remember that it was the devil, not God, who has enmity toward women. Misogyny (beyond what is culturally accepted) isn't a trivial issue in the church. It's a sign the gates of hell are beginning to prevail.

Misogyny is also a symptom of narcissism, or self worship, about which the Apostle Paul advised Timothy (II Tim. 3) to have nothing to do with them. Using femininity as an insult to men is a slur against women as well. At minimum, Driscoll is deeply in need of counseling. There is no place for an unchivalrous religious leader in the Christian faith.

Posted By: Megan Stewart | July 15, 2011 11:56 AM

But what if there's a deep neurosis happening in the leadership of Driscoll? What if, in criticizing Driscoll, everyone is getting at a deeper, more subtle problem beyond Driscoll just saying things off-handedly? Plenty are pointing out problems, if mainstream Christian journalism will at least start taking notice. Driscoll hasn't wounded me nor am I associated with his church. But it doesn't take much of an intuition in healthy spirituality and psychology to see something amiss here...

When is that subtle, un-health with large ramifications allowed to be addressed, for the sake of the church, for the sake of Driscoll himself (Driscoll can be replaced with many other pastors' names)? In Driscoll's circles, leadership is notorious for being spiritual bullies. It's a neo-fundamentalist subculture that has morphed into attracting narcissistic leadership. Until we can get to the heart of the issue, there will always be those on the sidelines, who have not yet been hurt, who will be puzzled why parishioners, who wanted to follow said leadership, are whistle-blowing.

By the way, was Paul addressing ill-intentioned "pastors"? They preached grace? That isn't in the text. Why would anyone preaching "grace" want to add to Paul's afflictions? Rather, they preached "Messiah." That was the point. If Driscoll or anyone wants to add a strain on the apostle himself, surely, we could all stand up and ask what Driscoll's motivation is and not dismiss it as carelessness. These are systemic issues... how many examples of spiritual abuse does one need before we can call it abuse? Oh, I wish spiritual abuse left the same bruises and blood as physical abuse, for then victims would be taken more seriously.

We need a more robust way of addressing these issues that dignifies those who are truly wounded rather than poking the wounded's sores.

Posted By: concerned reader | July 15, 2011 11:59 AM

"It seems we hold 'successful' leaders to a LOWER standard of accountability"

Maybe, but it would appear by the fact that we are all here (still) discussing Driscoll's comments that the opposite is generally true. There are plenty of less successful leaders who are not blogged about on a regular basis but would warrant an even harsher response. But we don't bother - why? Because they do not have the following that Driscoll does. I do not envy people like him in the spot light, who make a distasteful post on facebook and a week later have been rebuked in front of the world by thousands of people. I was rebuked 3x in one night once (all in private) when I was in college ministry. The last rebuke was actually just a misunderstanding, but by that point I felt so beaten down that I didn't even bother to explain myself. And they were gentle rebukes!

Just a thought: In the old days a council would convene and they would render judgement on the leaders teaching or actions. Now, anyone with a thought in their head and internet access can rebuke and condemn anyone they wish. I'm just not sure I would use my precious time to rail on a dude who's AT WORST doing a lowsy job reaching millions with gospel. He's got a church, he's got elders, he's under authority (as far as i know) - Let those who are biblically responsible do what they need to.

Sharon, good work with the text. I also appreciate your honest, candid response. I hope we can all learn to rejoice as you have described. I recommend everyone read the last paragraph of this post again. Especially if you sense you are about to say something silly like a "macho swagger" is "unchristlike". Definitely the first time I've heard someone be rebuked for the way they carried themselves...

Posted By: Jameson | July 15, 2011 12:02 PM

Too many of these comments feebly wobble on the fence of "love the sinner hate the sin". Mark Driscoll's inappropriate and un-Christian behaviour, by Christian (if not other standards), should be held to account and the witness of the Gospel: "Get the beam out of your own eye first", Mark. Then, perhaps you may approach Jesus' standards for purporting to be a vessel for the Holy Spirit and a compassionate heart in Christ.

Posted By: Seminarian | July 15, 2011 12:08 PM

Would we be so charitable and gracious if the 50% of the human race he was slandering were males? What if he was promoting that males were second class citizens? His idea of missional churches is a building in Portland hundreds of miles from Seattle with a big screen video of him "Preaching" as they announces several weeks ago. Missional or egotistical? So when you parse his version of the four Mark Driscoll pillars of the faith, Reformed, complementarian gender beliefs, spirit-filled lives (like his?) and missional it all falls apart.

Posted By: rick | July 15, 2011 12:08 PM

Sharon Hodde Miller:

Thanks for your article. I appreciate your charitable critique of Driscoll. And I believe, as you also do, that the Holy Spirit is at work in and through Driscoll, despite Driscoll's dangerous and harmful presentation of gender and discipleship. However, I think Driscoll's comments and his wider teachings on gender and discipleship might require a more thorough and insistent rebuke than you provide here, but this is a good place to start.

In my view, humans experience the world as gendered and sexed beings (regardless if one contends that all or only certain aspects of gender is socially constructed). Correspondingly, we inevitably do Christian discipleship or participate in the work of the Holy Spirit as gendered beings. However, my perception is that Driscoll often wrongly conceives of Christian discipleship by emphasizing the primacy of gender. That is, Driscoll often articulates his notion of discipleship through the lens of gender.

Instead, in my view, Jesus Christ should be the focal point of Christian discipleship for both men and women. I wouldn't be surprised if Driscoll agreed with me on this point. However, if one considers many of Driscoll's statements, it is often evident that his articulation of discipleship emphasizes gender over Jesus Christ.

Both men and women only know themselves properly, because God has revealed God's self to humanity primarily in the person and work of Jesus Christ. And men and women can only properly know or become their true selves by knowing and being conformed in the image of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; 3:10). Both men and women are to be conformed to the image of Christ. The emphasis in not being a male Christian or a female Christian. The emphasis is following Christ and being conformed to His image. And it is only through Jesus Christ that men and women know how or what it means to be human as both men and women. Yet, many people make this same theological mistake, not just people in vein of Driscoll (e.g. Carolyn Custis James). Bonhoeffer's books "Creation and Fall" & "Christ the Center" are particularly helpful on the point I am making here.

Also, I thought your comment concerning Augustine as misogynist was flippant and reductionist. I agree Augustine had misogynist views of women, but not all of his views on women are fairly construed as misogynist. I think it makes more sense to evaluate which of Augustine's views are decidedly misogynist and which ones are possibly commendable. Also, if you compare Augustine to his context, one may conclude that he is less misogynist than Driscoll is vis-a-vis Driscoll's context.

