Dear Mr. Driscoll (a guest post)
Guest post by Dianna Anderson, a 25-year-old writer out of Sioux Falls, SD. This is the first in a series of posts examining the role of gender and sex in the church, which will be continued at her blog, http://diannaeanderson.net.
Dear Mr. Driscoll,
Hi Mark. Can I call you Mark? You seem to put forth the “I’m laid back” image, so I think I’m going to go with Mark.
Now, Mark, I’m going to be upfront about this: I don’t like a lot of what you stand for. I think you have taken culturally defined roles, put the force of God behind them, and have hurt a lot of people in the process. But I know that I have a duty to put things in context – and I really, really try. But honestly, Mark, buddy, pal…you make it really, really hard.
I mean, when you post things like this question on your facebook page:
It makes it really hard for me not to swear. Indeed, this morning when I saw that post, I was glad that the only person in my house was my cat because if she could speak, she would have learned a new word that can’t be repeated in mixed company.
Now, I do think the role of gender in the church is a conversation worth having, but you, sir, judging from the lack of moderation in a 600+ comment section, don’t particularly care about actually having that conversation. And that’s okay: some of us exist just to stir the pot and let others come to their own conclusions.
But, Mark, I have a few questions to pose back to you. And I’d like you (and many followers who are listening) to think deeply about these before responding. Why is it that being “effeminate” is a bad thing? Now, now, I know you and a lot of your followers will point me to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. But I have to ask: which translation?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is that famous “homosexuality” verse about who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and the sin in the list right before the ever controversial “homosexual” word is often translated as “effeminate.” Or is it?
NIV: “male prostitutes”
NLT: “male prostitutes”
ESV: “effeminate”
ISV: “male prostitutes”
God’s WORD translation: eliminates the word all together and just has “those who commit adultery, homosexuals.”
KJV: “effeminate”
American KJV: “effeminate”
ASV: “effeminate”
Bible in Basic English: “is less than a man”
Douay-Rheimes: “effeminate” (followed by “liers with mankind,” so we’re apparently inventing words now [also, does that include women? Because we “lie with mankind.”]).
Darby: “those who make women of themselves”
ERV: “effeminate”
Webster’s: “effeminate”
Weymouth: “any who are guilty of unnatural crime”
World English Bible: “male prostitutes”
Young’s Literal: “effeminate”
NRSV: “male prostitutes”
Six of these translations say it’s “male prostitutes.” Two say something along the lines of “less than a man” or “make women of themselves.” One declares “guilty of unnatural crime,” which is as confusing as “those who abuse themselves with other men” (so mutual masturbation is out but intercourse is, well, in?). It seems as though there’s not really a consensus about what that verse would mean.
In addition, many of those translations which use “effeminate” have it immediately followed by “those who abuse themselves” in place of the typical “homosexuals” or “those who lie with men,” so you wade into somewhat murky waters when you start switching around translations within a verse to get at what you want it to say. And there’s that pesky translation of “effeminate” as “male prostitutes,” which seems to have an entirely different meaning about using sex as a transaction.
So, given the ambiguity, why come down so hard on “effeminate men”?
Now, let’s think about some of these more problematic translations – specifically, that Darby one up there: “those who make women of themselves.” I think this translation, contrary to what you may protest, is actually what you’re saying. After all, isn’t that what “effeminate” means – “fem” is right there in the word! – “to be womanly”? I mean, you define it yourself that way:
I want you to ask yourself this: You are a married man. You have (according to the info I could find) five children, a couple of whom I imagine, by sheer probability, are female. So think of your wife, think of your daughters, and ask this: Is being female a bad thing?
I know the response already: being female isn’t a bad thing for girls, but it’s a bad thing for a man to display female characteristics.
Why?
Because you think being feminine is degrading. You think in terms of hierarchy: women are the Other and men are the default and any crossing between those lines is wrong wrong wrong.
While I imagine you would hesitate to ever declare that sentiment out loud, I have no choice but to think so in light of all your discussions of a “sissy” church, of a “feminized” Jesus, of gender roles and how you wouldn’t dare let a woman act in a leadership role except with children (because having a uterus makes you an expert on dealing with kids!).
I have to wonder, Mark, when you harp on and use Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6 to condemn femininity whether you also consider Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28, in which the meat of the passage is the same in every translation: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
If male and female, as categories, no longer act as imperatives at the foot of the cross, why, then, do you insist on reinforcing them? Do we not live in a post-crucifixion world? Why do you insist that it’s a great sin to be some behavioral crossover? I know, I know, “Paul said so,” and here we are back at square one. Paul both reinforces and destroys gendered roles. So where does that put us? In order to argue as you do, we have to accept and reconcile the idea that the Cross both erases gender and reinforces highly specific roles, which takes some intellectual hoop-jumping.
I understand that we are, so to speak, at an impasse.
But I have just one more thing to ask of you: participate in this thought exercise with me.
Let’s say that we live in a world where women are in charge. Instead of male pronouns to describe God in the Bible, it’s all female. There’s a zealous writer named Pauline whose words about pastors don’t talk about the pastor having a wife but rather a husband. Her instructions about being quiet in the church are directed at men. Now say you go to a church – you’re faithfully trying to live your life following a savior named Jesus, a woman, who preached great love and sacrifice and spreading the word of her Gospel through the world. You’re doing the best you can to follow what she said in a broken world.
You go to church with your wife and family. She works while you stay at home with the kids, because it’s what men do in this world. And your pastor preaches time and time again about a “feminine” Christianity, about a womanly savior who exhibited all the good things about being female, and she complains about a church that is masculinized, of a church too taken over by men that it’s uncomfortable and wrong and even, possibly, sinful.
You, however, have a complex sense of your own gender identity. Sure, you like doing “manly” things, but you equally feel fine when you do feminine things. You never felt like you quite fit into that subservient role in this Matriarchal world. How does hearing that it’s a bad thing to be masculine, that it’s awful for your wife to share some of your burden as a man, that it’s sinful to the point of keeping you from heaven to be masculine?
Does that make you good and angry? Do you think you should be allowed to be masculine or feminine if you wanted because God created you that way? Do you think those archaic gender roles, which aren’t even clearly laid out in the Holy Scriptures of your religion, might just be wrong? Do you feel like who you are as a person is being ignored because of what you happen to have between your legs?
If you actually followed that thought process all the way through, you have just a little, tiny sliver of how it feels to be a woman in the church. When you say to the men in your congregation, “being womanly is wrong,” the men aren’t the only ones listening. Yes, be bold, preach the gospel (or what you think is the gospel), but be aware: there are others listening, and they are not liking what they hear.
Sincerely,
Dianna Anderson
@diannapevensie
Brilliant. Just brilliant
Is there an emoticon for standing ovations?
:) to every word.
Well said. I’m convinced that the guy who yells the loudest about a particular subject either has some enormous insecurity about it or has something to hide.
Yep, “anxious masculinity” is the term. It is the idea that being masculine is something that can be taken away by society. Therefore, men are always trying to assert their dominance–their manliness–in their life to be part of the in-crowd. Stephen Ducat wrote a great book “The Wimp Factor” on anxious masculinity (including a part about how it manifests in Christianity) which is worth reading. He did an interview about it at AlterNet that might be helpful: http://www.alternet.org/media/20343
Patrick, I’m inclined to come to the same conclusions. It reminds me of Ted Haggard railing against homosexuality…and later having that revealed.
I wonder if Driscoll is anxious that he might be a transvestite.
GREAT post. So, so good.
Best thing about social media: getting to know people like MPT and his circle of friends.
Worst thing about social media: I had never HEARD of this Driscoll chap until I saw people talking about him on Twitter. I thought Driscoll was the Christian trumpet player who sings like Joe Cocker.
That’d be Phil Driscoll, who with his longish hair was some effeminate.
Thank you for saying all of this. xo
Wait… Mark Driscoll does theology?
WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?
Fantastic post. Sharing it everywhere. I think it’s important that people read this.
Driscoll to world: “Hey everybody, God is a total ass, just like me. Isn’t that great news?”
So, so great. And also, if God is actually as Driscoll presents God (which, I’d say, isn’t the case), then I’d be a heretic in a heartbeat.
You know, Mark is not one of my favorite leaders. He seems to contradict himself. Right below the post you quoted he wrote”Mark Driscoll
Theology without mission leads to naive idealism & needless nitpicking.” Nitpicking? Yes Mark, this seems to be nitpicking when you write something so rude about other males. He went crazy over the movie Avatar and that was when I knew that he was not someone I could look to for biblical advice and teachings. He talks about all the media he owns, watches, etc and then says the movie Avatar is evil etc. Stand behind your convictions but don’t go crazy! :)
Blessings,
Mel
Please feel free to stop by: Trailing After God
Personally, I’ve benefited greatly from Driscoll’s teaching. I may not agree with all that he says or the way that he says it, but I’m a much better husband, dad, servant-leader and follower of Jesus than I was before I began listening. My wife also listens with me on many occasions and does not feel demeaned, dehumanized or masculinized. She’s also purchased some of his books for me.
As for Gal. 3:28, I don’t know if you have the most accurate interpretation: “male and female, as categories, no longer act as imperatives at the foot of the cross.”
Couldn’t that interpretation also be used to justify homosexuality?
Perhaps you have no problem with that.
Nathan,
How do you interpret Gal. 3:28?
I suspect that for one as deeply committed to a singular perception of God it will be difficult to impossible even to conceive of a world in which the opposite singularity is true. Most of the people I know who believe in the maleness/masculinity of God cannot set that image aside for so long as to participate in your thought experiment. Even the women I know would find it difficult, although they at least ARE women, with a automatically female take in the world. I doubt the men I know could even begin to imagine such a thing without it becoming an insulting parody. But I wish all my chauvinist-God acquaintances would make every effort to follow your suggestions.
It’s weird. I keep wanting to come down in the middle. I appreciate Mark Driscoll for really helping my faith to “grow up.” But, I’m also growing in my understanding of what it means to be human. After reading, “The End of Sexual Identity” by Dr. Jenell Williams Paris, even more so. But, if I take Paris’ words to be true, then any of us defining ourselves by gender or sexual identity is problematic. Unfortunately, THAT is problematic, in that these categories exist whether we like them or not and thus operate as points of contact from which we can talk. When we get to Scripture and translation of verses regarding archaic words or words with a range of meaning, we still run into the problem of “foisting our own meanings” onto the words. Mark does this and your line of questioning does this. So, definitions are problematic, but necessary. Getting to the right definition is commendable, but if a winner or loser arises from this conversation, which judging from the tone of this post, you feel there needs to be (as Driscoll’s definition angers you), then we will be faced with the same problem we had in the beginning. How does this conversation end if all definitions and, subsequently, approaches will do nothing but create more problems?
C.E. Moore
Cogito | Credo
http://www.cogitocredo.com
http://www.twitter.com/cogitocredo
YES YES YES!!!
People like Driscoll, who believe firmly in male and female gender roles as defined by their culture, and who believe that these roles are innate and natural, undermine their own argument with all of their vigorous policing of gender roles and shaming of everyone who fails to measure up. Because if such gender performance really were innate and natural and God-ordained, would it really require all of that protection and policing and performance? Wouldn’t it just, like, come naturally, without any effort or need to talk about it?
Awesome point.
Well said.
Sorry, but this is the most ridiculous point ever. If God wanted us to be holy as He is holy, wouldn’t that also just come naturally, without any effort or need to talk about it? Argue with sense.
I’m not sure being holy has anything to do with masculinity or femininity and fail to see where God calls me to a very Western, American, 21st century type of gender roles which Driscoll seems to think we should all perform.
That requires a belief that our personalities are fully a matter of choice in the same way that behavior is, that preferences and expressions that have their genesis in our earliest days of independent communication are mutable with the force of will.
I’ve seen no evidence of that. I can’t imagine anyone with an understanding of psychology or anthropology who would support that.
It’s a typical line of thinking in the church, but I cannot support a line of thinking that requires not just faith in an unsupported premise, but the rejection of evidence to the contrary.
Yes, which is why if there is a god, he did a very bad job of making us.
In a perfect world without sin, yes! There would be no need of policing in any area of life in that kind of world, but its not the world we live in. Sin complicates things.
Mark made a joke about sissy-britches worship leaders. Such angst about a non-issue!
It’s a bit confusing to me when folks want to explain away big chunks of the Bible (homosexuality as sin, submission of wives, etc.) … but then resort to parsing words of scripture as if they are hard-core plenary verbal inerrantists.
Which is it, Dianne? Is the Bible a largely metaphorical and culturally limited book of religious experiences? Or did God inspire every single word?
Just curious. And our worship leader is very masculine, btw.
:-)
Sissy-britches? No offense intended, but you sound like a grandma complaining about those “young’uns with thurr saggy pants and hippity hop music.”
Men dismissing women for thousands of years is *not* a non-issue. In fact, it is a big deal.
It’s one of the reasons people are leaving the church… among other reasons.
Mark Driscoll is a jerk, as are all the other preachers in pissing contests. The more they scream about masculinity, the more women don’t want to hear it.
To the fundamentalist church: Keep dissing women and see where it gets you. Your numbers are dwindling for a plethora of reasons.
I think you’ll find that MarsHill and Acts29 – like it or not – are very much growing.
Well, this one church may be growing but my understanding is that the American church (meaning the churches in America as a whole) are shrinking. I’m thinking of the Pew Forum statistics at pewforum dot org.
Yes, that’s probably true – though there is so much diversity amongst them that the mean figure is not really that helpful. Seems that generally speaking, liberal churches are dying and (reformed) evangelical churches are slowly, steadily growing. I think the US will probably follow the rest of the West in seeing cultural or nominal Christianity largely die out, but I think that’s a good thing, actually.
Citations please?
My sources say otherwise:
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
And, btw, I think a growth in evangelical, anti-science, anti-women, anti-freedom of conscience, anti-tolerant of other people’s way of life, anti-what the Constitution really says churches would be a major disaster for America and would, imo, mark the beginning of the end of this country. It would be bread and circuses.
I beg to differ. Recent studies have shown that evangelical populations are dwindling, as evidenced by the losses in the SBC and Presbyterian churches, largely due to their patriarchal emphases. Where are you getting your idea that evangelical churches are growing?
Well, and, at least for me, the more they scream about masculinity some men don’t want to hear it. If I am a “man”. I mean, I’m not attracted to UFC and have no desire to “just get in the ring and beat another dude up”. If that is what it is to be masculine (along with all that other fisticuff, battle stuff), then I just really don’t want anything to do with it.
If it was “just a joke”, then why was it not funny? Explain that.
Kevin, Dianne’s not explaining away any part of the bible. She’s merely pointing out that “hard-core plenary verbal inerran[cy]” is not very tenable. And your “which is it, Dianne” question raises a false dichotomy.
:)
I think Kevin is on to something big here. How you view scripture does determine where you stand on issues. The root of this conversation does stem from our view of scripture and where you place scriptural authority in your life will largely determine where you fall on this and other issues.
“our view” being the operative words, seems to me.
I’m sorry, but the pretentious tone and misrepresentation of Driscoll in this letter are crazy. If your going to personally and publicly attack someone, please at least do your homework. Go watch one of his sermons where he rebukes men who don’t treat women right and or one where he affirms women. It sounds like his sense of humor is the thing that needs to be rebuked, not his doctrine…
Here’s the best one on his position on men and women if you’ll take a minute to watch it.
Here’s another great one.
Oh ho ho ho ho!!!! The irony in those videos is just delicious! DELICIOUS I tell you!!!!
Ha!
… Oooor maybe his Jokes and humor are the irony. I mean, that is a comedic device, correct?
The man is describing himself in those videos… how do you not see that?
A pretentious tone from a woman is “crazy”. A pretentious tone from Driscoll is “godly.”
A very valid point, Jim. Sadly, you’re right.
LRA – I see him describing many things, I just don’t see the sexism that you see I guess :/
Jim Fox – I never said that. Once again, it sounds like the problem is with his tone, not his doctrine.
Is the real issue being missed here? There are many people that hold a complimentarian view as opposed to egalitarian that don’t come about it the way he does. As I said before, I think your main problem is with his tone and humor, not his position. If it is the position, you’ve got a lot more people to call out other than Driscoll.
Very sadly true, Jim Fox.
It’s moments like this when I wish the late, great Rich Mullins was still with us.
He always did this thing…where he made a point of reminding the audience at his concerts that it was about worshiping the Father, not worshiping him. He led his concerts in such a way that it became an interactive act of reverence, to the point that he’d leave the stage and the crowd would continue to sing and lift their voices to the Most High. How cool was THAT!!!
The clincher was that Rich didn’t do it because he was so super spiritual and hyper Christian. He did it–and was man(and human) enough to admit it–because he said that applause, fame and adulation were addictive–and he loved it. And that he knew that even though sometimes it could be a struggle, that the attention and adulation and worship belonged to God, and that is where he did his best to direct it to. He shared that it wasn’t always easy, but that it was always right.
Divisive jerks like Driscoll only serve to turn people away rather than bringing them to the foot of the cross. This guy could stand to learn a lot from the life and ministry of Rich Mullins. Sadly, I don’t think that he could ever humble himself enough to do that. Types like him are know-it-alls who simply find twisted logic and lopsided loopholes to justify their behavior.
That man was a saint. I know he’d never call himself that, but Rich truly “got” God.
I agree with both you ladies and what youre saying. As a man I am highly offended by this Driscoll fellow and his misogynistic view of women. And Rich, who wasn’t a fan of mega churches and their “cell” groups, nor a fan of limiting any woman or her role in whatever she chose to do, be it in church hierarchy, family or career, would’ve had strong words for Driscoll and those like him.
We truly lost a saint when we lost Rich.
Last post: doesn’t Driscoll know enough about biblical Hebrew to appreciate the use of the word “shechinah” in reference to G-d? Because the word use often denoted motherly, feminine attributes and in traditional Jewish folklore often referenced G-d as a feminine presence of comfort. Moreover, the Hebrew for Holy Spirit, Ruach Ha’Kodesh, is feminine both in its gender and in how all verbs and adjectives attached to it in a sentence would be feminized as a result.
But yeah, you’re probably right, Mark… G-d has a penis.
The general lack of education required for a minister position itself is appalling. Anyone in that level of teaching and authority should at the very least need a 4-year bachelor’s degree plus a master’s. The ancient languages, civilizations, history, philosophy, etc. should known by anyone heading a church. Most pastors also offer counseling services. This should require a separate (or at least combined and extensive) masters or PhD program. There’s no reason Driscoll shouldn’t be expected to know ancient Hebrew and context. He has the $$ to go back to school.
He has a master’s degree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
Let’s be clear; he got his Master’s from an evangelical seminary, not a graduate department of religion in which the education received would be far less dogmatic.
