Emerging Women

Sunday, November 05, 2006

The Fallout Begins ...

Mark Driskoll ... Mars Hill Church in Seattle ... emergent? fundamentalist? (I'll let ya'all put him on the church label scale where you see him.) Google his name and you'll easily come up with his personal blog (http://www.theresurgence.com/blog/2) which contains a LONG list of 'why this happened to Ted'... included in his long over-exhaustive "got-it-all figured out" list are these two:
1. pastor's wives are the problem - they get lazy and fat and are Victorian in their sex (Yup ... it's there, no kidding!) and
2. he suggests that pastors return to having only male associate pastors!

Hahaha... what part of this sex scandal doesn't he get?? Even when the partner is male, it's still the woman's fault!!

(I've also tried to included a link with an editorial comment on Mark's blog post that was past on to me from one of my faith community members. Of course the links on this story could be endless!)

Wouldn't it be nice if, in response to these human tragedies of complex proportion, THE CHURCH would just shut it's mouth sometimes! Could we ever try imitating God by being HOLY SILENT?

Labels: Culture, Gender Issues

posted by Anonymous at 7:30 AM

¤ Permalink ¤

21 Comments:

At 11/05/2006 08:23:00 AM, Julie

Its Driskoll... I have ZERO respect for him. He recently used his influence to try to get the Revolution conference canceled and the pastor at the church that held it fired because - they had female speakers. This is a man filled with hatred and fear of women. His rhetoric against women has become so disgusting I am shocked anyone still respects him. That spring gridblog to dismantle patriarchy came into being because of the women who had been seriously hurt by this man.

But with this whole new trendy thing for young guys to go ultra-reformed (worshiping at Pipers and Driskolls alters) - he just continues to gain power, popularity, and influence. Forget emergent ruining the church - Driskoll has that well in hand... (and he is not emergent - he openly criticises them and has accused their leaders in a public forum of beastiality...) Sorry - can you tell Ive had enough of this guy..
At 11/05/2006 08:49:00 AM, lynnette

several times in his post, he refers to his wife as "beautiful," as if that is the reason why he has not been unfaithful. it really irks me to associate beauty (or lack thereof) with a reason for faithfulness (or lack thereof).

oddly, he also say that he and his "heterosexual male assistant" can meet and travel together without "fear of any temptations or even false allegations since we have beautiful wives and eight children between us." how many people have you known (or seen on tv) who have "beautiful husbands/wives and children" yet have been leading some sort of double life? it's not that uncommon. having a beautiful wife and children is not some sort of talisman that protects you from indiscretion. in fact, it can often serve as a disguise.
At 11/05/2006 09:00:00 AM, Jemila Kwon

Here here. Tons of people with beautiful wives and kids cheat all the time. And what about men who "let themselves go?" Why does this not get press? And what about deeper marital issues and personal insecurities and character issues that all typically go into the setup for infidelity.

Personally, my guess is that the cycle of men not doing their part with household stuff and women nagging probably has more to do with the loss of positive feelings opening the door for temptation than how physically attractive a spouse happens to be.
At 11/05/2006 09:17:00 AM, lynnette

yes, jemila. preach it. i just posted about this on my blog, and one of the things i mentioned toward the end is that rates of obesity and a general trend toward unhealth are going up, up, up for the pastorate, which is overwhelmingly male.

and, as you indicate, i'm sure much of this has more to do with deeper marital and personal issues than about sheer physical appearance.
At 11/05/2006 11:42:00 AM, Sarcastic Lutheran

#1 This guy is so obsessed with the central importance of guys that he's perhaps the biggest closet case I've ever seen.

#2 There appears to be a direct corelation between the hubris and self-righteousness of conservative Christianity and the double lives of it's leaders.
At 11/05/2006 12:11:00 PM, Jemila Kwon

That was the first thing I said to my husband when the Ted Haggard scandal came out -- it's really true that the most flaming homophobes are actually the most flaming homosexuals! Maybe they should all come out of the closet at once, apologize to their families and churches and start a support group!