Finally, I recommend Matt Morin's discussion of Driscoll and masculinity and misogyny on The Other Journal website:

http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/

Posted By: Kyle Hamilton | July 15, 2011 12:14 PM

This article appears to (gently, but publicly) admonish those who've publicly admonished Driscoll for his public words that have hurt a lot of people. OK, Rachel Held Evans called him a name: 'bully.' But her post was, overall, quite gracious--she asked for an apology and called him her brother in Christ. She wasn't denying that God could use him for good. Was RHE's post an example of mud-slinging? I didn't think so. I thought her "godly men..." examples really insightful. And her main point seems to be that Driscoll seems consistently to represent his own brash, boisterous, even crass understanding of masculinity as BIBLICAL manhood. And he does it publicly. What's wrong with criticizing him publicly? He puts it out there, and he's had to retract and apologize more than once. Moreover, he seems to revel in his "bad boy" and "unpopular" image. I find much of Mark Driscoll's public speech quite offensive, and it's offensive in a way that's similar to the offense of those that Paul called dogs in Phillipians 3: that you have to be a macho guy to be a 'real' Christian man. (The Phillipians 'dogs' said you had to be circumcised to be a real Christian man.) Maybe Driscoll can boast in his own manliness (within a circumscribed cultural definition of manliness) but I thought that the whole point (Apostle Paul's whole point, the whole point of following Jesus) was to give up all those external markers of status, holiness, or whatever--masculinity, even, http://t.co/1zjI920--for the sake of Christ.

Admittedly, the public nature of the Internet, blogging, facebook, twitter, and everything else make for some confusing situations where the ethics of speaking are involved. In this situation, though, I really feel that the onus is on Driscoll to reign in his speech--not on his critics to reign in theirs.

Posted By: Rachel M. | July 15, 2011 12:16 PM

Perhaps this is a lesson to be learned here. Don't be guilty of PUI or BUI (Posting or blogging under the Influence)In a world in which information, ideas and opinions can be shared in seconds leaders (or everyone else for that matter) needs to think twice before sharing their ideas before thousands. Yes there is freedom of speech but no freedom from the consequences of what you say.

Posted By: Basil | July 15, 2011 12:18 PM

I greatly appreciate Sharon's comments, especially since she doesn't find herself in agreement with Driscoll on gender issues very often. A breath of fresh, discerning, unifying, and gospel-centered air.

Although the post isn't about WHAT Driscoll teaches about gender, it has inevitably gone there in the comments. All I ask, as a man who loves and cherishes his wife and daughter from a complementarian perspective, is for folks to pay heed to Driscoll's sincere love for his own family, sisters in Christ, and women everywhere. You can disagree with his teachings, but that doesn't mean he demeans or thinks little of women. I love my wife through a complementarian understanding of Scripture. Another man loves his wife through an egalitarian understanding. Our families may have different form, but the function and foundation remains a love for one another and for Jesus.

You're shooting down a lot of men who love their wives and children deeply when you demonize a belief system you disagree with. I'm grateful that Sharon had the maturity to recognize this, and I hope others are, too.

Posted By: Scott | July 15, 2011 12:19 PM

I'd also like to add that the Holy Spirit worked through King Saul, Balaam and Balaam's ass. The fact that the Holy Spirit may use him in no way excuses Mark Driscoll.

Here is the principle; "many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’"

Posted By: rick | July 15, 2011 12:23 PM

@Jim Mather: "Emphasizing "complementarianism" at the same level as the work of the Holy Spirit is terribly skewed, if not downright unbiblical and perhaps even heretical."

Are you suggesting "complementarianism" on its own is unbiblical / heretical, or is it the perceived view of equality between it and the works of the Holy Spirit found in the Mars Hill document you linked?

Posted By: PhxLuke | July 15, 2011 12:35 PM

P.S. - One quality that we often forget to long for and admire in our leaders is repentance.

Some leaders are - by background, demeanor or personality - less rough around the edges than others. Driscoll was once known as the "cussing pastor," and his attitude and behavior was far less wise and refined as it is today. He has elders both inside Mars Hill and outside who sit him down when he needs rebuke. He has publicly apologized and repented on numerous occasions. There is clear evidence of growth for anyone who knows his trajectory, and his personal ministry in Mars Hill, The Resurgence, and Acts 29 has bore much fruit.

Cross Reference: See Peter.

Posted By: Scott | July 15, 2011 12:40 PM

Honestly, I think this is small potatoes. He's sarcastic quite often. The apology was nice of him.

Posted By: Victoria / Justice Pirate | July 15, 2011 12:41 PM

"In Driscoll's circles, leadership is notorious for being spiritual bullies. It's a neo-fundamentalist subculture that has morphed into attracting narcissistic leadership." was posted above in the comments.

That is my concern also, watching from afar.

Posted By: Don Johnson | July 15, 2011 12:41 PM

I would agree with the previous comments regarding Augustine and Luther. The article is anachronistic and exaggerates Driscoll's importance. In fact, I think a big part of the problem is that Driscoll has been thoroughly taken in by evangelicalism's "celebrity culture" which has its roots in the era and work of Charles Finney. Only God knows what Driscoll's ministry is truly worth. We can leave it at that. But why does what seems at times to be such immature, childish behaviour warrant so much attention? Its actually become rather boring and predictable.

Posted By: mike | July 15, 2011 1:20 PM

Wow. Awesome.

Posted By: Matt Stephens | July 15, 2011 1:21 PM

I thought Rachel Heald Evans was wise: she counseled us to go to his elders, which I did. They are in a position to know whether he needs counseling, rebuke, praise or a reminder that the Internet is global; I'm not. I appreciated her counsel.

Posted By: Susan | July 15, 2011 1:24 PM

Hi Sharon!

yes, I looked at the De Trinitae link. Certainly not orthodox, as you say.

Nevertheless I see a qualitative and quantitative difference in Driscoll's continuing emphasis on gender and his views of masculinity.

I raise the question of heresy not to call him names, but because I think the way his ideas about masculinity intersect with Christology genuinely raise a theological red flag.

Others are more theologically equipped to address this question than I am.
http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/

But I don't feel bad about mentioning the possibility of heresy in conjunction with Driscoll's teachings - I'm certainly not going to hurt his feelings, and I'm sure he's not going to read these comments.

But meanwhile, we can discuss it on Her.meneutics:

Does Driscoll teach good doctrine with a bad attitude? Or are there problems within the doctrine he teaches?

I genuinely don't know the answer to those questions, but I'd like to discuss them.

Posted By: Hannah | July 15, 2011 1:26 PM

I cant help but wonder how much of the men not coming to church issue is because of the seemingly female oriented, emotional worship style worship we do, singing about love so often in a way that would make a masculine man uncomfortable.

Posted By: Brian W. | July 15, 2011 1:27 PM

Leave it to evangelicals to consistently fail to find the Biblical ground between two extremes. The drastic change in 'worship services' over the years has become completely geared towards females, primarily young ones, which has driven away countless men, young and old alike, who want no part of such a thing. But instead of an intelligent voice to help encourage churches away from that, we get a staggeringly immature boy who never grew up after high school. Driscoll has repeatedly thumbed his nose at everyone from John MacArthur on down for trying to make him see how un-Biblical his behavior is. He refuses to listen. There's only one scriptural option for a man so puffed up with pride - GET RID OF HIM!