You obviously have no idea how dogmatic and narrow-minded theological liberals are in academia. And you might want to do your homework on the academic rigors of some evangelical seminaries.
I still don’t understand why you read my blog.
:)
Come on, man. I like a LOT of what you post, and I like you. It’s OK to throw another perspective into the mix, right? I can stop adding comments if you want.
Never! See my response to Angie, dude. :)
It seems quite evident that he slept through every one of his philosophy classes. I find no nuance in his thought.
Ok. I’ll take it. But then what in the world do they teach in seminary if it’s not what a master’s in religion would study?
I read his post this morning and I just couldn’t understand what is the thought process behind this man’s “Christianity”. Ugh.
I understand why many folks don’t like Mark Driscoll. I understand why many folks don’t like that the masculine nature of men has been removed not only from church but all of Western Civilization.
To quote Bill Maher (yes that Bill Maher), “It is the P__ification of America.”
Maher spoke one night on “Politically Incorrect” about Frank Sinatra about how Sinatra was a “man’s man” and not like many of the wimpy figures of the day.
But what Maher failed to mention is that BUSH 43 was not “wimp” and look at the mess he got us into in Iraq!!
For me, I believe masculinity is a precious gift that has been twisted by the world. The feminized culture tells me that I need to have the spine of a jelly fish (no pun there Jon Acuff), and the machismo culture tells me I need to bang every check I wanna bang and back stab folks to gain, “power.”
Both are way out of left field. Again, JESUS is the role model her for us bible believing CHRISTIANS. He was caring at sometimes and stern at others. He had the balance so many of us try to achieve without him or in relationship with him.
I don’t fully agree with the author’s response, but I do agree was Christians need to watch our wording carefully.
While I personally don’t like “effeminate men” either, I know there are homosexual men who are more “manly” than I.
Also, why did the author try to negate the fact that homosexuality is a sin? Maybe that is another tough thing that folks have issues with.
Men should be men, women should be women, and while archaic so is the knowledge of 2 + 2 = 4, truth is often archaic but always correct.
Some folks who seek to defend gender roles in our society, are on the prejudice side and wrong, and some folks who seek to erase gender roles in our society are equally wrong.
Let us walk and work together, as men and women and realize that we need each other for the human race to thrive and we need each other in our unique roles for Christians to thrive.
I like women, love, lust them, I like their smell, their whole being, women are awesome! They are different than us men, and I am so glad they are.
JMO
*sigh*
Gender isn’t black and white… it exists on a continuum. Oh, and brain studies back that up, so any argument against that is pure bunk.
Plus, you’re missing the point that using “effeminate” in a negative sense disses all effeminate people, myself included. It is offensive and it needs to stop.
ps. I’m not so different from you as you think.
My brain has rational (cortex) and emotional (amygdala) centers… just like yours. I’m capable of math and science (in fact I have a master’s degree in molecular bio/neuroscience) just like any man. I take care of my own finances. I make my own decisions. I love my family. I put my pants on one leg at a time…
So what is it about me that is so different from you? Can you name one behavioral trait of mine that is different from you?
You allow penises to enter your vagina, breast-feed, give birth, participate in a menstrual cycle, pee sitting down. Do you wear heels or purchase bras?
“You allow penises to enter your vagina,”
Yes, I have sex like men do. Men have sex too.
“breast-feed, give birth, participate in a menstrual cycle”
These are physical attributes, not behavioral attributes.
“pee sitting down.”
Plenty of guys pee sitting down. My ex-boyfriend was blind, so his aim wasn’t so good. Does that make him a woman?
“Do you wear heels or purchase bras?”
Yes. However, these feminizing markers are cultural constructions and not inherent feminine traits. Plus plenty of men wear heels and bras too.
Oh- and Glam rockers wore heels and make up and long hair in the 80′s and plenty of women thought they were hawt.
*sigh*
Please go and even if it’s only through the magic of Google, learn the difference between behaviors and behavioral traits. Then you’ll be appropriately informed enough to continue in this discussion.
Yay! LRA’s back!
And Joe, darlin’, you ever accuse me of being spineless because I got 2 X chromosomes, you are in a world of trouble.
LOL! :)
And also, LOL!!!!! Hahaha!!!
:D
Welcome back! I’ve been praying for… uh… I mean, thinking… about you, friend.
:)
Why thank you! I owe you a letter on fb, but I’m “normalizing” right now… LOL!
:D
Driscoll is like a crotchety old Southern preacher who thinks them black folks should still be slaves bc the Bible says so. History has passed him by, so he has to shake his fist at it.
Yep, us Southern preacher white folk are all closet racists. Yeehawww. I love irony: stereotyping while accusing others of doing so.
If the shoe fits…..
I find zero nuance in that comment.
Absolutely! It is so frustrating to try to speak with people about this verse. I tell them that the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until about 110 years ago. How did it end up in the scriptures? But they don’t want to hear about it because their pastors (like Mark Driscoll) make them believe that treating the LGBT community with disdain is actually a service to God. Jesus does, indeed, need new PR.
Even though it seems like everyone likes this post, MPT, you should have added a warning like “Raging Feminist.”
Why do people who fight for equality always take one side? As much as a feminist want to make it all equal always puts down a man.
I am not for nor against Mark, I don’t know him nor do I follow anything he says, but why so against this one post? It just seems like does have women followers, so he isn’t making women slaves.
Equality comes in actions not in some rant about a guy. Girl power excuse but feminism seems more like putting man down so girls can rule.
If you were really about true equality, ignore the words feminism or masculinity. And just talk about people, and humanity.
We are created men and women for a reason, men should be men and women should be women and both have a reason and a purpose and for that reason we are equal in G-d’s sight. When we start to ignore that and start trying to find other reasons we pervert G-d’s plan and become no longer equal, become less then what G-d planned for us.
A purse/clothes does not create a man or a woman. G-d does.
Raging feminist? Surely you jest!
I saw no rage in Dianna’s post. What I saw was a statement about masculinizing God and the church in an inappropriate way… last time I checked, neither God nor the church had a gender.
And why is it that we women stand up for ourselves against unfair oppression, we’re suddenly labeled as “raging”? Don’t you think that is more than just a little unfair?
Like it or not, the church is guilty of oppressing women. If you can’t see that, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Sorry, but maybe you are just use to it and do not see the rage. Maybe rage was the wrong word. However, when I see or read about some woman trying to push a man back or even try to dehumanize him it seems like “feminist rage” to me. I am not saying the church is innocence, hardly from it.
Just like anything oppressing done to any part of human society. It doesn’t make sense to turn around and try to oppress the oppressor to teach them a lesson.
My point is that this fight between masculine and feminism, should stop. In Equality, we need to realize that we are different and celebrate in that differences and use words that express an unity of humanity.
Who is going to be the better human? Women or Men or BOTH.
Ummm… we are NOT different. There is no behavior that is inherently feminine or inherently masculine. Even attraction/ courting behaviors are determined by brain development and are expressed on a continuum everywhere in nature.
What exactly is female behavior? What exactly is male behavior?
And pointing out obnoxious male behavior is NOT oppression. Telling me I’m inferior because I have a vagina IS.
When men use words like “sissy,” “girly,” or “effeminate” in a negative sense, what they are saying is that it is wrong to be feminine (whatever that is!!!). They are making the assumption that feminine is weak.
I’m here to tell you that I’m not weak and I don’t appreciate people like Driscoll using a biological trait of mine to mean something it doesn’t. It’s like using skin color to attribute how hard working someone is. That’s bunk.
As for being a humanist… I’m a secular humanist, so I know very well what it means to be a humanist. I’m also a big believer in equality for ALL people, black, white, male, female, gay, straight, religious, or non-believer.
What Driscoll is doing is unfair and insulting. Calling him out on that is more than appropriate.
That was such a huge reason why I couldn’t stand being a part of that. The message was always, “You’re a woman, you’re like this, and you better accept that you’ll just never be as good as a man” Even though the word of course was “different”. Gah. I just wanted to be myself, but interestingly enough that put a lot of Christians I knew on the defensive. “You need to be how God created you!” “Well…God created me like this, so I’m going to be myself.” “You are going against GOD!” “Wha….?”
Mark Driscoll thinks being effeminate is weak, but he’s the one whose identity is hanging by such a small thread, that he needs other people to conform to his perceptions of the world so that his concept of himself is not shaken. That’s not strong.
I probably have the most rambling, off topic comment of them all. I’m really exhausted from work. For those who think that library work is “woman’s work” and therefore not very strenuous, have never had to push carts filled to the brim with books and lift stacks and stacks of them for hours on end.
Not off topic at all!
I used to be a student assistant in a library in college, so I know what you mean – when the cart is full, it is hard hard work! :)
Yup, but it’s such great work! You get your physical exercise, different excitement and adventure everyday, the knowledge that you’re making a meaningful difference in others’ lives (knowledge!) and you’re constantly surrounded by books! (I’m going for my master’s in library science in the Fall)
I saw in another post you wrote about having an English degree with an emphasis in YA literature; I’m a huge YA fan, and want to be a youth librarian for a variety of reasons that could go on and on about, but it’s been rare for me to find anyone who respects YA lit as it’s own category of literature. Can I ask why you decided on it?
Well, I went to grad school to study CS Lewis/Narnia (at Baylor University, in TX), and ended up just sort of falling into YA Lit as a field. Once I decided Narnia wasn’t my thing, and realized that Harry Potter was wide open, I went for that and haven’t looked back. :) But beware, as a youth librarian, you’ll have to do a lot of defending of the literature you carry – book banners of all stripes can be pretty intense.
My best friend has a Master’s in Library Science, only she specialized in archives and rare books. She loves it, though, and is really happy with her choice of degree. It’s definitely a degree worth having! Best of luck to you!
Oh I know. I took an adolescent literature class and have read quite a few essays on the topic of censorship and YA lit. And I fall heavily on the side of “equip kids with lots of knowledge and concepts and ideas and stories about every kind of experience to talk with them and make them sensitive and understanding of others and the world around them” so this probably won’t be dull. I probably sound too much like a rosy-eyed optimist, I just believe that books are that powerful. :)
Thank you!
I’ve been working in a library for several years, and I think anyone who doesn’t recognize YA lit as a distinct set of literature is crazy(then again, if people are using the utter excrement that is the Twilight series as their examples of YA lit, I can understand why they’d be skeptical).
Sidney, Sidney, Sidney. You are attempting to interject facts and common sense into a perfectly emotional argument. Shame on you.
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin… You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and opinion.
And this isn’t an emotional discussion, this is a well-reasoned defense of women against male belittling.
OK, that’s the second time someone has said “Men should be men and women should be women.” I’d like someone to make a rational attempt at explaining what that means. What character traits ought a man not have?
It’s the Girls-are-icky theology of 10 year old boys.
Ah, good old ickyology. A particularly tricky science when it hits adolescence.
An “Open Letter to (fill in the blank)”, is a terrible way to discuss points civilly and a fantastic way to digitally crucify someone (a la the whole open letter to Derek Webb affair a while back). I’m not 100% on board with Driscoll, but the massive blanket portrayal of him here is just as wrong as whatever you may perceive him to be doing. This kind of critique is a two-way street.
Furthermore, this post puts words in Driscoll’s mouth drastically be assuming that his encouragement of men to be more masculine is equivalent was saying that femininity is bad on the whole.
Let’s be more civil in our discussion and do a bit more to edify the body here folks :)
What do “real men” not do? Nurture? Dance? Appreciate fashion? Sing? Use correct grammar? Speak softly? Get excited about babies? Refrain from punching?
mark driscoll and his “love” of the fairer sex.
http://www.monkfish-abbey.org/blog/20060308/grid-blog-for-international-womens-day-hammer-time/
So Driscoll aside, gender issues aside… Do we really want to go down a road for open biblical apologetics whenever someone doesn’t understand something? I don’t remember Jesus doing that…
Looks like I’m the first one to disagree with you. But I think your article is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve never read something with so many Straw Man Fallacies! After reading, it became clear to me that you need to do a bit of study in theology yourself before correcting a highly respected pastor on it.
I am assuming that Driscoll uses the English Standard Version of the Bible. This version is HIGHLY, if not FULLY trustworthy– translated word-for-word from the original texts. I would argue that it’s the more accurate version when compared to most others, except maybe King James.
Also, your interpretation of Galations 3:28 is way off, unfortunately. And it’s people like you who mislead so many others into believing this is Paul’s stance on feminism. This verse is about God’s saving grace: it means that Christ will not distinguish a difference from those who deserves salvation and those who doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you’re a slave, a Jew, a female, a male… Christ will still save you if you believe in Him.
This verse DOES NOT mean that everyone is free to drop their God-given roles in the Church. If you are going to say that about males and females, then we can assume the same about every other role mentioned in the Bible, just to keep things consistent (which God tends to be). I’m betting that the folks in your church would get pretty upset if some young guy who didn’t know anything about the Bible got up one Sunday and decided he was going to preach the Word to everyone.
But according to your stance, hey, there’s no difference in our roles! Anyone can play pastor!
And if you disagree with this stance, like most would, then you’re contradicting your very own beliefs about the roles of Christians within the church.
Men and women were both given wonderful, separate roles to play here on Earth. There is no getting around it, unless you make stretches to misinterpret the Bible. What annoys me, probably more than anything else in this world, is when people look at God’s Word and think, “How can I make this agree with what I’m feeling?” Newsflash! It isn’t about you! It’s about God, we are HIS creation, this is HIS world. Who are we to question Him and His ways? To change them?!
If there is something in the Bible that you don’t like, that you don’t agree with, then YOU have to be the one who changes,YOU are the problem, NOT the Word of God. Because He will NOT change.
Now do me a favor: try to embrace, for just one day, your God-given role as a female. Submit to your husband, show respect to your pastor. Bless them with your words, be encouraging. Do not tear them down. Try to emulate Proverbs 31. I used to be a lot like you until I realized how very wrong I was. It took a while, a lot of work and a whole lot of effort, but God changed my heart and I realized how special, how important it is for a woman to live as God commanded her and a man to live as God commanded him. I’ve experienced nothing but JOY in living this out, in my marriage, at church and out in the secular world.
I pray that Jesus would change your heart as well and show you with a fierce conviction what is true of His holy Word.
Angie
Hi Angie:
Just a little correction: I have a degree in theology/philosophy and a Master’s in English literature with an emphasis on young adult literature (I did my thesis on the presence of a theologically sound Church body in Harry Potter). This is neither here nor there, but I think it’s helpful to know before you make assumptions. I also typically use the NRSV, which is why it’s included in the list.
Thanks for your comment! I hope you have a wonderful rest of your Friday evening.
I hate to be replying to myself, but I also feel the need to note that I am not married.
Does this make me less of a woman because I have no husband to submit to? Hmm. Food for thought.
Nope, not less of a women. Just as creative, beautiful and wonderful as God made you to be. (Except for the sin stuff… heh.) :)
Would you feel comfortable letting me read your thesis? It sounds AMAZING! Thanks so much for your post; Driscoll drives me up the wall.
Hey Beth,
You’re in luck! My thesis is online in PDF form on the Baylor library network. It’s linked from my blog (click on my name here or scroll up to the top of the post) and go to “Further Reading.” :) Happy reading!
Yay! I added your blog to my Google Reader.
So… I take it you are pro-slavery as well? The Bible is very clear about the role of master and slaves. In fact, the Bible was often quoted by slave owners in the South just before and during the Civil War.
(Just to be fair, abolitionists quoted it as well. Even so, the Bible is clear that it expects slaves to be obedient to masters.)
Not pro-slavery. I think the slavery issue in the Bible has to be viewed from more of a historical standpoint. Back then, it wasn’t frowned upon unless the masters were cruel to their slaves. From my understanding, it was typical for a master to provide food, housing and whatever other needs his slaves had. This is how he “paid” them. Slavery, when it happened in America’s history, was cruel, evil, completely unjust. The Bible should have never been quoted by those Americans who owned slaves. I believe they were living in heavy sin because of the way their slaves were treated.
Actually, the Bible is clear about the treatment of slaves… you could beat a slave within an inch of his life, but if he died, then you owed retribution.
If the Bible was wrong about slavery, don’t you think it might be wrong about women’s roles?
Even if you disagree with me, how can you disagree with Deborah, Ruth, Phoebe, Mary Magdelene and other strong women leaders in the Bible?
Wait, so we can view slavery from a historical standpoint but not gender roles? Just curious about how you justify the discrepancy.
It’s the same hermeneutic that says that homosexuality is still an abomination, but eating shellfish and wearing blended fabrics is ay-okay.
Woah… what flavor is the Kool Aid this week, Angie?
Purple flavor is my favorite.
Heretic!
Orange is the best. And also Ruby Red Grapefruit. We mustn’t forget the Ruby Red.
Call me a heretic if you like, but in doing so, you’re naming C.S. Lewis, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Wayne Grudem and others a heretic as well.
They are some of the greatest Bible Scholars and teachers in recent history and I admire them,study their books, as well as trust their wisdom and teachings.
Of course (and I’m only saying this because I believe if I didn’t, you would take this post out of context), the teachings of Jesus Christ are always first and foremost.
I believe the Bible is 100% correct in it’s teachings, it’s stories and commandments. Even the things I don’t like. For if the Bible is wrong in any way, then what makes God who He is completely fall apart. If the Bible is wrong, then God is, in fact, fallible. If He is imperfect, then He must not be God… right?
Well, I’m a new poster, but I couldn’t let that last comment go by without a comment.
I used to believe exactly that if any part of the Bible is fallible then the whole thing is worthless. My mind has since changed partly due to a careful reading of the first two chapters of Genesis. The two creation stories do not line up with each other. Any honest reading of the two can not make them say the same thing. The days don’t line up and the things created on the different days don’t line up. My faith could have been at a crisis point except for the fact that I started to allow myself to explore what this supposed discrepancy might mean. I now believe that the Bible is 100% true and accurate when dealing with anything relating to salvation. It is not trying to accomplish anything other than that. This means that it is not a manual for how we should live every part of our lives, but it does always speak directly to our salvation. Therefore when we hit a difficult passage the question should not be how I can make the passage fit what I believe or how I can make it all make perfect sense, but should be how the passage affects my salvation and the salvation of those around me.
Oh… I was joking with Matt… I called him a heretic for liking purple when I like orange and ruby red…
:P
It was just a little joke.
It is arrogance in us [men] to call frankness, fairness and chivalry ‘masculine’ when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in them [women] to describe a man’s sensitivities or tact or tenderness as ‘feminine.’
-C.S. Lewis
Boo-ya!
Angie,
It’s funny, you write a whole long rant saying that we need to adhere to strict gender roles, and yet you (if you are female, as I assume by your name that you are female) fail those very roles!
How hypocritical!
What, may I ask, makes me hypocritical?
