The CBE Scroll

Comment by ShawnaRenee

May 3, 2007 @ 10:22 am

UPDATE: I wrote this yesterday, since then there have been several more comments, so come on over and join the conversation.

Comment by Makeesha

May 3, 2007 @ 11:36 am

If Driscoll wants his dvds distributed maybe he should try a little harder not to be so inflammatory…because if he insists on using the same tired rhetoric he’s been using as long as I’ve known of him, he needs to accept the consequences graciously.

Comment by Leigh

May 3, 2007 @ 4:12 pm

This is a very interesting comment thread. It’s so refreshing (and I’m not using that term in a flippant way) to see an evangelical man stand up for women as equals in God’s creation.

Something that I find particularly challenging when I’m speaking with people who…well, people who may be open enough to listen to me talk about this topic–is communicating effectively about the damaging effects that the “headship” views have on girls and women.

They (so far it has been mainly men with whom I have tried to communicate this) have no idea what I am talking about: After all, “Women are equal”.

It’s especially difficult to even illuminate the problem in a church where women and men both may hold leadership positions, and only certain ones are denied to women despite their (potential) gifting and calling. In a congregation where there is “even” a stay-at-home dad, and many women work outside the home and/or have a career, this is a particularly hard conversation to have.

To me, that flexibility just emphasizes the fact that really, “gender roles” as preached in patriarchal churches can really just be boiled down to
man=leader
woman=follower.

Does anyone have any ideas about how the pain and the damage these views cause can be communicated?

And yes, these views do damage men, and the body of Christ, as well to be sure. The book Why Not Women–which I’ve just started reading–seems to offer information on that. But so many people don’t want to take the time to read about this…

Comment by Mary

May 3, 2007 @ 6:30 pm

It wasn’t Hybels who was responsible for distributing the videos or not. Like Driscoll, he was a speaker at the conference (unlike Driscoll, he appeared in person).

What Hybels did, after an 8-minute video of Driscoll extolling men (exclusively) behaving as soldiers in the “war” of church planting, was to say a couple of sentences about the importance of the contributions of women in church planting. He then gave his own presentation.

It is Driscoll who accused Hybels of speaking against him. Hybells simply spoke FOR the FACT that women are actively involved in planting churches. And his implication on “Resurgence” that Hybels refused to distribute his videos, is false. The organizers of the conference may have actively refused or neglected to…or perhaps people simply didn’t want them. The only clear thing is that Hybels had nothing to do with them not being distributed.

Driscoll claims to have lost money by not havingthe DVDs distributed. The fact is, he expected them to be distributed, not sold. He lost no money, just viewer/listeners. And he’s more than making up for that through the version available at Resurgence. Anyone whose ears would be soothed by his message can download it if they wish.

Comment by Mindy

May 3, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

Thanks for pointing out this discussion, Shawna!

Comment by Liz

May 3, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

I did ‘wander over’ as suggested and have spent considerable time reading all the posts and there’s still so much more to read! It’s amazing that people can keep track of all the comments with such a long debate. It gives a good overview of some of the difficulties of conversing on the issue of equality - words can be so misunderstood and imflammatory. It spurs me on to write re what equality really means so I’ll get busy on that right now.

Comment by Janet

May 4, 2007 @ 3:04 pm

Mark Driscoll is correct. “Selection of ‘the man’[or men] is extremely important”. And this will be the downfall of the Church, not selecting the right men to be in leadership.

And we can see that the men in the Church have not been selecting the right men - look at all the fallen, shameful male pastors who have embarrassed Christ in front of the whole world. So, the right men have not been selected. Of course, if women are not included in the leadership process [as Timothy's mother and grandmother were in teaching Timothy the Scriptures], then there will be no right men left in the Church: this includes Mark Driscoll.

Listen to the way Mark Driscoll speaks: the slang “park it”, the swearing (B.S.), the twisting of the analogy of soldier. These are signs of wrong leadership - he should read the Scriptures. If you listen to other male pastors this flippant, smart-mouthed, worldly talk is one of the first signs of men not on the right track.