Posted By: Julian | July 15, 2011 1:48 PM

There are many insightful comments here on this important story. One I especially appreciate is that by "concerned reader" at 12:59 AM. Something indeed much deeper than just Driscoll's careless tendency in remark-making is going on. (The observation of Douglas Groothuis is another good insight and something not to be passed over lightly.) And not just in Driscoll, but in all of us in varying ways... how we respond to anyone with a public ministry, whether small or large, is important for all. So while this discussion is valuable, I trust his church leadership and his closer friends are paying the most attention and doing soul-searching for what they need to be saying and doing.

Posted By: Howard Pepper | July 15, 2011 2:37 PM

I don't know Mark Driscoll personally, so I cannot comment on his character. However, based on his public persona, he is not a person I would like to know. Quite frankly, he comes off as a first-class jerk. I only hope that his words are not a true reflection of his heart. And when he claims himself as public representative of Jesus Christ, or has been called by God in that capacity, he is BIBLICALLY held to a higher standard than the rest of everyday janes and joes.

The last thing the Body of Christ needs is for its self-proclaimed "leaders" to bash others based on appearance and interests. In fact, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Jesus Christ, the head of the body and of the church, has called us to do and to be. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These qualities transcend gender or sex.

Posted By: Robyn | July 15, 2011 2:57 PM

I'm not a part of "Driscoll's church." I'm a part of CHRIST'S CHURCH, but I live no where near that congregation.

In spite of having never set eyes on the man, I have experienced deep hurt at Driscoll's words every time he degrades me, as a woman made in the image of God. Perhaps I should not take his comments "personally," but I find it difficult when he is so outspoken about how unfit I am for full participation in the church. I don't mean to diminish the pain of the people he has hurt in person, but... I'm just saying that the effects his words are much, much more far-reaching because of modern media, and I'm sure there are others who feel wounded in addition to those in Seattle. It actually makes me feel sick to my stomach just reading this blog post.

Posted By: Robyn | July 15, 2011 3:07 PM

A lot of people making comments but I have yet to hear anyone mention Driscoll's response to his faux-paw. I think like so many, he forgot that Facebook has it's limitations and shot his mouth off without thinking and I am sure that if you were to go read his post, you would see why he said what he said. His wording was off and abrasive, yes but I think we are making it far more than what it is.
The problems I see with a lot of Christians is that they want someone to hold their hand while they walk with the Lord and if they would pick up the Bible they would see that God is truly in your face to make sure you walk the narrow path with him. He's not going to canoodle you into submission, you either follow him or you don't, believe Him or don't.
Read his side and then comment.
http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues

and remember that if you are a true Christian, you are forgiving. Because we are not perfect.
God be with you.

Posted By: Ingrid | July 15, 2011 3:18 PM

Thank you for this bible-based, Christian-love filled analysis of this issue. It is very helpful to me because I listen to his preaching a lot on the internet, and follow him on FB, but was really taken back by his post.

The Holy Spirit knows how to set my mind and heart straight when I get too enamored over a particular preacher, and He through this article did just that.

God Bless!

Posted By: Eric Evans | July 15, 2011 3:27 PM

Having pastored churches for over 20 years and made more than my share of stupid sinful blunders, I appreciate your graciousness in dealing with Pastor Driscoll's sin. Two comments: 1) "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such you shall incur a stricter judgment" (James 3:1). This verse is an important warning to all of us who teach the Bible. All are accountable to God for every careless word we speak, but leaders have an even greater accountability. It is also interesting that this verse comes right before James' teaching on the importance of bridling the tongue. God calls us to both take sin seriously and to be ready to seek and grant forgiveness. 2) Paul is not indifferent to the teachers bad motives in Phillipians 1. His words seem to be more of a statement of his confidence in the power of the gospel (Rom. 1:16) and God's final judgment. If the real gospel is being proclaimed it has the power of God to change lives. Paul believes that this is more important than protecting his image in this case. He also is supremely confident that God will judge these teachers. By the way, don't forget that in this letter he has publicly pointed out their false motives.

Posted By: Gary Blevins | July 15, 2011 3:27 PM

All of us need to pause for a moment of reflection before we put forward anything in social media. Had Driscoll made the comment to a friend personally over coffee or a late night talk, sure, wave it off. Laugh, even. But when you are an influential leader, what you post to facebook or twitter REPRESENTS YOU. If you're Patton Oswalt, we expect you to say snarky, offensive things because you're a comedian. When you're a pastor who represents Christ and who claims to want to motivate and change a community, you don't joke about gay-seeming worship leaders. Let's just call it what it is; the effeminate remark is veiled in homophobia, which in many cases is brushed aside by the church because of its beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. Using it in a careless remark hurts the church as a whole no matter what you think of being gay. It's also demeaning to women to use effeminate as a slur against men. This is 2011 not 1950. Emergent? Really?

In addition, I would urge anyone interested to dig a little deeper at Driscoll's views on women. His church supports increasing the population of Christians by encouraging families to have children and raise them with Christ. What could be wrong with that? But what if you're part of Driscoll's church and you don't feel called to have more than 1 child, or any at all? It shouldn't be an issue if you're serving Christ. There are stories from their congregation that say otherwise. Salon did a story in 2006 that skims the surface of this: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2006/09/13/righteous

Lastly, I wanted to mention I'm impressed by the discussion in the comments here. Thanks to everyone for being civil and bringing forward discussion points rather than talking at people.

Posted By: Stephanie | July 15, 2011 3:29 PM

As an older pastor, I have become increasingly concerned with the artificial masculinity being promoted within the Church and the society at large. It is a masculinity more reflective of the bully on the playground, the sports star with his "ladies", and sad to say, the pornographication of our culture thanks to the internet and the visual media than of the manly virtues of courtesy and self-sacrificingly hard work of ages past. Christian men (and women) are becoming increasingly coarse in their speech and manner. And, alas, coarseness produces conflict and strife.

Posted By: Dale | July 15, 2011 3:31 PM

I have been talking with friends a lot about how we can disagree Christianly. We came up with three basic issues. I think all of them have been mentioned either in the article or in the comments, but I will still summarize.

1) If you believe that a brother or sister in Christ is wrong, then any attempt at correction should primarily be about drawing them toward Christ, not about publicity to yourself, or drawing the other person from a position of leadership.

2) The relationship in the long term is more important than the specific issue. Some may disagree with this one, but I think it is really important. Paul does say turn over the sinner to Satan, but I think in context that the intent is to draw a person back into the church, not to banish. That is what I thought was so wrong with Piper's tweet about Rob Bell. It may not have been intended as a banishment from the church, but many people took it that way.

3) The best way to address disagreement is in the context of primary relationships. This is often hard, because it assumes that those in need of rebuke have relationships that are willing to rebuke them. I do think in this case that asking for the Elders to rebuke Driscoll was the right approach. I live across the country, have never met the man and he has no real reason to listen to me. But he does have a relationship with his elders and those are the people that are intended to hold him accountable.

However, given all that, I tend to basically dismiss Driscoll because he has said so many things that just seem to be poorly thought out. I do not dismiss his ministry or the fact that he is a Christian brother, but I am not going to give him a lot of credibility because he has shown on a number of occasions to have said things that just are inappropriate to the situation.