1 Timothy 2:12 ring any bells?
Your next to last paragraph makes me want to barf.
I am married, and my husband and I submit to each other when the occasion calls for it; it’s called having a healthy adult relationship. If only one partner is doing the submitting, the relationship isn’t healthy. It’s so easy for people to forget (ignore?) that Paul was speaking to a specific people group at a specific point in time, and due to the low view of women and the lack of opportunities presented to those women during that time, Paul’s advice was probably the best…for that time. Now we have far greater equality of the sexes, and women are educated and don’t need to be guided by their husbands. So, I will not “submit to my husband” because of some “God-given role as a female,” but I will have a mature, adult relationship with him and admit when I’m wrong and be willing to compromise when necessary. Anything else is unnecessary bondage. Also, if I were the type of woman you’re recommending women to be, I wouldn’t be married to my husband. He has a thing for strong women, so the submissive type doesn’t do it for him ;-)
As someone who actually reads the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, let me just correct one thing, the ESV is not a word for word translation. A true word for word translation would make very little sense to an English reader. Also, there are MANY words in Hebrew that do not translate well into English, important words, like ruah, nephish, hebel, to name some out of the first 3 chapters of Genesis that came to mind immediately. I was taught by several scholars who actually translated the ESV, they are all great scholars, but even they will freely admit that there is no perfect translation, and to claim that there is one, without some ambiguity, is a form of idolatry.
If the ESV were translated word for word, it would make no sense in English. Also, if the ESV is translated word for word(or even idea for idea) why are two words in Greek translated into one word in English in John 21:15-17?
Also, you would see many mentions of the kidney in the Hebrew, whereas in English it talks about the heart instead.
The truth is that there is no 100% accurate translation from Greek or Hebrew to English. It simply isn’t possible. There are too many nuances from language to language.
I literally sat here in front of my laptop and applauded; thank you so much for this post. I’m going to be checking out your blog so I can follow the rest of this series!
Tangental but hopefully worthwhile, here’s a very thoughtful, clear (and brief!) exegesis of 1 Cor 6:9-11:
http://jesuslovesgays.blogspot.com/2009/07/1-corinthians-69-11-temple-prostitutes.html
Just when I think I couldn’t like Mr. Driscoll any less, he puts something like this on his facebook page. I know some drag queens who could probably kick his a$$ without breaking a nail…
Thank you, Dianna for your brilliant post.
Since when are blogs and blog posts attacking a brother” brilliant or incredible, or well said!?!
You’re all wrong.
Can’t Christians find something better to do than attack each other (oh, the irony, I know).
Jesus Needs New PR. And this sadly = not it.
Samantha, this is a trend with you, huh? You show up at my blog and claim to be the ONLY ONE RIGHT. Thanks for reading, but you should check your reality at the door.
Ignore that sentence and see the rest of the critique:
Since when are blogs and blog posts attacking a brother” brilliant or incredible, or well said!?!
…
Can’t Christians find something better to do than attack each other (oh, the irony, I know).
Jesus Needs New PR. And this sadly = not it.
I have to agree, this post is unbecoming of Christian dialogue and rebuke.
Well, since “rebuking” is un-Christian, I guess we’ll just have to turn a blind eye to all those Christians in Africa who are killing children for being “witches” and “possessed”…
Please don’t put words in my mouth. At no point did I say rebuking is un-Christian. I did say that rebuke is to be done with love, grace and humility.
Dang! Reading fail on my part. Sorry.
So…. was Jesus rebuking with love when he dealt with the money changers in the temple?
Andrew, this post isn’t an attack. It’s a response. If you believe that Driscoll was going for “satire” in his words, you should also be able to appreciate a passionate response when you read one. It’s only fair.
It’s not the passion that concerns me, it’s the sarcasm.
If you don’t like sarcasm, this isn’t the blog for you.
LOL! Tru dat.
:D
Samantha.
1) This article is not attacking MD, simply encouraging people to explore alternatives to his viewpoints
2) There are plenty of examples of MD himself defining himself as right and others as wrong – it does seem to be a big deal with him
3) No one has to 100% agree with everything that Dianna has written to think that this is a good post – sometimes NOT pitching all of the answers, and leaving space for different interpretation of text, etc is a good thing. (Something that I’m sure MD would consider me an effeminate heretic for suggesting…)
Matthew, I generally enjoy and agree with your posts and those that you guest post. But, with all honesty, (and no offense to you), I have never enjoyed a post so much as Dianna’s today. Whenever I hear Pastor Mark speak or friends relay his messages, I just get completely turned off. I live in Seattle so Mark and his people are everywhere. And I fully acknowledge that Mars Hill is in the business of discipleship and they are growing at unheard of rates in this area which is knownp
I agree. Dianna should guest write more often. Been awhile since this place has been so lively. And she’s a good writer.
Dianne! You are a legend!! SO SO SO love it!
No good deed goes unpunished. Women keep the church together and then get accused of ruining it by gynophobic men. And I mean “gynophobic.” I tend to think that “phobia” is a suffix that’s unfairly politicized, but a little female leadership is that scary to him?
I’ve always found Matthew 23:37 interesting with our masculinized Jesus idea today. Jesus says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (ESV) Keyword: “her”. Jesus compares Himself to a feminine version of an animal; not a male version.
It has always seemed best to me to know that God is genderless (neither male nor female) and if Jesus is His Son, then perhaps that might mean Jesus was/is genderless as well? All the masculine pronouns then stand out to me as merely the way authors in a male-dominated society were able to understand and refer to Jesus/God. Perhaps they were confused as to what Jesus really was? And perhaps it didn’t really matter to them? Perhaps they thought that all of what Jesus taught and did and then how Jesus lived was a thousand times more important than anything else?
Just food for thought I guess…
for its unchurched (read: evangelical) people. However, when I think through what message he’s relaying to people, I cringe. I love being a woman. I don’t think God made some grand mistake in His design and purpose for me or for literally 1/2 of the worlds population. And I think people who are in positions of influence need to be significantly more careful when they throw random crap onto these here interwebs. So thanks Dianna for expressing, in a most polite and educated way, what I have often lacked the ability to say.
Sarah
When will people learn that, by definition, God is genderless, as God isn’t, you know, human? God doesn’t fall into categories of masculine or feminine. Jesus came to the world as a male because in an extremely patriarchal society such as Jerusalem was, no one would have listened to a woman; Jesus himself often inserted himself into very feminine and subservient roles.
Mark Driscoll’s interpretation of the masculine God is heretical to his own religious circle, should he think about it. Assigning gender roles and trying to cookie-cut God into a pinnacle of manliness brings God down to a human, mortal level, thus making God not God.
And this is coming from an atheist.
…and Jesus made a remarkably untypical effort (for that time certainly – and maybe in our time still!) to include women, to commission them as ambassadors, to appreciate them as fellow human travelers. Reading Luke’s gospel most particularly underlines this lovely truth, where God is depicted as female in the parable of the lost coin, where Jesus interacts with a Samaritan woman and shocks his team, where the women are the witnesses to the resurrection, in a culture in which women could not legally be a witness to anything. Jingles may be an atheist, but he/she is dead on target with this comment.
Hey “MPT”
Kinda weird to say I said something I didn’t. Assuming… Well you know what that means.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’m right either.
All I said was, you all, perhaps “we are” all wrong. Love should go both ways, not just to the gays, or “uber social justice” post modern Christians.. But also to Christians who dare have a different opinion, or make an ass of themselves on Facebook, or have a blog that devotes so much time to attacking Christians. I could join in and sing praises with the rest of the commenters, but …
Honestly it’s depressing to see so little love towards those we are called to love.
Hello Samantha,
Yes, we should love people, but that doesn’t mean we are obliged to agree with them. With those who are wrongdoing, we should call them out. At least that’s the way it should be, and used to be before people in the church placed Driscoll and other “mega-preachers” on such a pedestal.
Yes, but call them out publicly? Or in private? I kinda thought the Bible was clear on that.
You have a point. That said – and this is just my take on it – it matters on whether it’s a public matter or a private matter. Since this was a public tweet, I think it’s fair to critique it publicly. If this was a private comment being made, then the matter would be different and whoever had heard his comment should have made the critique in private.
Samantha, how is it loving to watch other Christians malign and oppress our fellow brothers and sisters without speaking out? I believe that speaking out in this situation IS love. Its not like Dianna called him names, she is critiquing his position and theology.
It’s wrong for Mr. Driscoll to criticize and make light of issues in others, but I’m a little taken aback by this post, as well. There comes a point where we can make the Bible say anything we want it to say if we twist the meanings just enough.
I’m certain the basic premise of I Cor 6:9-11 is clear. Men should not be effeminate. Period. That in no way denigrates women. I’m an ardent admirer of many women ministers (Christine Caine, Joyce Meyer, etc). Gender does not dictate level of anointing or strength of the calling.
Put simply, women should act as a woman and men should act as a man. Masculine women and effeminate men are both confusing the roles that God intended them to have.
Ultimately, though, those with strong opinions on this will fight tooth and nail for their viewpoint, regardless of how clear the Scripture may be. “Itching ears” prevail in our society. We want to believe our opinions are right and we want those opinions to be validated. I fear the infallibility of the Word will continue to be rendered impotent by those who choose to make it fit their definition of correctness.
“Put simply, women should act as a woman and men should act as a man. Masculine women and effeminate men are both confusing the roles that God intended them to have.”
Could you please explain that further? What does it mean to act as a woman? A man?
By my wearing pants, am I acting as a man? By my driving a car, am I acting as a man? By my studying math/science, am I acting as a man? How about when I look under the hood of my car to check my oil? How about when I discuss my opinions in a university class that is mostly men? How about when I complete a proof in my logic class? Is that masculine? How about when I go to my job and earn an income? Masculine?
What exactly is feminine behavior? Staying at home and popping out kids? Obeying a husband, even if he is wrong? Being quiet and demure? Are these feminine things?
So there is absolutely NO difference between a man and a woman in your eyes? I guess unisex restrooms and locker rooms are your preference? Why do we segregate those places? Why do we have NBA and WNBA? Need I continue.
Of course there are differences. I’m not going to bother with doing the background studies for you, but men and women are certainly different, and not just physically. Women are generally more emotion-driven (not ALL the time, but for the most part). That isn’t NEGATIVE, it’s simply a difference. One of many.
*runs for cover*
Having separate bathrooms isn’t about a person’s ability, it’s about modesty… a modesty that, say, South American tribes don’t seem to have. Thus, it is a cultural construction.
Women being physically smaller than men in many (but not all) cases is a reason for separate leagues of competition; however it is not without controversy– how many people esteem women’s sports as much as men’s sports? Again a cultural construction that may or may not be justified.
Women aren’t *inherently* more emotional than men… this is a Western cultural construction of Anglo influence. In other cultures, men are just as emotional as women. So, again, it is a cultural construction.
Next?
ps. As far as the background studies go, I have an undergraduate degree in psychology and a master’s degree in neuroscience, so I’m a bit unsure to which studies you are referring that “make women act like women” and “men act like men”. Outside of sexuality (which is on a spectrum such that sometimes women act attracted to men, or to men and women, or to other women– and the same for men) I have yet to see studies on that.
What I have seen are studies on women’s and men’s roles in varying countries vary with culture.
LRA, it’s obvious you are of much higher intellect and education than I. You’ve proven that by your degrees. We could go round and round about this. It’s obvious you have great ire for cultural norms and nothing anyone says to you, whether based in logic, fact or otherwise, will change your opinions (not that I have any desire to do so). my concern is that, if we constantly discount the teachings of the Bible as being only relevant to the culture of those times, we will end up with nothing to follow except our own opinions and ideals. I believe that’s one definition of humanism.
I never referenced any studies. I said I wouldn’t do any studies for you. Slight difference.
I don’t envy your fight to deconstruct our cultural mores. Good luck with that.
Tried commenting, but the site keeps saying there’s a duplicate comment detected. Trying again…
LRA, it’s obvious you are of much higher intellect and education than I. You’ve proven that by your degrees. We could go round and round about this. It’s obvious you have great ire for cultural norms and nothing anyone says to you, whether based in logic, fact or otherwise, will change your opinions (not that I have any desire to do so). my concern is that, if we constantly discount the teachings of the Bible as being only relevant to the culture of those times, we will end up with nothing to follow except our own opinions and ideals. I believe that’s one definition of humanism.
I never referenced any studies. I said I wouldn’t do any studies for you. Slight difference.
I don’t envy your fight to deconstruct our cultural mores. Good luck with that.
Well, I appreciate you engaging!
I’m a science and society studies person (philosophy of science) and so deconstruction/ analysis of mores is part of my career/ study path/ vocation.
I get quite a bit of satisfaction out of questioning norms. I’m a liberal, and so I don’t mind multiculturalism or progressive ideals. I have never been one to do things just because tradition arbitrarily dictates that it be so.
I’m also (obviously) a woman, so when people try to tell me what is feminine or what it means to be a woman, I have only to look at myself and say, “Ain’t I a woman?” (to quote Sojourner Truth). When people diss femininity as weak or lump all women together in a mass, I object!
What traits of mine are feminine? Aren’t my traits simply… human? I’m smart and analytical. But I’m also passionate and emotional. I’m independent and strong-willed. But I’m also a person who needs other people.
What is it to be a woman? From my experience, it’s not that different from what it means to be a man. To not have this acknowledged puts me in a “lesser” category. I don’t deserve to be relegated to the “lesser” bin.
I’m a HUGE believer in equality, LBA. If that came across differently in my initial post, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
It’s easy, when discussing this type of subject, to assume the word “lesser” is a part of the argument. But “lesser” and “different” are not the same. Femininity is NOT weakness. Masculinity is not strength. (We may BOTH have to argue with the dictionary definition of those words, however.)
Curious, though (I ask this in all sincerity and not in an argumentative fashion). In your opinion, is the ONLY thing that differentiates a man and a woman physical?
I see strengths in women that are rare in men and strengths in men that are rare in women. Many of those are bolstered by necessity. For example (and I know this could be a bothersome analogy for you – I don’t mean it to be), women seem to have a higher tolerance for extreme pain than men because their physical bodies are created to survive labor. I know of few men that would be able to handle that kind of pain.
Could it be that nature intended for there to be a difference, but our desire to “equalize” (I use that term loosely) ourselves in all aspects of life is causing a blurring of lines? I don’t have the answers, just posing a question.
And you know what? I appreciate your questions!
The thing is… if women can withstand pain, that is a *physical* adaptation and not a behavioral one!
You ask me if the difference between men and women is biological… well, yes!
But I was a tomboy growing up! I went into a scientific field (lots of men there!). I have personality traits that many people consider to be “masculine”. I have a degree in philosophy, and when I read writings on gender from a long time ago, I’m often dismayed at the assumptions that people (men and women alike) made about women!
In fact, had I been born an century earlier, I might have been in the position of Charlotte Perkins Gilman or Elizabeth Cady Stanton! That kind of struggle makes me a little green!
I get really really irritated when churches try to tell me how to be feminine. I say this as a former Baptist. The whole “wives submit” stance never sat well with me. My issue was that the whole verse goes like this: Wives submit to your husbands and husbands love your wives like Jesus loved the church…
What guy will love his wife like Jesus loves the church? What kind of man will sacrifice his life? NOT MANY! But they still want us women to submit… despite not holding up their end of the bargain (which is admittedly more strict!)
Anyway, gender roles are bunk. No one can live up to them. That’s why I’m against them.
LRA, I believe Richie means that men should play the roles given to him by God, as in, leadership within the church and as head of the family. Women should also take to heart their God-given roles as supporter and encourager. This does not mean that women cannot be leaders and that men cannot be supporters. When necessary (such as a single-mom household), the woman must take up the leadership role. This isn’t sinful. Nor is it sinful for a man to take care of children or clean the house.
A woman may do all of those things you mentioned. As can a man. Those activities have absolutely nothing to do with what Scripture has to say about how men and women should live.
I’m pretty sure God realizes that women as perfectly capable to be leaders and men are perfectly capable of being submissive. But His design is what I previously stated.
Why?
Well, I’m pretty sure it has to do with our areas of sin. I’m not trying to stereotype, but just from experience and witnessing, men tend to sin in being apathetic, lazy, indifferent. So God calls them to leadership to get them away from those temptations. Women, however, tend to sin with pride and stubbornness, so God calls them to be submissive to avoid those sins. This is displayed with utter perfection in Genesis with Adam and Eve.
Also, as far as obeying a husband, women DO have a say and an opinion in what decisions a couple makes. If she sees something as being clearly wrong or malicious, then she must certainly express those feelings to her husband. No one ever seems to realize that the Bible commands husbands to RESPECT their wives, but it is true. He must respect his wife’s opinions, thoughts and feelings.
Hope this helps.
You’re not trying to stereotype?? I’d hate to see what happens when you DO try to stereotype. Basing opinions on outrageous generalizations and then trying to justify it Biblically is an all around bad idea.
I grew up in a fundamentalist household. I’ve heard what you are saying before, but I reject it.
Again, if you buy into the whole “Bible sets women’s and men’s roles” then you must also buy into the whole “Bible sets master’s and slave’s roles”. I don’t think you really want to do that. Being pro-slavery is soooo un-PC.
Angie- I responded to you and it either got caught in the spam filter or lost in cyber space! I’m tired, so I’ll come back to this tomorrow when I’m not so beat.
Have a good night!
What constitutes being “effeminate”?
Not being a jock? Being interested in books?Not having huge muscles? Having a higher pitched voice? Not beating up people? Not having hair all over one’s body? Having too much hair on one’s body? Being too short? Having a unisex name?
People have mocked men for having any of these characteristics as being “effeminate”. However, scripture does not condemn any of them. If you actually are a Christian, you should realize this.
Richie, who do you worship? God, or Mr. Driscoll?
Mr. Driscoll, obviously. Lol
Hey, those are your words, not mine.
Bro, if I were a follower of Mark Driscoll, I wouldn’t have said what I said in my first sentence. Not a follower. Just making an observation. Gotta be careful on this post, though. Dissenting opinions aren’t looked upon kindly. :)
Or what about when I lived in South Korea and taught kindergarten, and was nurturing and tried to be emotionally available for my students? What about my creativity, my love of costuming? What about my sensitivity? None of these things, someone may say, is inherently feminine or masculine. Then what is?
Or what about the fact that a lot of what’s considered feminine in the United States is actually quite masculine in most other countries? Tight t-shirts, fitted jeans, longer hair: this is how young Korean men execute machismo. Smaller, shorter swim trunks: this is how most of the male world goes to the beach, if they wear anything at all.
Does the meaning of the Bible change depending on where you are when you read it?
Joel – Thanks for this. I used to live in Japan. Boy, the effeminate men there would give Driscoll a heart attack!