And who will be left in the Church in 2050? - not the end of the Church as Driscoll predicts, but the steadfast women who worship Christ. The same ones that were at the cross when the men hid; the same ones that were first at the tomb when the men did not believe; the first to Evangelize; the ones that Christ Himself included in the Church when the ‘men’ tried to exclude them.

To the One, True God of all Creation, be the Glory, forever and forever. Amen.

Comment by LayGuy

May 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am

You know what concerns me? The “fact” that people bash Driscoll for being anti woman. This is such rubbish.

If anybody bothered to visit his church, they would see many females in leadership roles. Driscoll only reserves the top leadership roles for males.

And in the video, he was specifically focusing on church planters. So many people are up in arms about this for no reason.

Comment by JLP

May 10, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

Mark Driscoll’s speech is offensive. At one point he says that men want to know how to have sex at least once a day. What? What if the man’s wife doesn’t want sex once a day? Do her wishes count?

And he talks a pastor who can fight nutjobs and wierdos. Should we as Christians be calling people “nutjobs and wierdos”? If we call people names like that, how can we win people to Christ?

What’s this about the phrase that young men need to know that Jesus isn’t a “gay hippie” in a dress. And saying that young men need a swift kick? Certainly they need to change but they probably have already had enough kicks in life, they don’t need it from the church also.

And if Pastor Driscoll wants to know how to get men in their 20’s and 30’s into church he ought to check out Bill Hybels church - Willowcreek Community Church. They have plenty of young men there.

Comment by Jadon

May 11, 2007 @ 7:43 am

LayGuy:

I think that’s the point. If the top positions are reserved for males, it can convey the message that women are disqualified because they are female and that men can avoid some accountability there because they are male. That may not be the intention, but it seems to be an unnecessary risk. It can foster cynicism within women, particularly if one uses the Bible to reinforce that structure.

Driscoll was definitely addressing church planters in the video. It was presented to a diverse audience, including those who consider women qualified for church planting. This particular video does not seem to acknowledge this in any way, so it seems self-promoting. Moreover, the fact that Driscoll does not apparently portray women in a flattering light or in just an indirect fashion (eg. the serving and loving part), it detracts from the primary message. This seems typical of Driscoll’s communications, in my humble opinion, and is partly self-defeating. It also gives his strong complementarianism a bad name, as if it doesn’t already.

Driscoll’s blog post on the subject of the video comes across as though there was a conspiracy against him. Wouldn’t that seem self-absorbed by outsiders? What message does it send? Driscoll may be a good guy, but he may be undermining whatever good he does.

Comment by Lori

May 12, 2007 @ 7:19 am

First of all, thank you, Mary, for clarifying the situation (in #4). As Christians, we must always try to be very careful about what we report. I recently finished a very good book entitled I Sold My Soul on E-Bay by Hehmant Mehta. The author is an atheist who visited many churches and wrote up his observations. Something that turned him off at one church was a how a pastor told one of those “urban legends” in his sermon yet passed it off as a factual account. I know that has driven me crazy at times, also. So again, thank you, Mary.

Haven’t we discussed Driscoll before? I seem to recall a few months ago somebody posted a link here to a magazine article profiling his church. In the discussion afterwards, a member of his church posted a link to a sermon of his, and said it was filled with bad language, such as calling women “butch” and “whores” if they didn’t agree with his mysogynist worldview. I’m sorry, but I don’t consider him a man of God. There is no way in heck that you can tell me he is following the example of Jesus. The Son of God would NEVER have used language like that. And He sure didn’t alienate people He disagreed with, either. In fact, if you read the gospels, you find that the only people He did alienate were the ones He should have agreed with–the religous leaders. I, personally, think that Driscoll is no more than the Christian version of a shock jock–someone with the mindset of a teenager, who enjoys offending people just to annoy those who don’t like him. My opinion was reinforced after reading Mehta’s book. He heard pastors making similar comments and it disgusted him. He certainly had no desire to visit those churches again. I truly believe that Driscoll has no desire to reach out to people like Mehta, but simply wants to build an army of admiring followers so he can have the power to tell all those he hates “Screw you” and enjoy the attention that goes with it. (Sorry about the language, but given his own statements, I actually wanted to say something stronger.)

Leigh in #3 said:

This is a very interesting comment thread. It’s so refreshing (and I’m not using that term in a flippant way) to see an evangelical man stand up for women as equals in God’s creation.