Posted By: Adam Shields | July 15, 2011 3:34 PM

We are all called to be held accountable. Even pastors. When you have a platform and publicly act in a way that is unbiblical and unloving, should you not be held responsible?

Is the line of logic of this post that because you do good in some ways, when you err it should be ignored? Didn't Paul "call out" Peter, a great apostle, for not eating with Gentiles? Boys will be boys?

I don't have an estimation of Driscoll, but I know a harmful statement when I read one.

Posted By: Snow | July 15, 2011 3:58 PM

I cannot take lightly Driscol’s dismissal of 50% of the human race as unfit for ministry in the church. Fit to breed and raise children as he teaches. His joking about gender is not funny, it’s sick. I have a smart capable daughter and Driscoll's attitude towards women annoys me greatly. Early on he was called the cussing pastor for his foul mouth from the platform. He recounts the story of removing an elder who disagreed with him after he got advice from a martilal arts instructor to break his nose (he didn’t, but he delights in recounting the advice). He is full of himself. He calls himself missional because he rents out buildings and projects simultaneous video of his sermons to adoring audiences. Or we can buy his books where he expounds on his theology. Now this week he amuses himself by making fun of “the most effeminate anatomically male worship leaders “. Rachel is right, he is a bully. The kind of guy who wore a football letterman’s jacket and made my high school life miserable because I hung around in the art department. I am 100% male, not gay, but I am a painter, I like to read poetry, I appreciate dance, I think football is boring, I climb mountains and ski. I also love Jesus with all my heart. I belong to the Foursquare denomination that ordains women and has many woman missionaries. One third of the leaders that Paul greeted in Romans 16 were women. Mark Driscoll is a whack job that we should all be ashamed of.

Posted By: rick | July 15, 2011 4:09 PM

I'll let Mark Driscoll speak for himself:

“My tone, my attitude and my mouth are indicators of how closely I walk with Jesus. I have come to realize that I speak for more than just Mark Driscoll.”

“I hated going to church and wanted one I liked, so I thought I would just start my own.”

“There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”

“Ladies, let me assure you of this: if you think you’re being dirty, he’s pretty happy. Jesus Christ commands you to do this.”

"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."

“Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality.”

“I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horny, so I went out on a limb and preached through the Song of Songs. ….Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, foreplay, oral sex, sacred stripping, and sex outdoors, just as the book teaches…This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like ‘p****’ and ‘oral s*x’ is unusual, and before you could say “aluminum pole in the bedroom,” attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week.”

Posted By: Elaine | July 15, 2011 4:19 PM

Mark Driscoll made a silly remark.He apologised.

I don't recognize him from all these remarks?
I can only say that i have found his preaching very refreshing and helpful and biblical...

Posted By: sally | July 15, 2011 4:26 PM

Projecting ‘macho” as the only type of man, speaks to me of deep inadequacy and insecurity. If you were truly a man (of whatever type) you wouldn’t continually need to talk about it. You would simply live it, demonstrate you are truly comfortable in your own skin and point beyond yourself to Jesus.

Posted By: Pat Thompson | July 15, 2011 4:27 PM

Posted By: rick | July 15, 2011 4:09 PM:
Ministry is one thing, mission work is another. How do you know the women mentioned in Roman's 16 were ministers?

Posted By: Ingrid | July 15, 2011 4:36 PM

Ingrid, what is a minister? If I simply do a word search in a concordance I find many women called ministers (Matthew 27:55 etc). But I think you have some special meaning in mind. Such as “Pastor” (Greek: Poimen). A word used only once in the entire New Testament and never defined. We have prophets named, elders, deacons, teachers and evangelists named but no one is ever called “the Pastor” or “The Preacher” or “The Minister” in the Bible. But let’s say you are right. Your gender, women, are too gullible, too easy to decieve, too emotional and just not well informed enough, unfit to “minister”. Then why are you even discussing this with me? I am, like Driscoll, a man. Perhaps you should stick to having babies, decorating and satisfying your husband’s sexual urges.

Fortunately I don’t believe that and neither did Jesus.

Posted By: rick | July 15, 2011 5:17 PM

Sharon Hodde Miller is way too positive in her criticism of brother Mark. James 3:1 is the standard. There is a pattern of spiritual abuse in so much of what Mark has said about women, about men who are not jocks, and about people who have taken exception to some of his thoughtless and hurtful pronouncements. His constant use of coarse language (which is, sadly, more common among believers than it once was) is certainly not a good model for a NT disciple of Jesus. Mark needs help. My guess is that he does not feel any need of help, nor is he likely to feel that he has done anything wrong. I hope that the elders of Mars Hill will insist that he take a break from his church work and focus, with the help of an experienced counsellor, on his inner spiritual life. It is time for a sabbatical, at the very least.

Posted By: Ward Gqsque | July 15, 2011 5:56 PM

STOP IT! Once more with feeling, STOP the tired old canards that slander St Augustine. Contra Doug Groothuis, the comparison is inapt not because Driscoll is no Augustine (on that, if on little else, I do agree with my old friend), but because Augustine was no misogynist.

Sheesh, do I really have to repeat the corrections to the slander of the saint? I won't because anyone who gives a fig s out the truth of the matter already knows the truth or is capable of finding it.

Posted By: Kamilla | July 15, 2011 6:07 PM

Thank you Sharon for wise and balanced commentary. I would personally change your subtitle to: What do we do with the fact that Christian leaders are imperfect? This expectation that we have, as some commentators above betray, that leaders should and do 'walk on water' is both naive and sad. Correction will always be necessary because in this life sin will always abound, but that grace might abound more so leading to righteousness. How so easily we invest in our leaders the faith and expectation that is, and should be, the repository only of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Posted By: David | July 15, 2011 6:19 PM

Thanks for presenting a thoughtful article on Pastor Mark Driscoll. I used to visit Mars Hill Church in Ballard years ago and actually saw him give many inspiring and oftentimes humorous sermons. It's unfortunate to me that a pastor as gifted as Mark Driscoll has to utter such painful and hurtful comments in so public a forum.

First of all, it is completely uncalled for him to do this. Mars Hill Church has seen an explosive rate of growth over the years, in large part due to his style of leadership.

I never became a member of Mars Hill Church and stopped going to services there. While I commend Pastor Mark for helping to bring more young people to Christ, I felt that his personal style was totally inappropriate for a Christian Church. If I wanted to see and hear stand up comedy, I could go somewhere else.

Posted By: Matthew Cloner | July 15, 2011 6:29 PM

A couple responses...

First, there seems to be a general misconception that I am somehow excusing Driscoll on the grounds that he is imperfect, or calling Christians to ignore his bad behavior. To those of you who came away with this impression, I would ask you to read the post again. At no point do I take that position.

For those of you who feel I did not come down hard enough on Driscoll and that harsher criticism is warranted, there is more than enough of that material already on the internet. I don't know how I could possibly add to it. As I said, I disagree with Driscoll entirely on this issue, but I hoped to push beyond the over-stated and think about what this means as a larger community that is forgiven by God and defined by grace. We do ourselves and Driscoll a disservice if we do not have that conversation.