But the question remains…what defines an effeminate man? What defines an effeminate woman? That might perhaps have been a better topic for a blog post instead of the ‘open letter’.
What do you do with the man who is genetically slender and will never be ‘buff’? What do you do if he happens to also be a gifted musician? Should he instead go for a career that will at least make him seem manly? Hit the gym and down steroids so that his physique is more acceptable?
What do you do with men in the nurturing professions? Nursing? Social work? Teaching? Does that make them effeminate? Am I masculine because I worked as a CPA, a field that used to be primarily male dominated? Is a woman skilled in working with wood masculine even if on her off days she likes dresses and nail polish and curling her hair?
It’s not so simple to put it simply, is it? Women acting as women and men acting as men has more to do with our culture than with anything biblically mandated.
Rea, good points! It’s not as simple in our culture to define those roles. I’m a man, I’m a musician, and I’m creative. Plus I am NOT buff and sport moobs (man-boobs). Does that make me effeminate? Lord, I hope not.
I don’t think it has to do with occupation or physical things, but more to do with sensuality perhaps. We are likely all familiar with men who have a particularly sensual feeling about them. Uncomfortable for men and women alike to be around them.
Just a thought.
Being uncomfortable around “them” is called homophobia.
I never said anything about being around a homosexual. Wow… Nice misunderstanding there, friend.
I have friends who are gay, and I don’t feel like they’re wanting to undress me with their eyes. Though I doubt that would be the case with ANYONE I’m around. :) I’m not uncomfortable around my friends. I’m uncomfortable around people who are overtly sexual, whether man or woman.
Is that clear enough, mj?
Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Now that I think about it, effeminance may have more to do with sensuality, regardless of gender. I’m the first to admit don’t have all the answers, but I do want to live my life according to my understanding of God’s Word, rto the best of my ability.
Richie, I love reading your responses. I have gained so much respect for you. I can tell that you truly honor God with your life and aim to glorify Him with everything you are.
Angie, thanks! I’m trying, imperfect as I am. :) Appreciate your comments, as well!
Thanks for your response earlier. Very well thought out…
Do you know Angie from another blog community? Both of you have never once commented at this blog before.
That’s normal for a Driscoll post. I’m just wondering, since she has gained so much respect for you based on six comments.
Matthew- Actually I’ve very rarely happened upon your blog. Saw a link to it from Vicky Beeching on Twitter. Don’t know Angie at all. Just found this article too compelling to pass up.
Also, very rarely read anything from Driscoll. It was the content of the post that drew my attention.
Angie, WOW – as opposed to the rest of us that don’t truly try to honor God?
Fundamentalist believe that only other fundamentalists honor God. Everyone else is participating in one of those “dead churches” that Revelations talks about.
Didntcha know?
Wow, easy to hurt your guys’ feelings! Just so you know, I’m not a fundamentalist. I’m sure you all try to honor God with your lives as well. Of course, there are certainly areas all in our lives where we immensely fail.
I commended Richie because the way in which he writes his comments. Loving, calm and with wisdom. Many of you guys are taking the road of rage. It truly is heartbreaking for me to read some of them.
No one is taking the road of rage here! My goodness!
I’m not taking the road of rage, I’m calmly talking about my disagreements on a blog. Where’s the rage there?
Dianna is discussing gender norms and the problem of using the word “effeminate” to insult men. Where’s the rage there?
Just because we disagree with you doesn’t mean we are outraged.
And, yes, you are towing the fundamentalist line when you imply that the church insists on strict gender roles… the *fundamentalist* church does, many other churches do not.
My Grandmother passed away recently. She was Presbyterian (in Texas, too). The *female* minister at her church presided over her funeral. This is a clear example of women not being confined to specific roles in the church.
I’m sorry that you feel like there’s an element of rage in some of the comments. I’m pretty sure that’s not the intent of most of the people who comment here. Most of the people who you’ve interacted with are an ongoing part of this blog community, people who read and make comments on a regular basis. Those of us who have engaged this community for a long time know these people and have read their stories and opinions. We’re close in a lot of ways, even though we might disagree with each other on certain topics. We’ve grown to appreciate each other’s blunt honesty and value each other’s opinions. For instance, Kevin has been coming to this blog for years, and he and I disagree on many different things. But we also agree about a lot of things, too. I love Kevin as much as anybody can via twitter and blog comments. It took time for he and I to understand each other’s personalities, but we stuck with it. The same is true for LRA and me! We disagree on things and agree on other things. Still, we are friends! I know her story. I understand her story. While lots of regular readers disagree with LRA about the existence of God, those same people have grown to respect her, listen to her, and value what she adds to this community. And I could go on and on, mentioning lots of regular readers.
I think sometimes, when somebody new shows up, our frankness and support (and our challenging of others’s ideas) can be a bit overwhelming. It’s sort of like an outsider coming in on a heated debate among family members. Yes, we get emotional. Yes, sometimes we overreact. But at the core, we love and respect each other and we value the other’s opinions, even when we passionately disagree with them. If you decide to stick around, the community of regular readers at this blog is by far the richest, most beautiful aspect of this blog.
I hope you do stick around, Angie!
Thanks for reading.
:D
I’m sorry that you feel like there’s an element of rage in some of the comments.
You mean you ‘regret’ they feel that way.. to be sorry would be to admit error and say that it is wrong and shouldn’t have happened (I don’t like fake apologies).
I don’t think that the whole ‘it might look like anger, but trust me, I know them’ wouldn’t work if, for example, I said ‘Driscoll’s comment might look like misogyny, but I’ve known him a long time, and it’s just blunt honesty which you have to grow to appreciate, at his core he values women’. This blog is called ‘Jesus needs new PR, so shouldn’t it reflect something different from the ‘old’ PR? If they can turn around and say that outsiders are misreading their attitude, why should here get a free pass?
Sometimes it takes a fresh set of eyes to see a problem, and if all the newbies are saying ‘woah, steady’ shouldn’t that give pause for thought instead of defensiveness?
As far as I can see, no one is saying not to rebuke or criticise, but they are saying that perhaps this instance was not done with enough grace, and I’m not sure what message it sends if you also appear defensive about such criticism. Just calling it bluntly ;)
Andrew,
It’s quite obvious that you do indeed know Mark. Your comment is drenched with the same preachery jargon that I’ve heard from a host of male pastors my entire life. And because I am familiar with this kind of drivel, I also know that I am wasting my time to even attempt a decent dialogue with you. But since you do know, Mark, perhaps you should have a heart to heart with him. Whether you want to believe this or not, his words and actions have hurt a host of people from varying walks of life. All of your passive aggressive spirituality in support of him and to challenge those who challenge Mark only aids in thickening the case against preachers of his kind. If he truly cared. If he truly was concerned. If he is truly a humble “man of God”… then he would respond in some way. With love. And grace. And without that cocky grin he wears when he’s uncomfortable and acting as if he doesn’t know why people don’t like him. Instead of wasting your time here, Andrew. Go talk to Mark. Go preach the gospel of grace and humility to him.
I heart you, MPT. I really do love the community here. :)
This is a reply to this comment (just below this one)
Matthew, I’m very saddened by your response, which is largely ad hominem, baseless assumptions about me, and defensive deflection. I really am puzzled as to why someone positioning themselves as the ‘new’ more tolerant ‘PR’ would be so hostile towards criticism and call to take a moment to reflect. Shouldn’t we all be able to take some criticism and say ‘maybe you’re right, let me think about that’?
It is entirely an untrue that I know Mark. I don’t even live in the US. Further, I have made the point several times, including a tweet to his twitter account, that he needs to repent.
I really am saddened by your cynical response, which unfortunately resembles the kind of knee-jerk response you would rightly criticise fundamentalists for.
Are you really saying that it’s a waste of time to preach a gospel of grace and humility at Jesus needs new PR?!
Are we not brothers in Christ wanting that people love mercy and justice and walk humbly with God?
Andrew.
The name of my blog is Jesus NEEDS new PR. It’s satire. It’s not meant to be taken too seriously. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I am the “new” PR that Jesus needs.
Do stick around Angie. It may feel as if you’ve walked in on a big family dinner and where you see angry arguing we see lively discussion. Here, I’ll pass the rolls. You might want another glass of wine too. Don’t mean to offend if you’re not one for alcohol. I’m Lutheran (or ex-Lutheran) and we like our wine and beer.
Haha, I’ve still got a few months to go before I’m allowed to drink. I’ll take some of that grape kool-aid, though! ;)
Ya got a sense of humor and you’ll do just fine around here. They start us Lutherans on the wine right about 13. Memorize a whole bunch of stuff, including some creeds and bam you’re ready for wine with the grown-ups.
Now that I think about it, this is a website that makes fun of cheesy Christian stuff criticizing a guy that makes fun of cheesy Christian stuff. Lol, Matthew Paul Turner, c’mon now there’s enough room for more than one funny Christian guy. I think Acuff would agree ;)
SING IT, SISTER!
Angie you mentalist! Such a bee in your bonnet and so black and white and intense. Dianna explained it as a thought process; to engage and think about not to dismiss and be preaching fundamentalism all over the joint. Thus i can only conclude your response as a reaction-maybe you didnt like hearing another understanding of scripture, or recognising the impact of Driscolls teaching…and his stupid, juvenile fb statuses.
I seriously love this post so much, but I’m sad people are so extreme-not cool to label persons as ‘the gays’, their your brothers and sister, and love isn’t patronising or out of pity. Also ‘uber social justice’ Christians.
Why the hell would anyone ever consider the that a bad thing?!?? Uber social justice. Wow if only we were, that would be the PR Jesus deserves, the PR we should strive to give him.
Love this:
“Because you think being feminine is degrading. You think in terms of hierarchy: women are the Other and men are the default and any crossing between those lines is wrong wrong wrong.”
You don’t really need a series exploring gender in the church MPT, because Dianna pretty much covered it right here.
Dianna, can we be best friends? :)
OK. I’m coming at this slightly differently. I’m not from the US so I probably am not as au fait with @PastorMark’s teachings as others. But I have seen him speak at a conference.
I don’t want to appear as though I’m defending Driscoll in this instance, rather I’m taking issue with this form of debate, which is not debate and is as bad as anything Driscoll might say. By all means pick apart a tweet or a facebook message as long as you’re following it up with, say, a critique on a sermon series or a book or something a little more substantive. I think anyone would be a fool to engage in debate based on a dissection of one of their facebook statuses, so I’ll be generous and say Driscoll isn’t a fool, so you won’t get debate from him on this.
Second, as I said, I’ve seen Driscoll deliver three powerful and edifying sermons at a men’s conference. I didn’t agree with every word, but I thought it was a blessing to have been there. And Paul Baloche was leading the praise times, which was nice. Further, I’ve read Wild at Heart and Way of the Wild Heart and been blessed by those, too. But again, I’ve lived another couple of years after reading those and I’m going to make a general point on the masculinisation forces currently in the church. Yes, there’s a lot of good stuff there, but don’t judge yourself entirely by how manly you are compared to John Eldredge, especially if you’re a woman. I know I’ll never be manly enough and I’d be emotionally broken if I tried to be. There’s a lot I could do to improve my life and some of that might involve doing more ‘manly’ things.
Gender roles are strong in society. Not everyone is the same, but at the same time, things fall apart when we abandon them completely. But God gets more glory, because it is His grace that rescues us.
John, Driscoll has a history as a misogynist. If this were the first statement of its kind, the backlash might be overkill born of misunderstanding….But he’s said too many derogatory things about women and beat his chest too much about how awesome it is to be real man. Its fine if he wants to have those opinions, but its not ok to attach an out of context verse to them and then pretend those are God’s opinions.
so if Driscoll has a history of misogyny, then it should be easy to include at least a couple of other statements he made. Especially if they’re from books or sermons, which most people would consider have a stronger effect on shaping the beliefs of people than a statement he made on facebook. Let him bash himself over the head.
Question, especially to those who disparage the tone of this post and its comments:
Let’s consider MD’s post and its ensuing comments. I don’t know how many there are now, but There were over 600 when I looked at it earlier. Complementarian teachings aside, how is MD’s facebook post, with its naked invitation to gossip, to judge the heart, and therefore the spirituality, of someone that commenter has voluntarily visited as a minister of God (a worship leader) based purely on personal views of effeminacy, at all appropriate for a moral leader and Christian teacher? A call to the sheep to mock and belittle other ministers less “manly” than MD? To purposely focus on outward appearances and refocus worship itself from a person’s own relationship with God to how the person feels about the appearance of a man on a stage?
How is this not despicable?
That’s a very good observation and shows how endemic gossip is to the human condition and how much we need to guard ourselves from making glib remarks that are potentially dangerous. As I said above, it would be better if the original post had more statements from Driscoll. Jon Acuff could have said something similar, as he has been talking about ‘metrosexual’ worship leaders for a long time. But from the context of Jon Acuff it wouldn’t be seen as asking for gossip, more about sharing fun stories because we assume Jon Acuff is nice. Though, again, without the context if Acuff had said something similar it would be hard to judge motives.
(sorry for dragging an innocent party into this!)
I do think Driscoll was going for Acuff-eque ‘metro’ worship leaders thing. Certainly, the comment is not edifying, proud and gossipy, and he should repent for it, but to claim he’ being sexist and mysoginistic as many have here seems to be jumping to hobby horse conclusions, IMO.
I know only a couple of Acuff’s posts that you refer to. However, I feel Acuff and Driscoll are worlds apart here. Using a pretty standard MO, Acuff points things out and lets Christians gently mock *themselves* for it, so it is kind of a mirror. Thus, one of Acuff’s questions is, why do we even care if the worship leader is effeminate?
Driscoll’s comment takes irony to the level of sarcasm. He degrades whatever it is he is defining as effeminacy. His “clarifying” comments in the fb thread support an interpretation of an intention to mock *others* because he says he is concerned that worldly men are turned off when they step into a church and see it being led by an effeminate man. As a person of faith I find that single notion rife with so many problems it’s difficult to talk about them all, but this particular statement hinges on Driscoll’s fervency to enforce particular notions of gender identity. That fervency and condescending tone are consistent with and easily seen in a plethora of online sermons and writings in video and print. He may be being flippant, but he is not kidding.
kinda reminds me of the song by madonna, what it feels like for a girl..
How does any of this show the gospel? How does any of this show the grace of Christ? How does any of this represent Jesus?
Sincerely,
a pastor in Seattle.
Care to explain more? It’s very easy, and quite lame, to simply pull the “how is any of this helping the gospel” card? One could ask that question about most things? And honestly, it’s usually used as a way to be judgmental while trying to appear spiritual and full of grace. So to avoid that here, explain what you mean?
A woman writes a passionate response to a comment Driscoll made today (and he’s made similar comments in this past). Maybe you agree with Dianna. Maybe you don’t. But how is any of this undermining the gospel? Or is your gospel so small that you don’t believe it can handle a little social media disagreeing?
So please explain. Don’t use the “gospel” as a way to undermine a person’s thoughts about a topic that is an important one to many.
Thank you.
I think you’ve confused condescension with passion. The gospel ought to urge us to rebuke and correct in love, not in anger.
No, I didn’t confuse those things.
So with lots of love and no anger whatsoever, I rebuke your incorrect thoughts regarding my comment.
How does Driscoll’s rants about gender show the gospel? How does the degrading language used by him of “effeminate” men, stay-at-home dad, or even homosexuals show the grace of Christ? How does it represent a Jesus who recognized Mark Driscoll’s sin as any other person’s sin? Sometimes the most Christlike thing to do is to point out how unlike Christ somethings said from the pulpit are.
Well said.
There is nothing un-Christlike in rebuking… especially in rebuking a man (a man with very un-Christlike words) who many follow and look to for guidance in their walk with the Lord.
Mpt,
I’m not doing what you’re saying. I’m simply asking a question. 3 questions actually. Sorry if it’s coming across as judgmental to you. That’s not the intent. I’m not judging anybodies statements written above. After reading most of the comments I felt compelled to ask those questions. I believe they are valid, and worth asking often. It seems like you’re assuming some things about me and my intent. I’d prefer you to take the questions at face value.
I’m sorry if I’m assuming things, Mike. If you ask the three questions again, and this time put them in the context of the discussion that’s happening here at this post, then I’ll be happy to reconsider and take them at face value.
Well, i have to say I don’t agree with all that Mark Driscoll says. He is only a man, like all men he will stumble.
But reading through all these comments just breaks my heart. Slander and nastiness toward one another?! How Christian!!!! This is the last blog i read for a long time. Many of you should be ashamed of the comments you post. Would you speak this way to one another face to face? Really, would you? This blog makes a mockery of the church. Are you sure this is good pr for Jesus, Matthew?
Go ahead, delete my comment right now if it offends you too much. That’s just easier, isn’t it?
Sorry for the delay in posting. Your comment went to spam. I just found it.
Thanks for reading.
Wow. What a jerk. You’re doing a wonderful job demonstrating the kindness you expect everyone else to show.
Melody, is that irony intended when you called someone a jerk, or did you just call someone a jerk? I get the intended sarcasm when you say, “doing a wonderful job demonstrating the kindness you expect everyone else to show.”
No, it isn’t irony. It’s my outrage at someone displaying the exact opposite of what they expect of others–not practicing what they preach. I do tend to mix sarcasm and outrage when someone acts outrageously, because there are almost no words to express my outrage. Why do you ask? (Just curious, no axe to grind on my part.)
Mark Driscoll wrote an unkind post.
To which Dianna reacted.
And people on this website wrote unkind words.
To which Perpetua was outraged and wrote unkind words.
So you call him/her a “jerk”?
So… where does this end?
Hey Melody! First off, i do apologize and ask your/other commentators and Matt’s forgiveness for being too harsh and rude with my words.
haha! i hadn’t finished…so yup, i do totally over react and am a jerk in just the way i see others being jerks, or even worse. Peter pointed this out well. I am guilty of being a hypocrite far too often, but so are you when you state, “what a jerk”. I stated that i was upset with people’s comments (not kindly enough, true) but did no name calling. I’m sorry you feel so outraged by what you think is me not practicing what i preach, when i believe i was just too harsh/rude sounding. Is there no grace for those of us who over react and are stupid at times?! Esp when we are willing to admit it?!?!?
HAHA what!?
Jonny… it seems obvious the “haha” conveys an “oops” for accidentally posting before finishing her response. It’s called context. Geesh, comment boards really are a third rate form of communication.
And Perpetua, I am very impressed with the humble way you took ownership for your own crap. It remains to be seen if other parties are capable of grace or self-reflection. Your initial comment, while certainly acerbic, rightly addressed a sickness in comment boards, namely, the tendency toward nastiness and slander and unkind words under the anonymity of the keyboard. Nothing can replace face to face accountability. Thanks for reminding us!