That was my first thought, too! Finally. It’s about time a mainstream evangelical leader stood up for women, instead of just keeping silent and going along with the complementary mainstream. I find it very interesting that most of the
mega-churches in America are very careful not to talk about gender issues. I think they know darn well that if they did their large congregations would evaporate. People coming from non-churched backgrounds are simply not going to put up with the subordination of women in the name of religion, when the rest of society treats women equally. I see this as a very hopeful trend.

Getting back to Driscoll, I would love to know his thoughts about women like Priscilla, who helped Paul plant churches. Given his viewpoint, I’m sure he would find a way to downplay her role or dismiss her altogether.

Comment by JAP

May 14, 2007 @ 11:00 am

My post from the Christianity Today blog on the same subject:

Matthew 5:22 NASB
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother ,”Raca (meaning empty headed or good for nothing)shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

I know that Pastor Driscoll did not call anyone a fool. But the name calling he does do in this video equates to calling people fools. I pray that he understands that this is not Christ like behavior.

Comment by LayGuy

May 19, 2007 @ 3:22 am

if you wanted to know what Driscoll says about Priscilla, why don’t you take the time to actually listen to his sermon. Go to http://www.marshillchurch.org and look for the media links.

Please take the time to do your homework.

Comment by Lori

May 25, 2007 @ 4:39 am

I’m sorry, but I have no desire to listen to anything that Driscoll says, particularly from his pulpit. You see, I have been called all sorts of names by non-Christians, which I have tolerated by excusing them since they didn’t know God. That doesn’t mean, however, that I have to listen to a man who claims to speak for God do the same.

Comment by Alice

May 28, 2007 @ 4:06 pm

Here in the Seattle area Mark Driscoll is well known for his anti-female views. Other Christian leaders in this area, especially those involved with domestic violence treatment, have openly called upon him to tone down his misogynistic vocabulary. (A search of The Seattle Times would turn up the articles about their intervention.)

His success in ministry is due (in my opinion) to an almost perfect stage timing and acting presentation every Sunday. He has the rhetoric to draw in those who do not carefully evaluate what he says.

I find it particularly upsetting to see women come to our counseling ministry (members of his church or his satellite churches) who believe that if they only were more spiritual and submissive they would be able to solve all of the problems in their marriage and their bi-polar or chemical depression issues. (Leaders of his satellite church openly tell people not to take psychiatric medications and all of the churches in his group imply to women that it is their job to submit to heal the marriage).

In fact, his influence through Mars Hill and his associate churches is so powerfully negative on these issues that we as pastoral counselors have taken the step of actively telling our clients not to attend those churches. It is the only time in over 15 years that we have ever said that about another ministry since we deal with people from all denominations. The impact on women and families is all very sad.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

May 31, 2007 @ 1:53 pm

Rats! I missed my opportunity to weigh in supporting Mark Driscoll. What is there to fear by allowing free speech?

Why not let people have the video, and then make up their own minds? What is Hybles afraid of? Is the CBE in favor of censorship? We’ll see…

Comment by JLP

June 2, 2007 @ 10:01 pm

Donna,

Hybels isn’t afraid of anything. The issue is only that Hybels made a statement or two acknowledging women’s role in church planting before he gave his speech. He didn’t say anything negative about Mark Driscoll.

No one on this forum is afraid of censorship. We have all seen Driscoll’s video already.

I found his name calling extremely offensive.

Comment by Mary

June 4, 2007 @ 8:23 am

Donna, you would do well to read what really happened, rather than taking Driscoll’s insinuations as gospel. Hybels had nothing to do with whether the videos were distributed. He was merely the next speaker after Driscoll’s video was played–to ALL the participants who chose to stay in the room for the 8-minute presentation. (Maybe those who’d already heard it, simply chose not to take a copy of it home.) Hybels acknowledged the fact that Driscoll denied in his presentation: women are active in planting churches, and like men are should be commended for it.

I suppose that it wouldn’t be as sensational to say that the videos didn’t get distributed, as it was for Driscoll to imply that Hybels wouldn’t let them be distributed. I wonder if Driscoll ever gets dizzy from all the spinning he does.