Second, for those who believe I was too reductionist in my summary of Augustine, I would again encourage you to check out the link embedded in that segment of the post, which weighs the complexities of the issue more carefully. I did not have room to engage it fully here, but suffice it to say that his views on women were not blameless. I say that as someone who ADORES Augustine, and I think it is more than fair to disagree with some of his ideas on gender.

Again, we need to speak up when a Christian leader misrepresents Jesus--I support that sentiment without reservation. But we need to do so with wisdom, love, and grace. That is all I was trying to communicate.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | July 15, 2011 6:51 PM

To live today is to be effeminate. Men who abdicate their God-delegated authority and responsibility are the norm in Western culture. The biological and psychological and (especially) spiritual bifurcation of sex has been replaced with the infinite continuum of "gender," so who would even think to condemn womanly men or manly women? Although Scripture condemns men who are "women" (e.g. Nahum 3:13), we're quite precious in our conceit that we've arrived at a time and place when, finally, we've evolved to the point that we're less sexist and kinder than the Holy Spirit. We'd never be caught dead calling any man "womanly" or "effeminate!"

For two decades, now, I've kept track of the loss of 'effeminate' from contemporary English usage--not just the word, but more the concept. When men attack and destroy God's wonderful diversity; when men rebel against God's Creation Order by promoting androgyny; it becomes quite difficult for anyone to see that effeminate soldiers, professors, fathers, judges, presidents, worship leaders, elders, and pastors are God's curse. "O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths" (Isaiah 3:12).

So really, the failure of Pastor Driscoll was not his use of the BIblical concept of effeminacy, but that he neglected to point out that it is sin.

Go back a century or so, prior to our decadent time, and our fathers in the faith condemned womanly men all the time, often using the word 'effeminate." Here's one of my favorites:

"Indeed it is appropriate to repeat here once again what I mentioned before, that fault must not always be found with the servants of Christ, if they are driven with violent force against professed enemies of sound doctrine, unless one is perhaps disposed to accuse the Holy Spirit of lack of moderation. ... the vehemence of holy zeal and of the Holy Spirit in the prophets was like that, and if soft, effeminate men think it stormy, they do not consider how dear and precious God's truth is to Him" (Calvin on Acts 13:10).

So when Doug Groothuis smears Pastor Driscoll, claiming he's a sinner who has "a macho swagger that is repulsive and un-Christ-like," what he really means to say is that he's a soft, effeminate man who thinks Pastor Driscoll "stormy."

Posted By: Tim Bayly | July 15, 2011 8:04 PM

Sharon--nothing I like better than wise peace in the middle of a short-sighted storm. Thank you for your wisdom.

Posted By: Mark | July 15, 2011 8:36 PM

Wish you would have addressed Rob Bell in his heretical error. Funny that people want to attack Driscoll for his slip, but fight over blatant false teachings of Bell and McLaren. Get some perspective.

Posted By: Brian Webb | July 15, 2011 9:33 PM

Driscoll loves his wife, daughters, and women in general. All of you that say otherwise are simply ignorant.

Posted By: Bray | July 15, 2011 9:41 PM

I thought Driscoll's post was somewhat amusing, and I am speaking as a man who was often regarded as effeminate when I was younger. (It was just that I was small and had "pretty" features; I was always crazy about girls) I think that real manhood can be found across the entire spectrum of men from exaggerated macho to somewhat effeminate. Some men blessed with a proponderance of testotosterone can be deficient in real manliness. (I think you women know what I am talking about.) Our culture seems so confused about this, and one unfortunate aspect is that men who are not on the macho end of the spectrum may feel pushed in the direction of homosexuality. My own life experience taught me that in the context of work or sport, if a man, any man, makes a whole-hearted effort he will win the respect of other men and definitely not be the last one chosen for a team.

Posted By: Bob Srigley | July 15, 2011 9:49 PM

I am seeing stuff like this so much in the protestant evangelical expression of Christianity. I think it would be good to reconsider church function in these circles. The heavy focus on preaching gives a pastor an average of 45 min to 1hr on Sunday mornings to run his or her mouth. These ramblings carry over into media forms. Mars Hill uses video feeds of Driscoll in all the Mars Hill churches. I don't think a man should have this much theological influence on so many people. Why do so many people want to hear Driscoll preach? I think it is due to unbalanced worship among the saints. I visited Mars Hill (Ballard campus)and Driscoll's preaching was the focal point of the service for sure. He preached over an hour. I suggest Mars Hill do an experiment for several years. Limit Driscoll's preaching to 20-25 minutes heard at one campus. What do you think would be the outcome? How would Driscoll respond? How do you think people would respond? What would this show us about protestant evangelicalism?

Posted By: Ryan | July 15, 2011 10:32 PM

Yep, right. I'm going to go to a secondary source that quotes the gnostic scholar Pagels for an assessment of St.Augustine. Heaven forbid we should go to the source and read the quote in context. May it never be!

Posted By: Kamilla | July 15, 2011 11:08 PM

Tim Bayly and others think the point of the outcry is that Mark talked about effeminate men. YOU MISS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. It's not WHAT Mark talks about but HOW he talks about it. He violates every principle in Ephesians 4 publicly on his blog or facebook page at least once a year. Even if I agree with his views on gender, EVERY Bible loving Christian ought to stand against his sins of the mouth. They are every bit as sinful and harmful (if not more) to the church as any problem you see concerning gender.

Posted By: Fran | July 15, 2011 11:14 PM

Driscoll is one of my three Pastors I look to for spiritual wisdom. One reason is he is not PC and lives for Christ not approval from others. He preaches from his gut, his heart. Jesus offended many who followed Him. Mark Driscoll loves Jesus, Mark Driscoll is doing Gods work, Mark Driscoll is NOT perfect, and some people (who are envious, jealous, gossips, and self righteous) want to pick a fight w/ Driscoll because he is a powerful, successful, and a respected Pastor-Author-Leader-Husband-Father! Instead of criticizing him why not pray for him. Not because you think he is wrong but, because he is fighting against the kingdom of evil! Some men in the church need to grow a spine, start being a man. Not a milk-toast, dead fish handshake, estrogen influenced effeminate male. BTW, Paul spoke against men being effeminate!

Posted By: Kirk Morris | July 16, 2011 1:04 AM

We all go through life leaving a signature. We characterize people as being overtly loving, overtly faithful, overtly trustworthy, overtly crude, overtly self-deprecating, overtly self-effacing or overtly mischievous, and on and on the analysis goes.

What signature would you attribute to Mark Driscoll? Is it overtly God-like, overtly Christ focused, overtly submissive to the Word of God, overtly edifying to ALL members in the body of Christ, or is it something that gnaws at you, and you can't quite bring yourself to say it is axiomatic and self-evident?