(and despite the “outraged” response, some actually agree with you)
the ‘haha’ was toward my own stupidity at accidentally hitting post before i had finished my comment. Gosh. I apologize and get no response and then keep getting picked on…wow.
see, i did it again. the above comment is from Perpetua, NOT Thenardier…he he. technologically challenged. Thanks for defending me Then, although its not surprising you do… :-)
please explain? are you picking on me to, or confused that i wrote ‘ha ha’?
Thanks. I’m not assuming anyone’s intent in this post nor am I assuming anything about others’ faith. How does this discussion or Driscolls opinion on the matter move the gospel forward or show the love of Jesus? Another question. Who decides what’s effeminate? Too effeminate? There is a worship/music leader at our church and she is very effeminate.
Dear Dianne,
while it is right and fitting that if you have a grievance with a Christian brother you should air it, I think the patronising and acerbic tone of this post to be entirely out of order, if not hypocritical.
It’s worth noting that Mark did not say ‘being effeminate is a sin’ – he may have shown his distaste for men who are effiminate, and I wonder if he wasn’t trying to make a bit of a (poor) joke like Jon Acuff’s guide to Metrosexual Worship Leaders, but a distinction needs to be drawn here about what he actually said. Yes, his asking for ‘stories’ is wrong, but so is putting words in his mouth.
You point to 1 Cor 6:9 and muddy the waters by posting several translations (ranging from more literal to paraphrases) and then seemingly suggest that the meaning of the word is up for grabs. I suggest that turning to the greek would have been more in order:
This is a fantastic response. Thank you so much for this.
Hi Andrew:
I’ve caught a bunch of your comments over at Friendly Atheist as well, so I can tell you right now that we’re probably going to remain at an impasse. But I still hope that you listen to what I have to say (and what others have to say) with an open mind.
You write: “Paul is chastising the Galatians for suggesting that there are different classes of Christians – but Paul says no, we are all equally saved by faith, and equally heirs in Him.”
That exactly what I’m saying – in a post-crucifixion world, gender roles fall away as they are necessarily oppressive, which I understand is a leap you are unwilling to make.
Gender roles say: “You have a vagina. Therefore you are x, y and z.” They reduce a person to his or her biology and fail to consider any aspects of personality. Alternately, gender roles say that because you have certain biology, you cannot do certain things. Excuse me, but if having a vagina means I can’t study theology, then we’ve got a problem because God gave me this brain – I didn’t choose to have it. Gender roles are necessarily reductive, and anything that reduces a person to their biology and proceeds to dictate behavior will necessarily be oppressive. I’ll be covering this further on in my series about gender and the church over on my blog; you’re welcome to join me there.
Paul says, in Christ crucified, you are no longer defined by whether you have an innie or an outie – you are equal. And, in my world, “separate but equal” doesn’t translate well, and gender roles necessarily disappear.
You also imply that my leap to the verse in Corinthians was a leap too far, when, indeed, looking at the comments on Driscoll’s post, it’s a leap many, many of his own followers made. I don’t think pointing to that verse is muddying the waters, as your citation of the greek demonstrates that the waters are already muddy.
Thanks for your comment, Andrew. I’ll be taking it into account as I write my series for this week.
Hi Dianne, thanks for taking the time to respond.
By and large, the exegetical issues of Galatians is very much a secondary issue in this case. (and you’re right, your view is a ‘leap’ I’m not willing to take because I don’t see it being the logical necessity you obviously do). We could talk about whether gender roles are necessarily reductionist in the way you see them or not (in fact I would go so far as to say that often the things God calls us to are in spite of whatever ‘natural’ abilities we might have). I also suspect that what we both mean by ‘gender roles’ is not the same!
My main concern with your response was the tone, which just strikes me as far too sarcastic. This is not to defend Driscoll (I think he needs to repent of his comment) but to say that Godly rebuke must be done in love, humility and with a sincere concern for the Christian brother. I know it may be hard to hear such a criticism, but I do hope you won’t get defensive but consider prayerfully what I, and a number of others have sensed.
I can see how a rebuke can be done lovingly and with concern, but I struggle to see how it is done so in humility. Also, what really constitutes a “Godly rebuke?” When I read this post, it seemed Godly to me and not at all acerbic in tone or patronizing for that matter. It seems, like gender, that reading tone or determining a “Godly” from an “un-Godly” rebuke is subjective and constructed.
I’m not sure it’s accurate for me to call Mark a Christian brother.
My least favorite comment of all-time from Mark Driscoll came from a live stream of one of his leadership summits (or whatever they’re called). This isn’t verbatim, but I quote,
“If you think women should be allowed to preach to men, you worship a different God than I do.”
So, if by Mark’s own words, I don’t worship the same God, why ought I be concerned for him “as a brother in Christ”? To me, he’s just another sexist who, wittingly or otherwise, is advancing the power of his own ingroup in the name of God.
Nothing novel or worthy of respect in that, if you ask me.
I do not think you would be making this critique if Dianna were a man. Somehow, it’s okay for a man to be direct and bold, but a woman doing the same is not “humble” or “gentle” enough. I see this happen all the time. It is never wrong to boldly speak what you see as truth, and to speak out against injustice, and that is just what Dianna is doing. So enough of your gendered critiques and attempts to silence her!
Ah, now do I finally understand why he uses the word ‘effeminate’. No translation in my own language does use a word with that meaning in my own language (dutch) so I never made that connection…
Here’s my reaction called ‘The cultural problem of Mark Driscolls effeminate worship leaders…’: http://wp.me/pqPD4-87
Of course, we’ve all just assumed he is referencing 1 Cor 6:9, which may be an unwarranted assumption!
So, here’s my take. I’m not saying Driscoll is the end all, be all of theology in the modern world, but he has led a revolution to reclaim men. Here’s the simple point. Male leadership in the Church as dramatically dropped over the years. Driscoll’s passion is that men would rise up and lead again. Be leaders of industry, and ministry. Instead, you have a barrage of what he would call “boys who can shave”, and with that, men who have lost the natural instinct to become strong men who lead and love women passionately and PURELY. What you see over the past 50 years are men who are product of more divorce that we’ve ever had. When you’re a child, and you’re parents divorce, who are you likely to live with? Mommy right? What happens is Mommy who is just trying to raise you the best way she knows how end up inadvertently instilling feminine qualities. I say this because I am one of these men who have tried to spend a chunk of my 20′s to get back so much of the masculinity I never had. I know this is a generalization, and not every one fits into this category, but there’s truth to it. All Driscoll wants are men who would be men like those in the Bible. The deciples, Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist. Those were all pretty rough dudes. Hunters, fishers, leaders. Get my point?
My second point is this: I got really upset with Driscoll when he went off on a tyraid about things such as the movie Avatar, The Shack, and Yoga. He got pissed that people “buy into” these things. And what happened is he took the whole purpose of what those things actually were, and just beat the hell out of it to prove a point. While I understood the heart of what he meant behind doing so, I thought he got out of hand to prove a point that really was unnecessary. I would say the same to the publisher of this post. I understand the point behind what you write, but I just feel the passion is misplaced, and not needed. At the end of the day, I think Driscoll was on facebook, and posted something he thought was funny just to be a smart ass. We’ve all done it. And people are just too dang sensitive. Which I think is his case in point? I’m open to discuss. :)
how do you know what the men of the Bible were like? I am not sure just because they were hunters, fishermen, leaders…that you can say they were the 21st Century, American understanding of a a rugged, earthy man. That is an assumption which is not supported by anything in Scripture. In fact, look at David and Jonathan’s relationship–no I am not saying in any way they were homosexuals—but they were much more ready to show affection towards each other and in ways that American rough men would never. My friends who have traveled to the Mid East, who have spent time in that culture–the culture most closely connected to Scripture, state that the friendship connection between men is much more celebrated and open and they are more able to show affection for each other than American men.
The issue with Driscoll’s label of men being effeminate is his unwillingness to accept people as they are. If I was a man, I would be outraged. I know men who come from wholesome households who might be labeled as effeminate by Driscoll. Why would he judge a man who loves Christ but may not act in the same manner as Mark or the typical macho American man? That is the sad thing about Mark Driscoll. He pushes people away trying to restore his view of gender roles without accepting people as they are. Would Christ accept people as they are and then love them into holiness? or would he mock someone for having an effeminate worship leader?
I would also state to your argument that people are just too sensitive…..yes, sometimes. But there is also a lot of pain which you may not understand. As a woman who has been part of a church all my life, I have been hurt by the church and gender issues. I never felt valued because I didn’t fit their understanding of a woman’s role in the church. I am not the best in working with little children. I cannot sing if my life depended upon it. I am not married and have no children of my own. I never really desired to have children. I have been career minded. And my choice is met with judgmental words. I am not a ‘biblical woman.’ Yet, I love Christ and seek to follow Christ. And when I felt called into ministry, I was told I am incomplete because I am single. I am not good enough because I am a woman. Well, that hurts a lot. So when Christian leaders like Mark Driscoll reopen wounds by forcing 21st century understandings on Scripture, is it being too sensitive or is it an attempt to hold on to the freedom Christ has given us but human beings are trying to take away from us?
This post makes sense. Its an odd response of people who desperately don’t want homosexuality to be a sin. I understand it and I share the same feeling. I wish it weren’t but despite what this post says, it is.
I won’t go into what is wrong with the male prostitutes argument. I am sure out of 200 comments (I didn’t read any of them) that someone did. What I will say is that I have tried to force scripture to say the same thing for years but not too long ago I have just accepted that the clear teaching in scripture is that it is a sin and I am okay with that. It is just another thing that God’s Grace covers and yet more evidence that we need a savior.
It is not necessarily trying to make SCripture say something it doesn’t. As scholars learn more about ancient Greek and Hebrew, they are finding the ways other religions and the culture used the Greek or Hebrew word. If we look at the English word “bear”, it has two meanings atleast. And the context of the sentence tells us the meaning. Seeing how the ancients used the words, we discover better which meaning the author was probably using.
There is also evidence that homosexuality and male prostitutes were used in pagan worship services. Our language changes also. To say what the KJV or even the RSV rendered in the English is the best word is to not understand the English dynamic in the interpretation. Translating the Bible is a process which changes as the English language changes and as we learn more about the ancient cultures and languages.
I don’t believe I read this post as the blogger doesn’t want homosexuality to be a sin. The fact is there are heterosexual men who may act in a way which some consider effeminate. There are heterosexual women who act more masculine. To deny they can be used by God because of that behavior, is ludicrous. To mock them is sad.
I’m noting a few common themes in the responses that disagree with Dianna’s post:
1. Men and women are ‘separate but equal’.
2. Men are masculine and women are feminine, but it is impossible to define ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’.
3. Sure, Driscoll says misogynist things, but accusing him of misogyny is taking things a little far.
4. The tone of this post is uncalled for.
To elaborate a bit on point 4: Women are treated like crap in the church. Their value is tied to how many babies they pop out and whether they stay home with said babies instead of having a career. Male preachers are CONSTANTLY railing against (ill-defined) “femininity” and reinforcing rigid gender stereotypes. A woman is saying, “I call BS!” (and is doing so in a much more respectful manner than the particular man she is writing about), and people are saying she’s being over-the-top. I can’t help but wonder what the reaction would be to a man making the same kind of post about a woman.
Matt, if I could hug you right now, I would.
Thank you.
I appreciate the thought!
And I’d like to join that hug – Wow! I’ve been thinking all the way through this long list of comments – if a man had written exactly the same post would the response have been as fierce? I don’t think so. I have more stories of personal experience of that very truth than I could ever possibly share in this context, but I’m hoping that this wonderfully close circle of commenters has room for a few new voices. I love this post and I am grateful for Matt’s response and for Nish’s jump in.
P.S. I just retired after 17 years in pastoral ministry, coming to that place in mid-life after a very traditional 25 years as a stay-at-home wife and mom. I’ve been down this road a long, long time and am, at this point in the journey, simply exhausted by having to explain the wonderful truth that God calls ALL of us, males and females alike, to work together to build the kingdom of God and to preach the good news. Arguing biblical points tit-for-tat seldom convinces anyone to ‘change sides;’ experiencing a woman using her God-given gifts and answering a God-sent call is eventually the only way the change happens. And it’s a long, slow, difficult process. By God’s grace, we’ll make it. Along the way, it’s nice to find a few voices that say, “Welcome. We’ve been waiting for you.” That’s what I’m finding here. Thank you.
I agree with Nish! Great comment.
Thank you so much!
Matt -
As always, I appreciate your thoughts. Point 4 did occur to me – people tend to read me as a lot more “shrill” and “rage-filled” than I ever actually am. Trust me, you will KNOW when I’m raging. ;)
I just read it as “intense”, because that word has a connotation of “cool”. :)
So, if a woman expresses a strong opinion about something she’s described as “shrill”?–I’ve certainly never seen THAT happen before, like in the political arena or anything :)
I think there is something wrong with criticizing someone for something they did not say and trying to infer what they really mean.
I am not a huge fan of Mark Driscoll but I think people who dislike him and what he stands for use the same tactics to criticize him that they often condemn others for using against authors like Bell, McLaren, and other liberals.
my beef with driscoll has to do with specific language he uses to characterize parts of christian culture he doesn’t like. the language is extremely offensive to people in the Church who deal with same-sex attractions, whether they call themselves lgbt or not. it’s not a tactic to recognize those patterns in his words; i’m sorry, but regardless of how you feel about whether homosexuality is moral or not, “pansy” and “limp-wristed” are not okay adjectives to use from the pulpit, especially the way driscoll uses them and others.
No one needs to make assumptions about what Driscoll thinks of gender roles, sexuality, etc. He’s very public about it.
This post assumes nothing, and instead draws upon all of the public information that informs this idiotic faceboook status update.
Personally, Mark Driscoll creeps me out. Thankfully, I don’t, as yet, live in a location with a Mark Driscoll outlet, oops, CHURCH, so I don’t have to take any action as of yet.
That said, I used to be one of you and I bailed after I figured out that even the halfway point where Diane goes is simply not enough. The church is terrible for women. Despite Gal. 3:28, it expects women to be in a subservient position forever and doesn’t acknowledge the gifts and talents of half the human race. It looks down on us women who may have decided for whatever reason to never marry and have kids. It looks down on women who did marry and have kids. It puts certain expectations on girls and young women–in particular, that girls are the keepers of male sexual morality and must dress and act in ways that don’t tempt men (instead of men guarding their own eyes and minds).
There’s simply no escaping the fact that over the centuries, up until this very day, the church is unbelievably male-oriented. Even the language is absolutely male–and if you don’t think it makes a difference, go back and do Diane’s thought experiment again and again and again until you do get it. “God the Father, God the Son…He, His and Him”–I never understood what triggering meant until I realized why I was getting upset in church. It’s because all the God-language was overwhelmingly and emphatically male, where the male is in the image of God and the female, well, we’re the Other. And suggesting that maybe using some inclusive or non-gender oriented language to describe God is enough to make people (again, mostly men) break out in hives as they jump and scream and dance around trying to defend their image of God.
Mark Driscoll’s church may be growing, but, really, as the Pew survey shows, more people are like me and deciding that maybe getting harangued and made to feel less than human because of who we are (female, so-called “effeminate” male, and/or not living up to the sexual mores of the evangelical church) on a weekly basis is simply not worth it. I’d say that I spend my Sunday mornings reading the New York Times, except that isn’t even true anymore. With the Internet, there’s so much more to read. But church is definitely out of the picture.
“…girls are the keepers of male sexual morality and must dress and act in ways that don’t tempt men (instead of men guarding their own eyes and minds).”
In my youth group, they split the guys and the girls up for the sex talk. They told girls to dress modestly and not make sex jokes because the guys were potential rapists and might rape them.
They told the guys not to hang out with girls who dress immodestly and make sex jokes because we were potential rapists and we might rape them.
When I finally understood that this was what was being taught, it blew my mind. When I shared it a good friend who attended the same youth group, it blew his mind.
I guess I’m just trying to say that some of us are aware of the insanity and are doing what we can to get rid of it.
Diana, thank you for this.
About a year ago, we began looking for a new church community. And one Sunday, our visiting brought us to a congregation pastored by a woman. Having grown up in fundamentalist evangelical circles, it was a big paradigm shift. But as we drove away, my husband asked my daughter, “what did you think of that?” And she said “I liked it because it makes me feel like I can grow up to be whatever God wants me to be, and use whatever talents he gave me.” We never visited anywhere else. The church must get to the point that every child feels that way.
Dawn, that made me cry. That is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time – that if we don’t model strong women who are doing what God calls them to, ESPECIALLY if it’s outside the home, we should not be surprised when we have a generation that is not ambitious in that fashion. Thank you so much for sharing your story.
Personal revelation here, I am actually friends with Dianna so that might make more sense of this response. Why ESPECIALLY out of the home? I choose to be a stay-at-home mother and I know that your heart is not to put me down in this comment, but I don’t think that my daughter needs to ESPECIALLY see models of great women doing great things OUTSIDE the home, she just needs to see great women doing great things period! I think all women should do what they feel God calling them to. Just because I am living in the midst of what appears to be a stereotypical gender role does not mean that I am a stereotypical woman or that my motives for getting to the decision to stay home were even motivated by stereotypes. This just frustrates me a bit. I am tired of being lumped with the crazy conservative Christian camp because of my life choice. There has to be room for our girls to choose to be stay-at-home moms and still be strong women. And I also agree that our girls need to see strong women in the pulpit. Just be careful not to limit us stay-at-home moms to being weak and non-influential.
AMEN. And thank you. And hug that daughter!
Unfortunately, I highly doubt that Mark will ever change his views on men and women, masculinity and femininity, and gender roles in the church. The only appeal that seems to have a chance at getting him to change his approach to these issues is one based on the Bible that he teaches — the Bible that says we are to build one another up instead of tearing one another down, to speak truthful and gracious words instead of gossip, slander, malice, and back-stabbing. I pray that he will listen to those who, in the comments on his wall and hopefully in person, point out where statements like this fall far short, and ultimately will repent and change his ways. He needs to remember how many watch him and take their cues from him. His words and actions have great influence.
Amen!
I just want to share this thought. If you’re willing, take time to think about it. I think it has a lot to do with what’s being discussed.
All churches are walking a terribly fine line between grace and obedience. The extremity of grace is tolerance, and the extremity of obedience is legalism. No church can balance perfectly on the line, because no church is perfect. Only Jesus could walk this line with utter perfection.
I LOVE how you articulated this.
Are you responding to me specifically or to this blog post?
And yet, Jesus was WAYYYY more critical of the legalists (Pharisees) than the tolerant people.
Think about it.
Are you suggesting that some sin (legalism) is more terrible than other sin(tolerance)? If I were you, I wouldn’t buy into that belief. Because there is only one punishment for sin (hell), then all sin must be equal. Unless you’re Catholic and you believe in Purgatory, which isn’t supported anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.