I also think there's a larger spiritual lesson here: the more someone argues in a close-minded way for an absolute truth/position, the more insecure that person probably is in their faith and the more repressed doubts he or she probably has. I think repressed doubt/insecurity is a big reason it's hard to have gentle conversations with each other about challenging issues of faith, practice and doctrine (or the lack thereof...)
At 11/05/2006 01:07:00 PM, Jemila Kwon

Holy Silence. I'm going to have to be still with that for a while.
At 11/05/2006 03:32:00 PM, Anonymous

I considered the Holy Silence, but I really feel this needs to be said:

To be fair to Mark Driscoll, the supposed accusation against Emergent Village leaders (Doug Pagitt specifically, if I recall correctly) "in a public forum of beastiality" was totally a joke. A horrific, in-poor-taste joke, but a joke nonetheless. Driscoll later apologized for it, as he should have.

Further Driscoll is anti-women in leadership in the Church. That's just his bent. Getting upset over it isn't going to change a damn thing, as far as I can tell.

To insinuate that Driscoll is "perhaps the biggest closet (homosexual)" is really unfair. Just because these male evangelical leaders are locked into their anti-gay ideology doesn't mean they're all banging male prostitutes (or male associate pastors, for that matter) behind closed doors. Nor should we wish this to be the case. None of us gets off on this hypocrisy, do we?

It appears that Driscoll, in his effort to be "helpful" to the Body of Christ (even thinking that is arrogant, granted), has stuck his foot in his mouth -- again! What's really sad is how his blog post is being received in his hometown. Seattle columnist Dan Savage ("Savage Love") picked up on it and posted a scathing attack on Driscoll in Seattle publication The Stranger: http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/11/
when_a_conservative.php

Just read the comments on that Stranger blog post. They're pretty ugly. So basically Driscoll has taken a bad situation (the Haggard affair) and made it worse (unintentionally). Hopefully he'll post a correction, or an apology, or something. But this is not really something to be reveling over. The whole thing is really really sad and it makes me sick, really.

I guess that's all I wanted to say. The bestiality comment was not serious, Driscoll apologized for it, and the whole thing is just a mess. (Sigh.)

-Steve K.
www.knightopia.com/journal
At 11/05/2006 03:45:00 PM, Julie

Steve -
Yes Driscoll apologized. In a way that still made him look good and everyone else look bad.

I finally read his post and am still disgusted. His suggestions are impractical and would seriously impede pastors from loving and serving people - basically prevent them from being a pastor (while they could still be speakers and ceos). and to place the blame on women... what was he thinking. Even that Iranian guy last week who made the public statement blaming muslim women if they got raped came out and
apologized for it...

And I dont really get why people are so quick to apologize for a man who is sexist and defend him as a good person. I know lots of people who generally support women who love him. They may have an issue with his language, but sexist rhetoric doesnt mean anything. If he was spouting out racist comments instead of sexist comments, I assume he wouldnt be the pet poster boy for christian young men. And I fully believe that we should get angry about it. We need to make it known that hate speech is not acceptable. Instead the men buy his books, praise his ideas, and give him more power. It shows how little women are actually valued in the church imho.
At 11/05/2006 05:39:00 PM, Anonymous

I'm not trying to defend Driscoll's theology or ideology, just his right not to be demonized like he's demonized some of us and some of our friends.

I shouldn't have been dismissive about the right to be angry over the kind of crap Driscoll (and others like him) teach. I never really considered what he was doing as "hate speech," but I see your point.

My concern is that continually wrestling with guys like Driscoll can become counterproductive and a distraction. Kind of like when that "Emergent No" website launched. I know I spent way too much time on that site getting upset over the ignorance behind it.

Anyway, I was really just reacting to your comment about the bestiality accusation. I just think there are better arguments against Driscoll than accusing him of things like that -- and you've made some of those arguments by addressing what he said in his blog post. I'm definitely in agreement with you on all of that.

Grace and peace,
Steve K.
At 11/05/2006 09:04:00 PM, Don't I Know You?

damn. who knew that the kingdom of God rests on such thin threads as one man's definition of beauty.

hope his wife agrees to serve the lord by aging gracefully.
At 11/05/2006 09:22:00 PM, Julie

Steve -
I totally understand. I just brought up the bestiality thing to show his current relationship to emergent.