A Christian's signature should ultimately be a Christ-like demeanor, of one who is perfecting holiness in the fear of an awesome, holy, and majestic God, this should be inclusive of his or her manner of speech, thoughts and actions. Does Mark hit or miss this mark? Up for each to decide, isn't it?

“The heart of the WISE instructs his mouth And adds persuasiveness to his lips. Pleasant words are a honeycomb, Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones (Pro 16:23-24).”

Posted By: Mary Elizabeth Tyler | July 16, 2011 1:18 AM

As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about human leaders! 1 Cor 3 19b-21a

Posted By: A. | July 16, 2011 7:37 AM

1 Tim 3:1-2

1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

With emphasis on 'self controlled' and 'gentle'.

Posted By: Tone | July 18, 2011 10:43 AM

"Martin Luther was a notorious anti-Semite"

I hear this almost every time Luther is discussed in Christian circles, and very rarely see people back it up with specific examples. Can you please provide an article, or some of Luther's writings, or a reference to a book, to back up this statement? I am not in the absolute least denying it, or saying this proof doesn't exist, and have absolute ZERO intentions of being an apologist for anyone beholden to anti-Semitism, but people tend to repeat this statement without citation or evidence, and I'd like to see something that will tell me more about it. I assume something, somewhere reveals this, but I don't know what it is. You included a link for St. Augustine; please do something similar for Luther. Thank you.

Posted By: Anne | July 18, 2011 11:04 AM

@Anne - Luther didn't start out as anti-Semite - it developed over the years. I think his treatise "On the Jews and their lies" is pretty self-evident. I've not read it, but I've read enough quotes from it. Check it out on Wikipedia

I really don't know who this pastor is - but I felt that Sharon's response is wonderfully crafted.

Posted By: Leslie | July 18, 2011 11:37 AM

This man has some deep, deep issues. It's only going to get worse.

On another note, I'm not so sure about the people that Driscoll appeals to.

Posted By: K. | July 18, 2011 12:41 PM

@Anne please see CT's article "Was Luther Anti-Semitic?"
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1993/issue39/3938.html

Posted By: BJ Community Manager | July 18, 2011 1:18 PM

I will cut him this slack...he has allowed the Holy Spirit to sift and form his character in the most public of arenas. He has been a work in progress form his first sermon, and it is what attracts an otherwise disinterested culture to the gospel...they see a brave beat up soul wanting to surrender to God, and risking a lot of personal grief in the process.
He will write the most cogent and spirit-filled pages followed by some really silly immature paragraphs that demonstrate a person who loves God, but has a narcissistic nature that wants to upstage whatever God is doing in his life. Who does that remind me of...oh yeah, Peter.

Posted By: Anonymous | July 18, 2011 1:56 PM

I read Mr. Driscolls apology from the link posted above. Unfortunately I think I would be more inclined to accept it as sincere if it was indeed more of an apology rather than paragraphs of justification of his ideologies. A simple sorry would do just fine.

Posted By: Geoff | July 18, 2011 2:03 PM

"What strikes me as funny and quite sad is that most of the people who are responding negatively about Dricoll, either calling him a heretic, unrepentant, seemingly above disciplinary action, or referring to his sermons as "rambling", have not listened to Driscoll's sermons, read his books, or almost equally important, listened to his interviews and articles where he talks about gender."

This commentor is apparently omniscient like Mark.

Posted By: Chris Massey | July 18, 2011 2:54 PM

Thank you BJ Community Manager for the link to the article.

Posted By: Anne | July 18, 2011 3:01 PM

The fact that there is any significant number of Christians in America who don't immediately recognize Driscoll as a ridiculous clown - or that there is anyone willing to make him their "leader" - is far more alarming than whatever foolish quip this slovenly prankster has uttered in the last 5 minutes. Seriously, folks. Is evangelicalism so desperate for leaders that we're settling for clowns like this? I can recite the 5 points of Calvinism - and I bet I could make Driscoll tap-out of an MMA match within 45 seconds. Can I be a mega-church pastor? The answer is apparently "yes," if Christians accept this clown.

Posted By: Mr. Pibb | July 18, 2011 3:03 PM

Martin Luther actually had a great zeal for wanting to convert Jews to a belief in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. And those who he helped lead to the Holy Spirit, he accepted into full brotherhood. He also did not hold the Jews to blame for the death of Christ, like many others did. He wrote many hymns, and in one of them, it says “We dare not blame … the band of Jews; ours is the shame.” He also wrote a work titled "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew."

Luther was asked about how to baptize Jews, and some anti-Christian propagandists wrote some foul thing that he did not say. " In truth, Luther's answer is: "You must fill a large tub with water, and, having divested the Jew of his clothes, cover him with a white garment. He must then sit down in the tub, and you must baptize him quite under water. The ancients, when they were baptized, were attired in white, whence the first Sunday after Easter, which is peculiarly consecrated to this ceremony, was called dominica in albis" Luther totally accepted Jewish converts as brothers. It is true, that in later years, he became frustrated at the low numbers of Jews who would accept and believe in Jesus, although many had come to Christ through him. Luthers' later responses were not to a race, but to a group of people who were very hard-hearted and difficult to bring to conversion (please read where God often calls them hard-hearted).

If he hated them as much as is said about him, he would not have had such a zeal for converting them to Christianity. He also had very strong words against Catholics who refused to convert, because he saw such corruption in the church at that time. In any case, he did lead a lot of Catholics and Jews to the Lord. When I look back at my genealogy in Germany, where the church still stands from the 1100's, there are quite a few people with "Jewish" names who in the 1500s, 1600s and later were baptized, confirmed, and married in the Lutheran church. I am a Christian today probably because of my ancestors raising each generation based on the 3 sola's from Luther: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Sola Gratia. Bible alone, saved by faith alone, and through God's grace alone.

He was far from perfect, but so are we all. Anti-zionism is throughout Europe, the middle east, and of course the US. There was a post from a pastor just a few days ago against the Jews, it has happened throughout their history, as God says it would. College students on US college campuses have refused to let speak pro-Israel speakers. So, this continues today, and has throughout their history, which doesn't make it right. At least Luther had a heart for converting them, what have we all done ourselves?

Posted By: Barbara | July 18, 2011 3:13 PM

Driscoll was on the money. The talk here is embarrassing over-reaction. Ask any guy you know: none like effeminate leaders. We need more men in church, not to scare them away with gay cheerleaders. That's the hard truth.

Posted By: Joe | July 18, 2011 5:03 PM

Joe, you think there are GAY CHEERLEADERS leading worship at other churches? Ah, I see you are a disciple of Mark Driscoll's Fight Club. What in the world are you talking about? Mark Driscoll said he would have a hard time worshipping some limp wristed hippy Jesus "because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up." Not only is Driscoll a bully and offensive, He is convinced he is brilliant and broadcasts big screen video of himself yammering away for an hour to other of his "Church Plants" every Sunday morning. His apology was a lecture justifying his statements. The talk here is not embarrasing over-reaction, it is a dose of reality.