I think the Bible, as a whole, is critical of both tolerance and legalism. Jesus spoke mainly to the pharisees because their disbelief in Him was very pointed, very obvious. But if you look at Jesus’ ministry as a whole, you’ll see that it speaks to everyone, all sinners, no matter what their background, no matter what the sin. This is actually explained in Galations, the verse about male/female, Jew/Greek, Slave/Free… all are equal in sin and equally receive the forgiveness of God. (You probably already know that I do not believe this verse relates to the roles humanity plays, but that argument has been worn thin… no point in focusing on it anymore.)
Personally, I grew up with a more legalistic background. I believe that things like abortion, homosexuality and the like are sins. This does not mean that I automatically hate those who have aborted their unborn child or are in homosexual relationships. Perhaps you’d be surprised to hear that I have some very wonderful friends who are gay. I love them deeply and care for them as much as my straight friends. I do, however, hate their sin.
I also pray every day that Jesus would give me grace, that He would protect me from being a Pharisee because I know there’s that risk. I’m willing to admit it.
All I’m trying to do is aim to be like Jesus. He was upfront about what is sin and what isn’t; He didn’t tolerate it. He convicted it. He was also full of love and grace when convicting people of their sin. I will not ignore what the Bible says is sin, but will always try to be graceful with ALL who are living in sin (as in, everyone). After all, isn’t it the least I could do after what Jesus did for me?
Here are some verses from Romans to think about:
Romans 3:31-Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 6:1-2-What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Romans 6:15-What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Romans 7:7-What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Ha! You think that tolerance is a sin?
You and I will disagree big-time here. It is not your place to tell other people how to live. In fact, the only person whose place it is for you to determine how to live is your own. Your being intolerant is the wrong thing here.
Intolerance is the root of hate. Hate is not love. If you are intolerant, then you are hateful. Period.
And the whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” line is bunk. If you hate the “sin” of gayness, then you do hate gay people. Being gay is part of who they are… they were born gay– gay is *NOT* a lifestyle choice. None of us straight people chose to be straight. It is part of our make-up.
Also… what the Bible says is “sin” is controversial. (1) Unless you’ve read the original Hebrew and Greek, you can’t be sure. (2) Even if you have read the Hebrew and Greek, you still can’t be sure because translation is an act of interpretation, and interpreters put their slant on a translation regularly.
So, you have no grounds to point fingers and call someone a “sinner”. That, too, is hate.
And just to be a little more clear here, my actions reflect my values.
I am a secular humanist. I am pro-choice. I study science and how it affects society. I was a school teacher. I was a scientist. I am a multi-culturalist. I believe in a Welfare state.
These are my values and my actions reflect them. To say that you hate *any* of my actions is to judge my values, and in doing so, to hate me as well.
Hope that is a little more clear.
LRA,
Hate is a tad strong, but I will up it a tad to make my point.
I KNOW your stand on welfare is historically and biblically bad for us.
I know that a Scientist will either have faith, or not know what his/her faith is because she/he is always looking for the truth.
I have just judged your values, as I should, and as you should, or you are brain dead.
However, I would also support your right to believe and act on things I KNOW are wrong, because in this country, that is the great experiment that demands no less of me. I would even risk my life for you to hold those wrong ideas. I don’t hate you. I don’t know you. I Love you. Why? Certainly not because i am a Humanist. Because James said that Faith with out works is dead, and my faith is alive. Love is an action, not a feeling, as is hate.
these are my values, and my actions reflect them. Keep on slamming we the blind with your light. Knowledge comes from the testing, not the learning.
peace
Tolerance to an extreme is a sin when it ignores what the Bible says is sin. But if you’re not going to trust the Bible, then I don’t see any point in calling yourself (if you are) a Christian. Because if we don’t trust the Bible, then we begin to come up with our own ideas of who God is. We begin to make an idol of our own knowledge, our own opinions and personal beliefs. Essentially, we begin to worship ourselves. Think about it. We become awfully self-centered when all we do is trust ourselves.
I trust the Bible completely. I don’t think there is any controversy in what is sin and what isn’t. If you want to know why, I suggest you read Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, chapters 2-5. I think it’d be pretty pointless to lay out the many reasons here.
And how dare you TELL me that I hate my homosexual friends? I literally read that with my mouth hanging open. Really?? Do you want to ask my gay friends if they feel hated by me? That’s something like saying I hate my aunt because she listens to Country music. I could argue that her being a Country fanatic is no different than someone being gay. After all, she grew up with that style of music, she didn’t choose to love it; she feels that it is very much a part of who she is. You think I hate her? I certainly cannot stand country music. So I MUST have this great contempt for my aunt. Yeah. Makes perfect sense. Let me call her on the phone right now, because I never realized this deep hatred brewing within me until just now. Thanks for that enlightenment.
That is way over the line, btw. If you didn’t catch the sarcasm. I am utterly appalled that you assumed that about me. So much that I don’t even have the respect for you anymore to continue this discourse. I hope you’ve learned something. I certainly have.
LOL! Angie– I already told you I’m a secular humanist… so *no* I’m not a Christian.
And I DARE you to tell your homosexual friends that you *hate* their sin and see where it gets you.
Calling our your intolerance is not intolerance.
Been there, done that. I have two really great friends, whom I’ve known since the pre-pubescent days, who are very aware of my Biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. I remember when they told me of their attraction to their own sex. We’ve talked about it. Those conversations were hard, but we remained friends. I love them and would do anything for them and I know they would for me as well.
Perhaps now is the time to stop making assumptions about me. You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here.
I think it is incorrect to say that it is impossible to love someone while hating their sin.
Many, many of my friends are alcoholics or borderline alcoholics.
The fact that I detest what Alcoholism is doing to them does not mean that I do not love them.
Granted, often people who say “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” use that phrase as a smokescreen to justify their own actions doesn’t change the simple fact that it isn’t only possible, but necessary in this world.
Gayness is not a sin. Gayness is a way of being. If you hate someone’s way of being, you hate them.
And just to clarify a little more here, I wasn’t thinking of self-destructive behaviors like alcoholism, I was thinking about so-called “sins” that are differences in ways of being, personal philosophies, etc.
I’m an agnostic. Surely that’s a “sin” in some people’s view. I object to having my personal philosophy called a “sin”. It’s insulting.
Likewise, it’s insulting when people call gay people sinners because more so than a personal philosophy, being gay is part of their make-up. Brains are feminized or masculinized during development. Usually it matches up with the genitalia, but every so often, it doesn’t. Hence, gay people are born.
When people say “I hate the sin” what they are really saying is “I hate the behaviors of the person regardless of the reasons why those behaviors are enacted.” This kind of judgment is loving? I don’t think so!
People who want to love me need to accept that I’m not going to change fundamentals of my personality/ temperament. I’m not going to change my personal philosophies, either. If you tell me that you hate my agnosticism, or the fact that I’m pro-choice, or the fact that a liberal, or the fact that I think science demonstrates that the Bible is less than literal, then you hate me. These are my ways of being and my personal beliefs. You hate my behavior, then you hate me– the essence of me– me as I am. My behaviors reflect my essence.
Hey LRA,
I don’t agree with everything you’ve been saying here but have respected the logical way you have been presenting your arguments … until this one.
You say here that, “Brains are feminized or masculinized during development.” But you had me convinced that there was no such thing. So what is feminine or masculine? You have been passionately arguing that the only differences are physical (sexual organs, etc) and anything else is completely culturally driven. So what part of my brain is masculine or feminine (outside of cultural influence)? Define masculine or feminine brains. Maybe I’m missing something here but now you are arguing for the other side?!?
See, this is where so many people (and we) reach an impasse. There is no way I can convince you that homosexuality is a sin and there is no way you can convince me that it isn’t. Therefore, it’s impossible for you to come to terms with the fact that we can love a person and hate something about them.
Just because I dislike the fact that you’re pro-choice does not mean I can’t like you. It’s short-sighted to pigeonhole someone like that.
You can’t (well, you can, but you’d be wrong) say that I hate my gay friends just because I sincerely hate their sexual preferences. That seems extremely intolerant of my view of life, doesn’t it? One of my gay friends is like a brother to me. I hate the choices he made (and, yes, he CHOSE to take that road – he told me as much). But I would take a bullet for him.
We’re not here to revive the tired argument of whether homosexuals are “born that way” or not. That argument has been going on longer than any of us have been alive and it won’t go away anytime soon just because of our viewpoints.
Grateful for the opportunity to voice my opinion and hear yours, but I think the fundamental differences in our world-views makes further discussion useless.
I DO wish you the best and pray God’s blessings on you. (See, I don’t hate you just because I disagree with your agnosticism.) :)
Well, your opinion may be based on your worldview, while my claim is based on my understanding of scientific fact.
People can argue all day long about gayness, my answer is to go to the facts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21315103
Here is just one study, I could post more if required.
ps. Hate is such a strong word. I may disagree with your philosophies, but I don’t hate them.
Hate is hate. I don’t like haters.
I hate the haters … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY
I think you should post some more links :)
Long time, no see, LRA. Hope you’re doing well!
“Well, your opinion may be based on your worldview, while my claim is based on my understanding of scientific fact.”
Hey, you’re entitled to your truth, and I’m entitled to The Truth.
So, after posting that, just wanted to say sorry, that wasn’t meant to be directed at anyone in particular, I was just trying to comment on the incommensurability of the discourse between two interlocutors who aren’t able to see eye to eye. It happens all the time. I wasn’t trying to dis anybody in particular. It came out mean. I’m sorry.
You are hoisting yourself on your own Highly Indignant petard. And you do not even realize it, which is somehow very fitting given the circumstances. While telling someone it is not her place to tell other people how to live, you are, erm, telling other people how to live. You are setting yourself as the standard against which others must measure and if they fail they are not only full of hate but also apparently deserving of it. That is the unspoken judgment, of course. You would not dare judge now would you? Judge not, least ye be judged, right?
Being “intolerant” of intolerance is not actually intolerant… you get that right?
If Angie said that she hated Blackness, but had “plenty of Black friends”, you’d call her out on that, right?
It’s the same thing for gayness.
LRA, I do not think you are being intolerant of intolerance. I think you are judging ideas, teachings and views that do not accord with your worldview and attributing to them negative value, i.e., hate and intolerance. And in so doing, you are setting your standard as authoritative and having supremacy over all others. Basically doing what Christians are said to do. Your standard is the mark and failure to meet it defines sin or hate or intolerance. Whereas the standard that Christians (should) use is God’s, alas but we have been arguing about what is and how to ascertain His standard for millennia.
As for what Angie wrote, yes, if she had said anything like that, I would denounce it. But she did not say that. Racism is a sin; it is a distortion, no rebellion, against the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the Church about human beings created in the image of God. Racism denies the Imago Dei. In calling homosexuality a sin, Angie is not claiming that homosexuals are not image-bearers. Rather she is saying that those image-bearers, people she knows and loves, are in sin, and she hates the sin that enslaves them. (And to be clear, all sin, regardless of the type, enslaves.) There is a difference between calling a sin a sin, and denying that someone has inherent worth and dignity as a created being. That is not to deny the reality of some Christians having done the latter in their interactions with homosexuals. They have, but in so far as referring to sin that which is the teaching of Scripture and the Church, it is not the same thing at all. (And yes, I know all about racists using choice OT verses to justify segregation and other forms of racial oppression. It is still not the same thing.)
Again, I refer you to the science on this matter. Gayness is not a choice. People are born with their sexuality already set up, which then develops as the brain develops, and especially at puberty.
To say it is a sin is to criticize something that a person does not necessarily control (depending on the levels of development.) Being a person of color is also not something someone controls– so the analogy stands.
You know, and I seem to recall that your Bible says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” I’m pretty sure that means that as Christians, you are not called to point fingers and scream, “sinner!” but rather to embrace people as they are. It is rare to find Christians that actually follow that. Most Christians are consumed with other people’s sin, refusing to remove the log from their own eye first.
For the record, I’ve stated several times that I’m not a Christian, I’m a secular humanist. I live in a multi-cultural, secular nation, and so when I criticize intolerance (And yes, saying that you hate gayness IS intolerance), I do so because I want to live in a society where people are free to live according to the dictates of their consciences, and not a theocracy.
Therefore, there is no irony in my advocating for tolerance against people who would discriminate against other people based on arbitrary associations and flawed logic.
No, you are not a Christian, you said so upthread.
Referring to something a sin, especially behavior or a lifestyle that one believes is pre-determined by science, is farcical to a secularist. I understand that. But then calling anything a sin is a farce for that matter. People who do not acknowledge the existence of sin, to say nothing of the Triune God, necessarily have to dismiss attempts to qualify any act (thought, language or deed) as sin. They might call something immoral, unjust or make some other negative judgment (based on their own standard) but they would not call it sin. And not believing in sin or its consequences, they do not see the need for atonement or reconciliation through Christ. Whereas Christians do, hence our talking about sin, and yes we would do well to concern ourselves more with our own than anyone else’s.
As for science, science tries to explain phenomena; and whatever it does explain about human sexuality or practices, science does not justify deviations from God’s standard, biblical standards. At least not from the Christian worldview, which I know you do not share. Take for example the scientific claims that humans are not meant to be monogamous. Even so, adultery and fornication are sins. Or the science that proves some folks are genetically predisposed to obesity. Even so, gluttony is a sin. (One that American Christians do not hear nearly enough about.) Science can do a lot but in the end it cannot do the work of Christ; it cannot justify sin or excuse sinful behavior. But then this is the difficulty of these types of discussion and why people are almost obliged to talk past each other in aeternum. When you have different worldviews, you bring different presuppositions, categories and definitions to a discussion. So what I have typed is absurd to a secularist who wonders why science is interpreted through a grid other than the one they use to examine the world.
But setting all that aside, is the science quite as settled as you suggest? Aren’t there scientists (not cultural warriors, but scientists and scholars like Lisa Diamond) who argue that sexuality is fluid? The position that it is all set beforehand seems positively Calvinistic in its commitment to pre-determination, only instead of a Sovereign God, Y-linked proteins are supposedly doing the electing.
As for the study you linked, I do not have $39.95 to spare so I could not read more than the abstract, which states the hypothesis and the intent to review supporting evidence, but nothing else, not even methodology. If you are inclined to share more studies that would be great but I do not wish to impose any further than I already have. (One thing I am curious about is if sexuality is dictated biologically, and if gender is a social construct, how can genes pre-determine attraction to what is defined socially as male or female, masculine or feminine?)
Anyway I do find these studies interesting, even though they do not change specific biblical directives about sexual behavior, but I can see where they can change how we live out the specific biblical directive about speaking the truth in love. And still people will accuse Christians of being hate-filled haters who hate but so goes it. It is a free society.
Andrea,
This is a wonderful response. Thank you so much for taking the time to write this out. You are much more articulate and knowledgeable than I.
LRA- As for these “scientific facts” (because no, it hasn’t been proven 100%), it wouldn’t even matter if people are born homosexual or not. According to the Bible, it is still a sin. Andrea used a fantastic example with obesity. Some people are predisposed or are at a higher risk for it, yet gluttony is a sin.
It doesn’t appear to me that a propensity for obesity is relevant to the discussion of the sinfulness of homosexuality at all.
Let me try to explain.
Gluttony is a sin, the sin of consumption. Obesity is a condition. In the vernacular we might say an obese person is a person who is overweight, sometimes grossly so.
There is a correlation between gluttony and obesity. Gluttony can result in obesity. Gluttony is the sin, obesity is the result. Obesity is NOT the sin. Gluttony is. In fact, gluttony that doesn’t result in obesity…is still a sin.
A propensity to obesity means that one person can become obese with eating less than another person because of the way the body processes food. Thus a propensity to obesity means that one can exhibit the result of the sin with less sin or perhaps none at all.
We shouldn’t confuse the two. Because the correlation is not exact–a person who is obese may not be gluttonous, while a person who is fit may be gluttonous–we should refrain from judging the obese person as a glutton.
So the correlation of a propensity to obesity being similar to the physical propensity toward homosexuality doesn’t hold up. Because obesity is not the sin.
A better analogy would be a person who overeats due to a psychiatric OCD condition. Is that person sinning? Is that person a glutton? Or is that person responding, in a way that transcends choice, to a certain psychiatric/psychological makeup that nullifies that person’s ability to choose?
It really comes down to how one defines sin. There are at least two ways to look at sin. The first is that a given action is a sin. The *act* is the sin. Action “x” is wrong, action “y” is right, period. Taken to its extreme, this definition makes no allowance for the conditions in which the action takes place, and in fact doesn’t make much room for accidents even. The second is that the *choice* is sin. Choice “a” exalts the self over God, moves a person away from God, is manifested in action “x”, and is a sin.
The former is a legalistic way of viewing sin. Thou shalt not “x”. The latter is a more relational view of sin. By choosing “a” one fails to love the Lord your God or fails to love his or her neighbor.
When I hear someone say, “it doesn’t even matter if someone has a choice, x is still a sin because that’s what the Bible says”, I hear the former, legalistic view. The discussion of whether homosexuality is a choice is indeed relevant only to those who frame discussions of sin in a more relational aspect.
I know which view of sin I think the Jesus of the Gospels tended toward. I hope everyone who calls themselves “Christian” asks themselves the question carefully and thoughtfully (and perhaps repeatedly), because it really does play out in the their daily thoughts, words, and actions.
[disclaimer: in the discussion above, I said comparing homosexuality to an OCD condition would be a better analogy…in that it is a better analogy than comparing homosexuality to obesity. However, such a comparison is still hurtful; that is not my intent, not what I believe either in science or in faith, and I apologize to anyone who found it so.]
@ Bill.
I have TBI. I Sin all the time. My physcologist and nurologist told me I would be divorced with in a year of being injured, and spend the rest of my life in a hospital. Why, because my fits of rage hurt my family, my wife and my house. I don’t remember them happening, I only see the results.
So, end of my life as I know it. Great news. I am a physicist so I respected the science that brought me to this point.
Then my pastor told me that my behavior was a sin. I did it, I was responsible. Evil jerk. Missed the mark. Intolerant Christian *hole right?
Wrong. I was hurt more than 20 years ago. I am still married. I am still injured, and will die early because of it. I accepted that my behavior was counter to the way I should be, even though I had not choice in it, and it was me, and my wife and I found a way to gain control over it, and forgiveness was and is a giant part of it. God is intolerant. He is Love. In humans, without the spirit, these two things can not abide, but with God, they do. All because my pastor told me the truth.