I too think there are better things to do than give him attention. but sometimes one needs to take a stand and not let certain voices dominate the conversation.
At 11/05/2006 09:41:00 PM, Don't I Know You?

p.s. Did Mr. Driscoll really accuse Mrs. Haggard of being ugly?

Maybe she's simply living up to the family name? :D (sorry, too bad a pun to let slide by)
At 11/06/2006 01:54:00 PM, Anonymous

very good throught here - thank you for using your collective voices to speak against this tripe.

i think there is a larger angle to the ugly theology that objectifies women and sets them aside as accessories in the body of christ. it's dangerous and destructive and sets up 'leaders' to this kind of distortion in behavior.

i have posted about this a bit on my blog.
At 11/06/2006 08:30:00 PM, Jemila Kwon

Yo. It's very interesting what we take as cultural and what they take as normative. So in my opinion, if you think homosexuality is an abomination, you shouldn't wear fashions that entail two different kinds of cloth -- because that's an abomination too! And if you want to keep women in submission, better also wear a head covering -- and make sure the men don't wear hats!

I actually feel bad for the wives of men who think that way...I mean imagine the pressure...like if I start getting wrinkly or droopy, guess I better use our savings for botox treatments and plastic surgery, or else my husband's going to be tempted to cheat on me and it'll be my fault for not having a gorgeous-enough body. How does that help a woman feel accepted by God when her being cherished by her man is so conditional on her outward appearance and sexual prowess?
At 11/06/2006 10:18:00 PM, Nancy

The Blame Game. Haggard deceived his wife and followers. That is nobody's fault but his own. I feel compassion for the guy and certainly his family but the fact remains that it was he who chose to do what he did, no matter what pressures might have been upon him. To try and place the blame on others is ludicrous!

And as a side thought, I'd be interested in knowing what Driskoll had to say about Clinton's escapade with Monica way back when. Was Hillary to blame or did he place the responsibility fully on the shoulders of the man who cheated on his wife? Does he see Clinton as the victim? Why do I suspect a double standard would arise in this particular case...?
At 11/06/2006 11:00:00 PM, Corrie

I am disappointed in the sexist rhetoric concerning a woman's beauty and her being sexually available the way the Song of Songs outlines. Does anyone really know exactly what that means?

I wonder if Mark understands the blasphemous picture he presents concerning a husband's love for his bride. The Bible says that marriage is a picture of Christ and His Bride, the Church.

It is blasphemy to say that Christ is only faithful to us as long as we are comely and supplying Him with all He desires in a Bride. It is a wrong picture and message to send to the unbelieving world.

Christ loved us so much even when we were very ugly that He died to give us life. He loves us no matter what and He will always be faithful. He promised to be faithful. Just like these husbands promised to be faithful to their wife.

Do these men actually believe their own theology? Or do they only believe it when it is convenient for them (ie., demanding submission and obedience and expecting it)? Why are they basically writing out an excuse note for men to cheat on their wives?

Why the double standard? Why the burden on the Bride? Christ's love makes us more beautiful. It is effacacious. How about a husband's love? If their wife is getting "uglier and fatter" maybe it is because of them? Why doesn't this cut both ways?

And why are we, the Church, so wrapped up in outer beauty? Where do we get this standard from? Men used to think that women with meat on their bones were beautiful (Raphael and others during the Renaissance). Now, we women have to keep up with the pornographic blow-up doll types of women who have open mouths, no words coming out of those mouths and built for sex. We need to keep up with those pornographic images in order to keep our husbands.

Sorry, but beauty is fleeting and charm deceitful but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be attractive but beauty fades and aging has its way in ALL of us.

Marc and those who agree with him need to stop promoting this worldly idea about beauty and start studying scripture. And they need to stop promoting a double standard.

Why aren't men being constantly bombarded with lectures about getting rid of the spare tire and keeping fit and sexy for their wives or their wives might leave them for another man? Are men being told that sex isn't about them? And to make sure they are sexually satisfying for their wives so their wives desire to even have sex with them? No "wham, bam thank you mam" type of sex and it is all over when he is satisfied? I know many women, personally, who have never had an orgasm or have had very few because their husbands don't understand how to sexually satisfy them.