Posted By: Rick | July 18, 2011 6:42 PM

did you even read mark's comments on his "response" they were not an apology- in fact he seemed quite proud he was able to relate with a non-christian homophobe and possibly lead him to christ through that connection... Mark is D for Dumb

Posted By: Jesse | July 18, 2011 6:57 PM

Earlier today, I posted a question - why on earth would Evangelical Christians follow a thuggish man like Mark Driscoll, a man whose coarse demeanor mirrors the silly infantile "masculinity" of tattooed, body-pierced Cage-Fighting fans? It is deeply alarming that Christians would be looking to a "manly man" like this for leadership. I'm sorry if this man can recite the Westminster Confession and the 5-points of Calvinism backwards and forward. He simply isn't worthy of leadership - and honestly, I doubt anyone living 50 years ago would even consider him worthy of respect. As a Christian, I find him spiritually defective and unChristlike; as a thinker, I find him vapid and uninteresting; and as a man...well, if I answered that honestly, CT would probably remove my post. I simply don't see why this individual even has a following at all.

Posted By: mr. pibb | July 18, 2011 8:10 PM

Very interesting article. My first thought was that this is a publicity stunt by Driscoll. As I thought more about it, and reading some of the other things about him, I'm just floored that someone could take something as beautiful and wonderful as Christianity and twist and pervert it to something ugly like this. Is it a wonder that many don't want to be Christians? By the way, Elizabeth Drescher at Religion Dispatches has an article that also has some interesting information about this situation.

Also, in her post above, Elaine quotes Driscoll on how women are easily deceived. In the many, many studies on gender and intelligence, there has in fact been no study that has found a difference in the intelligence of men and women. Every empirically valid study has found that there is no statistically significant difference between the intelligence of men and women. Something to think about.

Posted By: Patricia | July 18, 2011 10:52 PM

Patricia, I remember, there was one study, conducted in UK with a result that can be stunning to our feminized society! It stated that women are much less successful in math NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE DISCRIMINATED! (That article about scientific study was also removed quickly from BBC site). So what? It does not mean that anybody can do a better job in keeping my records, than my wife! May be, the best women's abilities are all in different areas?
And, by the way, how about being deliberately submissive to a husband - a very important statement from the Gospel we all enjoy? Good night!:)

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 19, 2011 12:23 AM

I don't understand the article or controversy.... who was he talking about? That was never stated. It would make a lot more sense if I knew who he was referring to.

Posted By: Michael Dunlop | July 19, 2011 6:27 AM

I don't understand the Mark Driscoll following either. His offensive comments aside, I don't prefer his American-football-coach-style preaching. Many American pastors seem to be going this route. Driscoll's sermons are run-of-the-mill. He uses a lot of canned phrases and he does not offer an intellectual exposition of Biblical text. I've heard a thousand pastors like him before. The only thing he has going for him is shock value - a cheap rhetorical trick.

I don't agree with his exegesis sometimes either, and I don't even have a Bible degree. Ironically, he sometimes relies on emotion in his sermons, rather than logic, the very thing he claims men should be devoid of.

Interesting take on Driscoll and his promotion of cage-fighting:

http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/

Posted By: Nadine | July 19, 2011 8:21 AM

Driscoll loves to see two men engaged in bloody combat in a steel cage. He comments about cage fighting; “I don’t think there is anything purer than two guys in a cage. [. . .] As a pastor and as a Bible teacher, I think that God made men masculine. [. . .] Men are made for combat, men are made for conflict, men are made for dominion."
I find that brutalizing and disgusting. Driscoll would be in the stands hooting over his favorite gladiator in Roman Coliseum days. Driscoll is opening a franchise 200 miles away in Portland, my home town, where he will broadcast his misogynist, bullying sermons and celebrity preacher image big brother style to an adoring audience of fans over a simulcast big video screen. Pathetic.

Posted By: Rick | July 19, 2011 11:46 AM

Nadine,
I guess, Driscoll very effectively addresses the common nonsense of an extremely feminized Western Christian subculture, when guys are shamefully lazy for the work of God and women are active in their stead. Why should you be discouraged/outraged/offended? The last word makes me puzzled: why are we so easily "offended" here? I mean, neither forgiving nor patient, but "offended" every step of the way? When the rest of the Christain world suffers for Christ greatly, do we, in this case, actually know Christ Jesus and His Gospel?

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 19, 2011 12:08 PM

Rick,
I agree with you to some degree (I find effeminacy a bit more disgusting)and I truly love brotherhood. But, let me ask you, didn't you just do exactly that? It seems, you've got yourself engaged in a cage fight.:)

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 19, 2011 12:47 PM

Vik, two men beating each other to a bloody pulp while confined in a steel cage while the fat “Chicken hawk” men and sadistic children call for more blood doesn’t disgust you? So much of what we determine is effeminate is purely cultural. Vik, you would stride up to the Apostle Paul to give him a hearty he-man bone crushing handshake and he would have ignored the hand, grabbed you in a hug and planted a big wet kiss on your cheek. Culture. I hung around in the art room in high school instead of shop or the gym because God gave me a huge art talent. I also read and write poetry as CS Lewis did. I hate the noise and exhaust of motor cycles. I enjoy expressing my love for Jesus corporately in song, just as John did in the Book of Revelation. Does all this make me effeminate? On the plus side I climb mountains, ski off steep slopes and lift weights. Of course I understand and agree whole-heartedly with the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality but Driscoll’s blathering about who and what is effeminate is positively ridiculous. His bloody macho posturing and naked misogyny is pathetic. And the comments about women being un-intelligent, emotional, easily deceived, fit only to give men pleasure and bear lots of children is just beyond the pale. I don't even really understand Sharon Miller's tolerance. Sharon?

Posted By: rick | July 19, 2011 1:36 PM

It's funny to me that we are discussing men being "effeminate". The word is subjective and means different things to different people. However I wonder if Jesus himself would come across as more effeminate in his culture AND in ours. Christ never married, he never led a revolt, never got in a fist fight, and he preached love rather that law. I'm all about men being men but being a real man means we need to look more like Christ and nothing else. And I assure you this, the more I pursue to be like Christthe more effeminate I may look in America. Driscol has an audience now but if he's not pursuing a manhood that looks more and more like Jesus then he's building his house on sand.

In addition I'm curious why Driscolls comments have continued to apear on FB and twitter and in other public forums. If you continue to say outrageous things a Godly man might take a break from FB, Twitter and social media.

Posted By: Geoff | July 19, 2011 4:11 PM

Jesus never married or dated
According to Isaiah He was rather short and unimposing
He was bookish, loved to read
We have no record of Him following any kind of sports as Paul did.
John would lean upon His chest at dinner
He cried in public several times, jumped for joy when happy, and in short, was emotional.
He had a group of women friends who followed Him around everywhere
He talked to women (Jewish men didn’t)
He sang
His cousin called Him a Lamb
He asked Peter if he loved Him
He loved John
He preached about loving our enemies
Talked a lot about weddings
Knew good wines
Had a huge amount of empathy

On the flip side:
He excelled in shop, worked very hard and built furniture
He got angry and threw tables, chasing money changes out of the temple with whips
He took a terrible beating without a whimper
Had strong, uncompromising character

The word Biblical word that Paul uses for effeminate is malakos, meaning soft. To be soft was to indulge in luxury, habitually wear soft, expensive clothing, to avoid pain, avoid work, lack character, to be weak. It may have had a special meaning to the Corinthians (Paul’s audience) who thought of male prostitutes as “malakos”, those who wear soft women’s clothing. Effeminate has nothing to do with how one worships, or how emotional they are. And the opposite of effeminate is not watching football, cussing, drinking beer or enjoying watching someone beat to a bloody pulp. That could even be construed as effeminate. Let’s be very careful how we use that word.