I’m having trouble with this. I think Driscoll or however his name is spelled was out of line. I also think the poster was out of line to a degree. I’m an unmarried dude, and I want to say that up front, maybe my views will change as I get older and have kids, I’m not sure. BUT the author seems to to think it’s ok for guys to act effeminate. I don’t think I agree with that. Here’s my thoughts, if I were a dad, I’m not now, and my son began to act very effeminate I think I would have some issues with that. IN THE SAME BREATH, if I were a dad, and my daughter began to act like a boy then I would also have a problem with that. I don’t think G-d makes mistakes when He makes us. I don’t think I was born a boy on accident, and I don’t think my sister was a girl on accident. Each gender is blessed with ways it relates. I have friends who are girls and will read a passage of scripture and they will pull something out of that passage that I would never get because they have a different connection with G-d. (Men and Women relate differently, that’s an assumption that I make, and I believe is true.) Women are repressed I think in the church, I don’t think the whole “Shut up and be quiet” attitude we assume Paul said is correct. I do think that each gender has something to bring to the table that the other needs. Men depend on Women, as Women depend on Men. I guess I would say that we should embrace our gender, be proud to be Female or Male, without making the other gender less.
What does it mean to be “masculine” or “feminine”? People keep commenting to say “Men should be masculine and women should be feminine,” but they have yet to provide a satisfactory illustration of what either of those words means.
Are you saying men should keep their emotions buried? That they shouldn’t use hair products or makeup? That they should work out? What does it mean to be “masculine” and what are men doing that is “feminine”?
What about women? Should they refrain from studying math and science? Stay away from video games and table top roleplaying? Avoid strength training exercises?
I’m pretty sure the author is okay with men acting “effeminate”. I’ll go on the record as saying I’m okay with that as well because I think it’s a made-up concept.
I’m not saying that at all, guys should share their emotions, and if a girl has an interest in something than she should pursue it. I am saying that if I’m blessed to have kids and my son says “I want to be the mommy,” I’d probably have a talk with him about that. In the same way as if my daughter said “I want to be the daddy,” there would be some sort of talk. I don’t think a guy is someone who shuts everything in and drinks beer and can bench press a thousand pounds, I think a Man is someone who runs fully after Jesus regardless of the costs. Traditional gender roles are not what make you a Man or Woman. In regards to the “What does it mean to be masculine/feminine,” question I would say use some common sense. I am in no way trying to demean Women, I honestly think the Church as a whole undervalues the role they can have in church. I think if you look Biblically, G-d set up strengths and weaknesses for each gender. When your desire is to deny the strengths of your gender and focus more on the other, then I think there is an issue. That isn’t to say you don’t work on your weaknesses, but an abandonment of your strengths is dangerous. That’s what my point is, in a long and round about way of saying it.
So what are the strengths and weaknesses inherent to each gender then?
If there is a problem with abandoning it, I think it should be able to be defined easily.
This is a great article on what I am say, and as I cannot say it any better, I won’t try to. http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001093.cfm
If “What does it mean to be masculine/feminine?” can be answered by common sense, why haven’t you provided an answer? You keep talking about “strengths” and how it’s wrong to abandon them, but you haven’t explained which strengths are inherent to either gender.
I can’t say it better so I won’t try. When guys start to walk away from these, and when women want to take on these as their primary goals.
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001093.cfm
This article is rather odd. It makes claims about Biblical manhood, but has zero references to back up the claims it makes. Not only that, many of the things claimed are tenuous at best, or outright incorrect.
Take this quote from the introduction.
“As defined in the Bible, manhood is a functional reality, demonstrated in a man’s fulfillment of responsibility and leadership.”
There is no such definition in the Bible. There is nothing even remotely close to that in the Bible.
I kind of think that if something makes an appeal to authority on something, it should reference the source material.
Some of these are common sense traits that are applicable to either gender (such as “have a job and be smart with money”), and some are just nonsense (“being masculine means getting married and having kids”).
How is good communication a masculine trait? And why shouldn’t women want to make that a primary goal?
Amen, the article really shouldn’t be limited “manhood”. The economic maturity is something that has always been a trait both genders need. Despite the trend in modern Christianity to say the woman’s place is in the home, the Biblical evidence is that the home was the economic center. So the wife, read Proverbs 31, also took part in the family business. They too made things to sell, cared for the animals, etc. And both the mother and father were to raise the children….look throughout the Torah and the instruction which is given to the men to instruct the children.
To make the differentiation between gender roles as shallow as occupation or in certain traits is to misunderstand what it means to be human. I am not sure we are called to be territorial of our gender in such a way.
Can you define “acting like a boy” and “acting effeminate”?
Or is it just like the Supreme Court’s age-old definition of pornography–”I’ll know it when I see it”?
I have a sneaking suspicion you know it just as well as I do. I’ll try though. If a boy says while playing “I want to be the mommy,” that would be an example. I have no issues with a young boy saying he wants to cook or clean, what’s that matter? Like I replied to Matt, when you abandon the strengths of your gender for the strengths of another, I think there could be issues.
Actually, no I don’t, and I wasn’t trying to lead you or be intentionally snarky.
The problem is EVERYONE has a different definition of what’s “masculine” and “feminine” and even those definitions vary widely with when and where you were raised.
Have you been around little kids that much? I have a little boy myself, and at a certain age hearing him say “I want to be the mommy” is no more omenous that hearing “I want to be a Smurf.” Kids experiment with stuff like that when they play.
LOL. Last year my son decided he was going to be a “seahorse daddy” when he grew up because he wanted to be the one to have the babies.
My sons play with dolls. My husband does all the cooking and baking. My sons love to help him. Are they too effeminate? Is my husband?
In another year I will be the main breadwinner in a heavily male dominated field and my husband will be the main parent at home. Does this make me too masculine?
Of course, I don’t really care if evangelicals think our family is somehow going against God’s order for gender. I have high hopes that my sons will grow up to be strong, confident, caring men and nurturing fathers (should they have children, whether they are gay or straight).
Bradley,
With all due respect, I would feel sorry for your children. We are all judged unfairly in this world. But our parents are the ones who give us a safe place to develop who we are. Our parents are to reflect the parental love of God–Our Father in Heaven.
In Genesis 25 it states that Esau loved the outdoors and to hunt while Jacob loved to stay at home and cook. Would you be like Isaac and prefer Esau? But God loved Jacob and chose Jacob to become Israel. We see David and Jonathan showing affection in a way not normal in our Western 21st century minds. But quite normal for the Eastern world. We find the beloved disciple leaning on Christ as they recline at the Last Supper.
To say any of these stories in the Bible are effeminate or homosexual is to put our 21st century, American understanding of gender behavior on Scripture. But it should open our eyes as Christians to the fact that God uses people of all genders and all personality traits. Jesus broke down the cultural walls and definitions which limited people. We as Christians should not be the ones reinforcing those walls.
I pray that either before you have children or perhaps through your own children, God will show you what it means to love like Christ loves us.
Leanne,
Not that I don’t understand your point, but I don’t personally feel sorry for Bradley’s future children. This is probably more of a style point, but I generally try to stop myself before criticizing someone’s parenting skills because in the wilds of the internet, things can quickly devolve into telling random strangers that they shouldn’t breed.
I know I certainly had a lot of opinions about childrearing that went completely out the window when I had my kid.
Thank you. I wasn’t trying to criticize his parenting skills. I just wanted to make the point that his attitude right now was not reflecting perhaps the best a parent has to offer. As I stated at the end, I pray that through children he would learn what it means to love like Christ, just as you stated how children changed you.
thank you for your point. I could have probably said it better.
I don’t have an issue with anything you said, I wouldn’t call any of those stories gay or effeminate. I enjoy cooking, as well as fishing. I’m saying that I believe each gender was gifted by G-d with certain strengths and weaknesses, and that we should work on both. When we deny our strengths for the other genders I think there is danger in that. It doesn’t have to do with preferences of what we like to do, and I very well could have been unclear in my stating of that in my post.
Bradley,
But what is the supposed danger even if we assume that you are right about these “strengths and weaknesses” of both genders? What would happen to you, to your son, if he said we wanted to be a mommy? This whole notion of proper gender roles and definitions seems so foreign and even absurd to me.
spoken like a true effeminate guy
Psst, Dianna is a girl.
If anyone really wants to understand Paul’s teaching on women in the context that PAUL and the CHURCHES HE WROTE TO did, there is a great book called “Roman Wives, Roman Widows:the appearance of new women and the Pauline communities” by my former professor Bruce Winter. His biblical credentials are absolutely impeccable, and it is very safe to say that like a doctor knows the body better than your uncle Bill, he can teach you much more about the subject than Mark Driscoll.
That sounds like a great book to read. Thanks for sharing it, Pastor Mike!
He’s not saying that there’s anything wrong with being a girl, he IS saying there is something wrong when men don’t act like men, and when women don’t act like women. Women being feminine and men being masculine as God designed is what is being discussed. There is nothing harmful being said about women.
Our culture has mixed up roles so terribly that men often don’t know what men are supposed to be, to do and how to act. That’s why so many marriages are failing, homes are broken and people are so lost. God calls us to know who we are and who He says we are so that we can walk more closely to Him, in strength knowing who we were created to be.
From one woman to another, I believe you have made this about something that it is not. We need to be making this about what God’s Word is saying to each of us about our unique roles and responsibilities as men and women set apart for His glory.
And what, exactly, does it mean to be a woman? Can you please specify that for us?
I posted it earlier, but I think it went to the abyss of the lost internet submissions.
What noone has yet said is what is definitively masculine and what is definitively feminine.
Would someone consider a man with hair to mid back, who dresses extremely flamboyantly, and dances without women present particularly effeminate?
In my culture that is essentially the epitome of masculinity.
Erin,
Where’s your evidence to support what you’re saying? Are you a psychologist? A sociologist? A therapist? What do you know about the reasons why some marriages end in divorce? I am a therapist and researcher, and I can tell you that the assumptions and reasons you assert here are NOT the reason why some marriages fail. There are a myriad of factors that contribute to the dissolution of relationships that cannot be captured by some pseudo-scientific “magic bullet” or formula many conservative Christians use to blame gender roles for the downfall of marriage and family.
Erin,
This was discussed further up the thread and I don’t think any useful conclusions were reached there either.
So, you say Driscoll is saying “there’s something wrong when men don’t act like men, and when women don’t act like women.” Terrific. Can YOU explain to me exactly what that means? How are men and women supposed to behave?
I’m a woman who works full-time to provide for my family. Fifty years ago most people(actually quite a few good Christian folks nowadays) would not consider that “feminine.” (And my marriage is just fine despite that, BTW.)
If you go back 300 years, guys running around in high heels, wigs, and makeup were considered perfectly acceptable. The Bible describes Jesus and his disciples laying their heads on each others’ shoulders–does that sound “masculine” to you?
The problem here is, I think the definitions for “masculine” and “feminine” that Driscoll is using are still 21st-century American cultural ones (or maybe some kind of idealized, fictional version of the 1950′s, I don’t know), NOT Biblical ones.
Personally (and as one woman to another) I think that what REALLY makes marriages work is when they are treated as a partnership of equals. Sometimes one spouse is in charge about some things, sometimes submissive in other settings. Where the trouble comes in is this artificial creation of duties and behaviors based only on biology–which actually ignores the gifts that God gives an individual.
I might be wrong about what you’re trying to say, but until someone can explicitly say what they mean when talking about “masculinity” and “femininity”, this is going to devolve into total meaninglessness.
For me, this post is on-point, and articulates a lot of what the feelings I have about/within the church. I am not a particularly feminine girl, I am not a particularly submissive girl, I’m not interested in getting married anytime soon, and I don’t particularly want children. And I think that all of that adds up to make me not a very good woman in the eyes of the church sometimes, in part because of people like Mark.
So, appreciate you articulating what I haven’t really known how to say. And from my point of view, at least, I didn’t find you to be acerbic, but rather, assertive in a positive way.
Many of us Christians forget that we are made of a body, A soul and a Spirit! The ONLY between me and my wife is the Physical body! Her Soul and Spirit can not be identified as male or female.
ONLY the vessel is male or female because it is required to work for God in certain roles and places.
In the spirit – we are just that spirits – no male or female. That is where true christians should belong. We are in this world BUT NOT OF THIS WORLD!
Worship in spirit, be led by the spirit and be Be Immersed In The Spirit http://bit.ly/f7KP39
Where is the soul, and what is it made of? Where is the spirit, and what is it made of? And how can we know your answers to these questions are the correct ones?
If I were going to try to save anything about what I’ve quoted, I would first make it clear that the above statement cannot be correct with respect to ontology. It could only be useful if it were clear that we were speaking categorically.
Wait. I thought Mark Driscoll was gay? Didn’t Donald Miller kinda say that in a post?
Diana, I can’t wait to check out your blog. You seem rather humorous!
Coincidentally, I posted on gender roles today too. which is very rare for me. I’d love you’d to weigh in.
Cheers, girl!
You have a logical flaw in your argument as you leap from “boys should act like boys” and “girls should act like girls” into the idea of hierarchy, which to you means someone thinks one gender is better than the other. While you obviously care about this issue due to the fact that you have practically written a novel about it, I think you missed the intent of Mark’s brief Facebook post. He wasn’t condemning, only posing a question.
Um, amen. And thank you.
We can’t look to the world for the definition of what it means to be a female/woman. Our roles begin in Genesis when man and woman were created. Sure, we can always find justification for adapting our roles more to the world’s standards because of the obvious misuse of roles and responsibilities over the years, but to do so is sinful. The Bible is still true, so despite our fallenness we still choose to pursue a life of Biblical obedience, whether or not others are living Biblically within their God-given roles and responsibilities.
In the creation account we see that man and woman are created equal but different. We are complimentary to one another. Our roles reflect our uniqueness as designed by God.
God created woman from the side of
man, so she’s made of the same stuff – equal to man. But he didn’t create her at the same time, place or from dust, so she’s also different. Male and female are equal and different. God made them to complement each other.
From Genesis 2 we see that:
1. The female was created FROM the male (Gen 2:21-22); in the NT we see that the fact that she was created from him, and not the other way around- is the basis of a wife honoring the authority of her husband. (1Cor 11:8-10)
2. The female was made FOR the man (Gen 2:18); this is not a negative idea that implies license to use and abuse at will. It simply denotes ‘direction’. She was created because of him, his existence led to hers. It didn’t happen the other way around. Our adverse reaction to the idea that we were created ‘for man’ serves to underline how very far we’ve fallen from the original created order. Being created for someone indicates that God created the female to be a highly relational creature. In contrast to the male, her identity isn’t based on work nearly as much as on how well she connects in her relationships.
3. The female enriched the male (Gen 2:18). The Hebrew word ‘helper’ (ezer) is most often used with reference to the Lord being our helper. An ezer provides help that enriches and makes the recipient more fruitful than he would be without that help. Helper is a strength, not a doormat.
4. The female deferred to the male (Gen 2:22-23); the Lord created woman with a bent to be amenable, relational and receptive. He created man with a bent to initiate, provide and protect.
Gen 3:16 indicates that sin damages the God-given inclination of both. Sin twisted the positive desire of women to respond amenably to man into a negative desire to resist and rebel against him. It twisted the positive drive of man to use his strength to lead, protect and provide for woman into a negative tendency to abuse or refuse that responsibility.
5. The female was the male’s perfect counterpart (Gen 2:23); in Hebrew the name with which the male identified himself was ‘Ish’, while his name for woman was ‘Isha’. Ish comes from the root meaning ‘strength’ while Isha comes from the root meaning ‘soft’. The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give strength. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive it.
6. The woman was created in the garden (Gen 2:24); the female – the softer more vulnerable one – was created in the garden, in a place of safety. She was created in a place that was already under the protection and authority of her husband-to-be. The male leaves the protective sphere of his household of origin to become the protector of a new household (Gen 2:24). The woman doesn’t leave. She’s the constant beneficiary of protection from the authorities God has put in her life. The Lord wanted to ensure that woman, His final delicate masterpiece of creation would always be loved, cherished and kept safe.
Roles speak to who we ARE more than they speak to what we do.
We need to be careful to avoid letting our culture define us. The ways of God are always counter-cultural. God knows us and created us. Our inclinations are sinful, in all things. If we are acting in ways contrary to Scripture, it doesn’t mean we need to redefine Scripture, it means we need to surrender to Him and trust in His redemption to transform us daily.
I am a work in progress. My background is feminism. In my pursuit to live my life for the glory of God (and not myself any longer) God began a work in my life regarding my role as a woman. I have come to realize that God’s ways are perfect. Mine are not. As I began to submit to His ways, I have never felt MORE purpose or fulfillment. I have never been stronger or more capable. If roles are God’s idea, then I know there is freedom, peace and joy in them – so i gave it a try and once again He proved Himself to be true to His Word. It’s the crazy power of God’s word. It is not the law but the Spirit of God at work in me that has set me free.
Bless your heart.
I am not understanding your point number 4. Women deferred to the male and was relational and receptive. The man was to be the provider. I do not believe Genesis 2:22-23 indicates that at all. And when we look throughout Scripture, women were co providers for the family. Look at Proverbs 31 as the woman goes and sells things for her family. Look at Lydia who is a business woman.
The creation of woman in Scripture does not just indicate that woman was created to be relational but created because man was created to be relational also. Man needed an equal, which could not be found among animals.
Man was created in the garden too. According to both versions of Creation, there was a garden he was created into. And when it comes to the man leaving the family and clinging to the wife…..well that never really happened ever in Scripture. It was always the woman who left her household and moved in with the man’s family. And so, perhaps this statement in Genesis 2:22-23 was a reminder to men that as they lived under mama’s roof, their loyalty was to be to their wife and no longer their mama. Just some thoughts.
Thanks for the very thoughtful response, erin.
In that entire post, you didn’t say one thing about how you think men and women are different, just that you think they are.
Do you realize that, Erin?
brgulker… read her post more carefully.
300 comments. Well done MPT
Yeah, well done.
But c’mon, mpt, cant we have less theological posts, and more funny signs???? Isn’t that why we’re all here, for clueless Christians who make silly signs.
I mean, posts about an misguided pastor who has a problem with anyone who doesn’t buy his brand on Christianity and who is misleading thousands with his theology… is that really important to talk about?
I wanna see “Easter comes only once a year, how often do you?”. Now that’s worth 300 comments!
While I appreciate the message of this article, I think the fatal flaw in its thinking is obvious: people like Mark Driscol can’t be reasoned with in any kind of constructive way.
Thus, I think the only real solution is to speak Mark’s own language. We need to get a really tough lady to go over there and punch him in the face. Any takers?
How about a guy in skinny jeans and a tight tshirt? Some metro guys can be pretty feisty and could deliver him quite a “wallup”
As evidenced in the comments on this post, the overarching issue is that everyone has their own opinions on this and not many are willing to be reasoned with. So most of us are no different than Driscoll in that aspect.
Or some of us are angry that Driscoll uses the pulpit to teach “un-truths”. I personally am not calling him names or condemning him (as many others aren’t), but rather am upset as to what is preached by some and and what is believed by others.