Where are all the warnings to men about being studly, hunky and sexually satisfying for their wives?

::::::crickets::::::
At 11/07/2006 09:13:00 AM, Anonymous

I'm new here, and I've never read anything of Driscoll's, but I was surprised by your outrage after reading his post.

Maybe it's because I don't have background, but I don't get what's wrong with him saying "The only way to stay away from sin is to stay close to Jesus." and that "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."

Not only pastor's wives, but all wives. Obviously this goes both ways in a marriage; if a husband isn't treating his wife properly she is not going to want to be sexually responsive.

But he does say that she is not responsible for his sin either way, just that perhaps he wouldn't have been as tempted if he had a sexually satisfying relationship at home. That's a no-brainer.

"Every pastor needs a pastor with whom he can regularly have accountability and the confession of sin. " Absolutely.

Again, I don't have the background you all seem to have, but I don't see a lot wrong in this article alone.

I'm going to go read some more of his stuff, so I may in fact be back with my tail between my legs--have patience with me; I'm just learning about all this emerging stuff.
At 11/07/2006 11:38:00 AM, caz

I find the final questions/comments about upright behavior, repentance, etc. interesting in M.D.'s blog. This coming from a man who continually says things that he must apologize for later. Perhaps a homosexual affair is more outrageous in our culture, but is using one's tongue and platform to scorch others on a consistent basis in a manner that usually results in a need for repentance not retunring "to lap up the vomit of our old way of life?" for M.D.?

My church went through a church "disciplining" last year with our worship pastor who had an affair. The pastor confessed and repented in front of the congregation. People stood up and talked about grace, restoration and the love of God. There was procession line to hug the pastor and his family...to show support and love and gratitude...to offer him restoration within our community. It was the most amazing thing I have ever experienced in a church setting.

Driscoll is right - we are new creations. I think he has it wrong to think that we don't mar that newness every single day. I don't think sexual sin should be handled discretely, if we try to brush it under the rug and blame other people then we truly are missing out on the glory of the "power of Christ that raises dead lives."
At 11/10/2006 05:01:00 PM, Psalmist

There are a few prominent Christian leaders who, it seems, end up publishing a lot of their comments twice: first in the comment itself, then in their apologies for them.

Driscoll is one of these folks.

What he doesn't seem capable of apologizing for, however, is an underlying disdain for women. Those few women who meet with his approval, he praises. The vast majority (i.e., the rest of us, who don't agree with him 100% on gender roles), he denigrates with apparent glee. In short, he appears to enjoy insulting whole groups of people (denominations, theological movements, and particularly non-Mars Hill women) and excuses it by saying it's all in fun.

It's not fun for those he insults. He relishes his immature approach to disagreement. Where, I wonder, is the "pastor" to whom Driscoll is held accountable? Whoever it is, he (certainly he) is not doing a good enough job of helping Driscoll overcome his habitual sin of the tongue.

As for blaming women (even in part) for men's sin, that shouldn't surprise us. It's the second-oldest sin in the Book. I simply don't think any Christian ought to be proud of it.
At 5/20/2010 05:21:00 PM, Anonymous

Women who feel the need to complain about men pastors speaking truth...need to check their pride and arrogance at the Bible door. Also need to pray for a discretion, humilty and discernment. What part of the Bible are you women not getting? there comes a point in biblical studies...that when one grows in biblical truths...you must come to a cross roads....follow the culture....pro feminist thinking...or conform to biblical standards....for all you women complaining that Driscoll puts his foot in his mouth...well....arent you doing the same?
also...why are you expecting him to react with "holy silence" when YOU are NOT!!!

our sinful nature always wants to react...explain....disect something to "better understand" the issue....Mark Driscoll...even though he is a preacher....is not different...

why tear something down that God is obviously using for good.....if you are jealous of his ministry...stop sitting around bashing other's ministries...go start your own....

geesh christian women....get a grip!!

About Me

Previous Posts