Jesus was definitely not effeminate and we would be wise to limit our pejorative labels to REAL biblical exegesis of the word, not just lazy name-calling. But nor was he inhibited by what his culture expected of males. Neither should we be. He was authentic, deeply empathetic, deeply emotional, hugely creative and unhindered by stereotypes of His day or ours. And yes, one day He is coming back with a tattoo on his thigh and brandishing a sword that He knows how to use. This is the God that I fell in love with at 19.

Posted By: rick | July 19, 2011 5:37 PM

I wonder how Mark Driscoll would react if a MMA or UFC fighter was known to be gay?

Posted By: Mary | July 19, 2011 6:34 PM

Rick, it does disgust me indeed, I never watch those shows!
And i truly enjoyed your testimony about love for poetry and art: all five of my boys(two of them are licensed ministers) are musical and love painting; and rhyme-rich Russian/ Ukrainian poetry is a big part of my life as well.

Although, i have to admit that love hockey (one of my friends is a former Finnish hockey player, now pastors a church), familiar to boxing and love to go to a local fitness club. I preach from my Russian Bible, one of the best, very poetic, translations in a world.
But, please, let me express my astonishment: how could you derive any personal pointing on the disputing subject, if my point was exactly the opposite? For even from your quite passionate reply I suggest that the way this guy speaks is, actually, quite manly! I guess, that was also Driscoll's point, don't you think?
Brother, I am also truly tired of toothless, pointless, spineless, feminized, if you will, mild presentation of Gospel, where there is a lot of sweat and blood; black and white; hot/cold stuff.

Without men, responsible and strong men of God on every level the work of the Lord cannot be done in full potential.

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 19, 2011 8:53 PM

I see the word "feminized" thrown around here quite a bit. Maybe I'm misunderstanding many of these posts, but this word is being used in a denegrating way. I can't help but wonder if it's femininity itself that is actually being attacked. I don't want to start a debate on the role of women (I'm obviously pro-woman), but I would like to point out that femininity is part of the image of God. Insult it and insult God.

Posted By: K. | July 19, 2011 10:05 PM

K., I apologize for overusing this word in this conversation! As you can see, part of it has become more or less private. God of the Bible does understand perfectly every person He created and His heart is bigger, than the mother's, but He appears to be the quite masculine Father to all mankind. There are no female god, female angels (as well as baby-angels) at all.

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 19, 2011 10:31 PM

Wow, a BIG AMEN!! K. That's the point K, Driscoll is Misogynist, an insult to God indeed!

Posted By: rick | July 19, 2011 10:35 PM

What seems missing from the conversation, and certainly from Driscoll's assessment of gender, is in what ways the fall twisted what true masculinity or femininity are. I see many of things that Driscoll calls God-ordained masculinity as part of the striving and fruitless toil that man was cursed with in Genesis 3. He praises David for his military and physical feats but ignores his "masculine" lusting and murder as possibly coming from the same source. To me a "strong" man or a "masculine" man is someone who takes care of the responsibilities he is given; someone who is vulnerable enough to both hear rebuke and make changes accordingly; someone who gives sacrificially of his time, his resources, and his talents/gifts; and someone who comes alongside his family and friends to work together toward Christlike-ness

Posted By: Mark E. | July 20, 2011 8:26 AM

AMEN is truly a BIG Word, one of the Holy names (Rev. 3:14), standing for an absolute Truth. A Word, not to be littered easily in order to prop up another theologically decorated fantasy.
When some in a world must pay high price for the Gospel, others toy with it as many times as they are pleased. It's nothing, but indeed a "pagan Christianity"(Frank Viola); Western religious community's common nonsense of "personal theologies"(1 Cor. 1:20).

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 20, 2011 10:27 AM

Vic, I get what you are saying, but language also shifts meaning as time passes or just in different contexts. Amen was/is a way of saying "so be it." I think that is how Rick was using it.

Posted By: Mark E. | July 20, 2011 1:03 PM

Thank you, Mark, for generous correction, reminder to stay considerate, even trying to represent an opinion from outside. I have nothing against Bro. Rick at all. Just some pictures are crossing your mind at times, a certain part of history of Christianity, written brutally before your very eyes. Enjoy your blessed day, everybody!

Posted By: Vik Feodorov | July 20, 2011 1:23 PM

Sharon, I must admit I don't follow Pastor Driscoll so I don't have any opinion of him though it sounds like God uses him, but why I am commenting is because you get an A+ on this essay. It is full of grace as we all should be full of grace. If someone asked me what I think of this brother in Christ, the only thing I could truly say is that I know Jesus loves him but I don't have an opinion on me because I've never met him. It is the same kind of feel when my youngest daughter asked me, Mom, do you like Justin Beiber?" I replied, "I don't know. I've never met him."

Posted By: Jane Hinrichs | July 25, 2011 4:19 PM

I have no comment about Mark Driscoll

Posted By: Dan from Georgia | July 27, 2011 12:07 AM

This is a very interesting blog. As long as the evangelical church remains male-dominated, we're going to have men like Mark Driscoll.

I laugh at the idea that the church has been feminized. Why? Because even when a church ordains women, it treats men as the gold standard.

Preachers quote famous men a thousand times more than they quote famous women . . .

Bible studies often rely on male theologians' commentary and ignore female theolgians' analysis . . .

Church leaders celebrate Martin Luther King Day but ignore International Women's Day . . .

Church work schedules support double standards of mothering and fathering . . .

Pastors constantly use sexist language (i.e., mankind, you guys) and they get defensive when someone calls them out on it . . .

The list goes on and on.

It is often demoralizing to go to church because even when it ordains women, it usually views the male as superior.

Churches like Willowcreek project this sort of male chauvinism and it's just as insulting as Mark Driscoll's misogyny.

Posted By: Kathleen | January 18, 2012 12:47 AM

Post a comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Unplanned Parenthood: The Blessing of an Inconvenient Pregnancy

The Problem with Westminster Kennel Club's View of Pet Adoption

On Valentine’s Day, Praying for Men Who Buy Sex

Why You Could Be in a 'Sh*tuff People Say' Meme

Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament: Nancy Guthrie on Her Newest Bible Study

John Piper and the Rise of Biblical Masculinity

The Power of Choice in 'Downton Abbey'

Scared to Death of Death: Facing More Than Gramma’s Mortality

Why the New Planned Parenthood Controversy Raises Old Questions

Parenthood: Moving Beyond Facebook Envy to Reality