The “you’re no different” card is an overplayed and ineffective card. How about I play the “its okay for women and ‘effeminate’ men, and for those who stand up for these people, to be upset” card. Pretty sure that card wins.
I included myself in that statement. “Most of US are no different”, not “you’re no different”.
What’s overplayed and ineffective is all of us shouting into a chamber, hoping that our opinions will change the opinion of someone else. I’m sure none of this will change Driscoll’s opinion, or yours, or mine.
The old adage that says something to the effect of “I never learned something from someone I agreed with”, hoping to learn from people with different opinions, unfortunately rarely works in our time.
No, a forum like this will never change Mark Driscoll. This discussion may not change any of our opinions. Yet, at least we are reading other people’s opinions and responding. I have always found listening to someone’s belief, thinking about them, and then putting into words my disagreements or agreements, strengthens me. We may be shouting into a chamber, but it is cathartic and it is an exercise in learning how to articulate hopefully in a constructive manner our belief.
I personally have learned why I believe in Jesus, why I am of a certain theological camp, why I believe a certain way about the Creation story or atonement because I have read or spoken with people who disagree with me. Whether I change my opinion or not doesn’t affect the worth of the conversation. I am changed by me interaction with others no matter what.
Gimme a break. This comment thread says nothing at all like that.
Dianna, I know I am late to comment but I just want to say thank you for this post – it has given me a lot to consider as a woman.
We can argue about what is masculine and feminine but since those are always changing, always being redefined by cultural and religious influences. As such, I think we end up stopping short of the real issue, labels. When we label, we divide, we simplify and other those who we claim are our family.
Pastor Mark’s choice of words make me feel that there is something dirty about being a woman. That for a man to have female characteristics is abhorrent. Am I overreacting? Maybe, but what if we switch out of the hotly contested world of gender for a moment and switch to a parallel argument. What if he had made a racial or size related statement? We would be all over him if he had asked people to call out “fat” or “too skinny” worship leaders or too “black” acting. It isn’t a perfect parallel, I realize that, but for those who defend Pastor Mark’s statement’s I want you to consider that within the church community we would not openly or even likely privately condemn a person for their size or their ethnicity but we have no issue with subjugating women and denying them an equal place at the table.
For what it’s worth, there are quite a few people who would say that you are NOT overreacting. Your body size and ethnicity parallels are spot-on, and I may steal them at some point in the future.
You are absolutely free to steal them.
I agree with Matt here – I think the ethnicity and body policing parallels are spot on (because what is his post if not a form of gender policing?). If he had said “tell me stories of a black-acting white pastor,” we’d be all over him and rightly so, because while the statement doesn’t necessarily outright call black people negative things, it is implied. The parallel is a good one to make.
Thanks for your comment. :)
I know that the more conservative you are, the less you want to hear the phrase, “progressive revelation,” but since Jesus did it when he said, Matt 19:8 “He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” So it is clear that God gives us more as we are ready – or have less hardness of the heart. This does not mean he changes his mind, “from the beginning it was not so,” but rather what God says is true, what he allows has always altered based on our ability to hear and see.
So perhaps, just perhaps, our 1st – 15th century western understanding of the role of women is based on our hardness of heart. Perhaps, in the 21st century, when women have in fact done many things we used to assume were impossible; as we assumed blacks were inferior, the world was flat and that the sun was the center of the universe, perhaps God’s plan for his equal creation is the subject of progressive revelation too?
As to gays, that subject is harder to argue from a biblical point of view, other than to remember who has the job of judging other people, and who has the role of savior. Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
Thanks for this post, Dianna. You are spot-on. It shocks me that men who think as Driscoll does, rise to mega-church pastor even today.
I blogged about the complete and obvious ambiguity of 1 Corinthians 6:9 a while back titled Cultural Fears Influence Translation:
http://ricbooth.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/cultural-fears-influence-translation/
Thanks for confirming the complete confusion over this passage. It is, again, shocking that SO MANY draw such clear and hard-lined conclusions from a passage that is so clearly unclear. I’ll concede that it MAY have been clear to the Corinthians and a few others back in the day, but anyone making the same claim today is simply being obtuse.
I liked this post. These are conversations we have to have.
In my opinion, complementarianism is another form of sexism. It is ugly and it doesn’t belong in the body of Christ.
I think that egalitarianism is just another form of rebellion. It is Eve in the garden all over again, discontented and deceived, encouraging her husband to take and eat fruit that leads to death. One sure sign of a dying denomination or church is egalitarianism. After the huzzahs have subsided, inevitably it leads to the tossing out of other clear teachings of the Bible that do not please our sensibilities until finally what you are left with are supposed ministers of the Gospel claiming that “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
Andrea, do you have any proof for these claims you suggest about churches?
And I feel sad for you that life has given you such an awful perspective on God and women.
MPT – I guess we are sad for each other and the Church in what we think is the other’s error. Peace.
Mpt, I am sure you are capable of being more respectful. Recognizing that the egalitarian vs. complimentarian debate is such a hot topic within western Protestantism, that both positions are held widely amongst so many true, loving believers, and that both sides have truly compelling biblical arguments, I personally would feel uncomfortable telling someone they have an “awful perspective on God and women” simply on the basis of having a complimentarian viewpoint.
And I believe Andrea would be referring to mainline Protestant denominations such as Lutheran, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, which have seen precipitous drops in membership and attendance. Some attribute their failure to thrive to their liberalization; an argument I am much too uninformed to make and seems too speculative anyway. Regardless, connections can be drawn with some credulity.
Yes, Thenardier, that is what I was referring to but in my haste to disagree with what I thought was a lamentable and gross mischaracterization of biblical doctrine, I responded with what others would understandably call a lamentable and gross mischaracterization. Also while I do acknowledge that drops in membership and attendance in Mainline Protestant denominations can be attributed to other factors (changing demographics in the U.S., for example) it is my view that the denial of the clear teachings of Scripture (but then I suppose some might call not so clear) compromises the Church’s ability to witness the Gospel, and a Church without a Gospel eventually and unavoidably dies. To be clear, this spiral can also be seen in more conservative churches, where, for example, idolatrous nationalism thrives. But I take your point about all this being speculation anyway.
Thank you for the exhortation and illustration on how to respectfully disagree, especially with people we do not know. I took rhetorical liberties in my original post that I ought not to have. Thank you for the gentle reminder. Blessings.
read the Genesis account again, you find that Adam was right there with Eve as she was deceived by the serpent….then Adam took the fruit without any fault? He wasn’t deceived? How does that make his sin any better than Eve’s? And throughout the New Testament we find that sin and death is attributed to Adam. Perhaps we need to step back and read the Scripture again and hear the full story instead of snippets that have been fed to us to back a certain position. Learn the entire story of redemption.
Oops, sorry, I did not see Leanne’s response before now. My silence on Adam regrettably implied that I must think he was staring off in the middle distance, the innocent lamb, while the wily Eve set mankind on its path to ruin. No. That is not what I think. Though I did not claim Eve sinned alone, nor did I say her sin was greater than Adam’s. I hold the federal headship view of the Fall, that being created first, Adam the first man, is federal head or representative of the human race that generated from him, including Eve. (“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”) Sin and death entered the world through “one man’s transgression” – Adam’s. But Eve played her part. I said that she was deceived, and in saying so I echo her own words, as well the Apostle Paul’s. Adam broke God’s covenant when he ate the fruit, but he was not deceived. Now, to be clear, Adam did not sin because of Eve. But she did lead the way, presenting to him the circumstances (literally). Eve’s actions did not cause Adam to be a sinner, but rather his own actions revealed him as one. And the rest is redemption history.
But yes, I do think egalitarianism is that scene from the Garden on loop; I think it goes against God’s created order; I think it (inadvertently) compromises the Church and runs contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. And I know that my thinking all of that is enough to make some folks want to throw things across the room with great force. Or make pitying noises, as if a free woman in Christ is incapable of ascertaining when she is being oppressed/repressed/depressed because she thinks that women image-bearers play important, complementary if sometimes different, God-ordained roles. (Which does not mean that men are ontologically superior to women, and is not to deny the reality of unnecessary restrictive practices or the distortion of sound doctrine resulting in grievous harm to women.)
Peace.
Any chance you attend a Mars Hill church?
This might alarm you but, no. I actually came by a view of complementarianism through searching the Scriptures. Same way that others probably come by their opposing view. We cannot all be right, but may God in His mercy spare us from doing too much harm too each other all the same.
Just wanted to throw this out there http://www.cbeinternational.org website of Christians for Biblical Equality. Found this organization through the Red Letter Christians blog of Tony Campolo. It looks like a great organization teaching total equality of men/women and all other groups of people (Galations 3:28) check it out!
Thanks for sharing! I took a (very) quick look and came away with a positive impression. I’ll have to share this with some people in my life.
This kind of thing is so interesting to me as a ministry wife and as a woman who is basically married Mark Driscoll (not really, but he’s a close second). That’s right, I live with similar comments and judgements on a daily basis. In fact the one that inspired this article seems mild to me. I tend to agree with Dianna’s view and it sounds like the kind of thing I would rant to my husband about. Here’s the thing though, it’s not just about one guy, one church or one theological view. It’s so much bigger than any of that and attacking the symptoms doesn’t accomplish much. The thing is Mr. Driscoll, my husband, and other complementary Christians love people and love Jesus intensely. You might be surprised how humble, loving and protective these men are. They are convinced the Bible teaches something and being sexist is so ingrained in them they don’t notice it. When I attack my husband or bring it to his attention in a snide way he just feels like a total jerk, but still has a hard time changing. I think the real problem is that we all have a hard time being changed by the power of the Gospel. And we all have a hard time understanding how the Gospel and what Jesus did changes everything. So, what does work to change us?
Wow! Thank you for making this comment. I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and find it all quite fascinating, but in the back of my mind I’ve been thinking “I wonder what Driscoll’s wife thinks?”. But then, that’s part of the problem right? It seems he’s pretty good at stifling his wife’s voice and she seems quite willing to have it stifled. Whether or not your husband wants to stifle your voice, YOU don’t seem willing to have it stifled!
Good for you for calling your husband out on his behavior. It sounds like he’s willing to listen to criticism. Perhaps your marriage is more egalitarian than it would appear at first blush? How do you two work out your theological differences?
I’ve seen a few comments that it’s not worthwhile to criticize Mark Driscoll publicly. He’s got a loud voice though that a lot of people listen to. Making fun of “effeminate” men and encouraging others to do so is a terribly damaging and unChristlike thing to do. There should be public criticism of him, and plenty of it!
The Mark Driscolls of the world will probably never change their minds, but hopefully we can prevent fencesitters from crossing the line and following him.
What he said was wrong i totally agree but can’t we all agree on this occasion he was a bit of an ass and move on? This discussions are so depressing to read. Stop having a go at each other. If you have your opinions then who cares what Mark Driscoll thinks anyway!?
I would add that I agree the the overall spirit of the criticism, but think it comes down with the precision of a sledgehammer when I think what is need is a scalpel. Driscoll straddles the line between conservative evangelical and fundamentalist, much like the college I attended. The thing is, he seems to be leaning increasingly more to the fundamentalist side of things, which is clearly horrible. Anyway, here’s a post I wrote back in Feb. I think it’s a bit more balanced:
“Mark Driscoll: Commendations, Concerns, and Criticisms”
http://bit.ly/iarxlG
① pert. to being yielding to touch, soft, of things: clothes
② pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (613). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
I think that should give you some clarity.
STATEMENT A: “being female isn’t a bad thing for girls, but it’s a bad thing for a man to display female characteristics.”
FOLLOWED BY STATEMENT B: “Why? Because you think being feminine is degrading.”
Logically, how does statement A connect to B?
Saying it is wrong for a man to be feminine is not the same as saying “feminine is degrading”.
The best way to check if statement is offensive/uncalled for/hurtful is to change the subjects (and not over simplify the argument given by Dianna helps too)
You could just flip the sex of the subjects
Statement A :”being male isn’t a bad thing for boys, but it’s a bad thing for a female to display male characteristics.”
Why is it a bad thing? What are those male characteristics females shouldn’t display – I can assemble a grill without a man and caulk my own bathtub because I live on my own. Is that something I would be called out for in church? No of course not. But if we go back to Mark’s original statement he implied that for a man to have female characteristics is something they should be publicly shamed for.
That is where the issue is, the subjects could be changed to size or race as I mentioned above.
May all the more liberal Christian crowd treat Driscoll precisely the way they bemoaned Rob Bell was treated. That’ll prove a point- for someone at least.
Not the same thing at all. Rob talking about a controversial theology is not the same as Mark Driscoll using the “gospel” to bash large groups of people over and over again. I know conservative groups would love for it to be even a glimpse of the same situation but it’s it not. We aren’t so much as dissing Mark as we are taking up for those who he offends, bullies. Big difference.
Hi Matt,
IIt’s been a while since I have commented. On so many levels, the post from Driscoll is beyond unacceptable. He is well respected pastor and no matter who’s side you are on, he needs to be far more responsible with his words then he was and is. I agree with Rachel Held Evans that something beyond an apology is needed. He has a responsibility for his actions and in particular with his handling of Rob Bell he should be a bit more considerate.
I was offended by his remarks. I was called a couple of times unmanly. Im not big on some of the “man things” like loud cars, big trucks etc. Not the greatest at the tools and took some ridiculing for that.The last place and or person that should be crushing your spirit is a pastor of a Christ following Church. He has been put in a position that few have been given and needs to use it responsibly.
I’ve done some thinking over the past week, and I came to a realization–
Maybe I shouldn’t really care about this so much?
I mean, I probably never would’ve heard of Mark Driscoll had it not been for my apparent internet addiction. I don’t live in Seattle and have no intention of moving there. Even if I did, my aversion to mega-churches is such that I probably wouldn’t set foot within a 10-mile radius of Mars Hill anyway.
I actually have to admit that I’ve never heard the guy preach, and only find out about his opinions when he says something offensive and it gets reposted somewhere on the internet. In other forums I’ve asked why he’s such a big deal and I think the consensus has been somewhere between “His theology is solid but he says some stupid stuff sometimes” and “He’s a complete (*insert expletive here*). Whatever. I don’t exactly think to kill time by watching sermons on YouTube (there’s too much Poptart Kitty to watch.)
And yet, I ended up getting hooked on reading 300+ comments about the guy! Argh!
Maybe the problem is that internet dischord is just so darn addictive. I mean, there are plenty of famous pastors out there that I don’t like and have a pretty easy time ignoring. On Sunday I’ll be listening to my own priest and not giving a second thought to what some putz in Seattle says–why is this kind of thing so hard to ignore?
Did y’all notice that Mark posted a public apology?
http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues
Zach, I read the post and although he acknowledged the need to have an appropriate context for his discussion on gender issues, and spoke to being held accountable by his elders to do a better job at “hitting real issues with real content in a real context”, I’m not hearing an apology in his response. Am I missing something?
I read it and it didn’t sound much like an apology, but maybe that’s just me.
I also found his anecdote about what prompted his post to be rather interesting. So, a “typical, blue-collar guy” felt uncomfortable in a church where the worship leader looked too much like a fruit, and it almost sounds like Driscoll’s first response is “Aha! It’s all those effeminate worship leaders’ fault for driving “regular guys” away from the church”. Am I the only one who read it that way?
I mean, if “effeminate worship leaders” are actually such a pox upon the church, maybe these guys need to spend more time in the Midwest. Where I live, there’s a church on every corner packed to the gills with “regular blue-collar guys” and nary an “effeminate worship leader” sight.
Mark Driscoll’s personal response to THIS blog: http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues
Very much worth reading.
Matt, you’re right: Jesus does need new PR.
Because of blogs like this that harbor comment threads like this.
Not true. Conversation, debate, and the release of frustration is good! Just because it’s uncomfortable does not mean it’s bad. While you might like when comment threads are mostly lists of like-minded people affirming each others’ opinion, that isn’t reality in the real world, whether Christian or not…
I agree that conversation, debate, and release of frustration is good. But when it is sin to mercilessly throw stones at your brother in Christ EVEN AFTER he has acknowledged the sin you desire to point out and agreed to course correct?
Just imagine if everyone here wasn’t hiding behind a computer and keyboard. Imagine Mark Driscoll is standing before a crowd of people yelling at him about how much they don’t like him, how he’s a hypocrite and a jerk. And at some point, he agrees and repents, and nobody even cares. They just keep hurling stones.
What about this is a good reflection of Jesus to the world?
The bulk of this thread has been about the meanings of “masculine” and “feminine” and whether Driscoll’s use of language is abusive. Who on this thread “mercilessly [threw] stones” at Driscoll? Who is still doing so after his non-apology? Even if you interpret previous posts as stone-throwing, you don’t get to count them toward post “apology” stone throws.
Dude…
Please re-read the comment you just left.
Listen to the tone… towards someone you don’t know at all.
“You don’t get to…” is not how you talk to your brother… or hopefully anyone.
This is exactly the point I’m trying to get across… If this is supposed to be a venue for followers of Jesus to discuss how we could better represent him, then something is broken.
Hey Zack, just an FYI… the whole “Jesus Needs Needs PR” idea is satire. It’s not really meant to be taken at face value. In reality, if we believe in the Jesus of the gospels, he wouldn’t need PR…
My mistake.
I have clearly invited myself to a party where my opinion isn’t welcome.
Take care and please don’t forget about passages like Romans 12:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
ok, I’ll stop using the phrase, “You don’t get to.” I meant it as a statement of what is logically possible in a given context, but apparently it annoys my wife when I use it. I apologize for causing offense, it was not my intent.
How about, “It is dishonest to count pre-apology stones as post-apology stones”?
My point was that whatever stone-throwing may have occurred prior to Driscoll’s “apology” was definitely not happening after the fact, but you claimed that it was.
Zack, I think you’re seeing the depth to which Mark’s words and ideas have cut. For many this isn’t simply a shallow hurt that a post will make go away.
And let me ask this: Why didn’t Mark apologize? You know, outright say, “I was wrong. And I am sorry.”
Whether you agree with your critics or not, if you knew you had hurt a large group of people, wouldn’t you be mortified or broken and apologize just knowing that you were causing that much pain?
What if you were a well-known pastor? That’s the bad PR here, that he didn’t run to apologize…
Hey, I’m happy Mark responded. And I want to be hopeful… but Zach, that response was just that… a response, not an apology or confession or repentance… it was a good PR move… for Mark.
When your brother acknowledges his sin and agrees to change, that’s when you give him a hug and embrace him as your brother.
In the virtual world, it would seem that close the venue that you have created for people to throw stones at him.
a recent essay on MMAsculinity:
http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/
Interesting and insighful, but be careful not to use the same tactics he does.