« Mark Driscoll laments "disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective" interview by Peter Lumpkins | Main | The latest theological journal issue from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary deals with Calvinist, Arminian, and Baptist perspectives on salvation by Peter Lumpkins »

Jan 17, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Stephen M Young II

Well thought out. Being that I've been living in Brazil for the past decade, I don't really know who Driscoll is, but read about him. Your observations are interesting and make sense. I am curious to see if others will agree or disagree.

The title is a little bit scandalizing, but that is how you get readers, right?

By the way, I think you meant to write anecdotes, not antidotes.

peter lumpkins

Stephen,

Thanks for the corrective note. My bad not Mary's. I'm the final editor after all :^)

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

lmalone

Mary, There are far more clues. Wish I could remember the sermon series I heard years ago where he says he went to every dorm room and told the guys to keep hands off Grace. This is not normal behavior by secular standards. And where he said he filters her emails and his tirade on women's ministry as being nothing but a gossip coffee klatch. In fact, there are so many clues, it worries me that so many pastors and leaders in Christendom think this is normal. Do they agree with Mark on these things or not? Or, just give him a pass because he some some right things? When do they start seeing Mark as a whole person? Me thinks they are awed by his numbers and celebrity just as Mark made clear in the interview with Justin. Seems he forgot that Islam is raking in big numbers, too. As does Osteen. That is certainly not an indicator of spiritual maturity. Many times it is exactly the opposite.

Something to consider is how his doctrine affirms this idea that Grace was trying to control him by withholding sex and getting her hair cut. Driscoll believes that ALL women are "deceived". Now keep in mind he believes this of SAVED women. As if the Cross was not enough, the Holy Spirit not enough to overcome their being deceived. There is not really any "mutuality" in Mark's idea of relationships. Eph 5 begins earlier with Paul's admonition to live a "spirit filled life".

As to the Haggard connection. Driscoll could pull a Clinton and say he never mentioned the Haggards because he used the event "to take one for the team" and blame pastors straying on wives who let themselves go. In other words, he used a current event to make a point that was personal for him. He was preaching to Grace, again, using his bully pulpit. (Let us hope poor Grace never needs a masectomy to save her life)

And now we are funding Acts 29 churches that have Driscoll DNA all over them. Many young men who think Driscoll is their model for ministry. A bully as a model. I see dark days ahead.

Max

"My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully."

That Driscoll quote from Christian Today coverage of Christianity Magazine's interview with the Driscolls regarding their new book ... well, it struck a nerve with me! Who's treating who disrespectfully?! Good Lord!!

Driscoll may or may not fit the true definition of misogynist, but he can definitely add "carnally-minded" to his resume since he obviously has trouble balancing the holy and the profane.

Mary

Stephen, thank you. As to the title, my husband and I had a discussion and his opinion was that I could not use the phrase misogynist pig because it was name-calling, I could use the word misogynist but not pig - to me it seems to follow logically that pig should follow misogynist, but alas my husband tends to be right about these things!

Lmalone, anyone who knows Driscoll knows that the evidence for his misogyny alone is overwhelming. It just gets dismissed as "complementarianism" I am a complementarian and what Driscoll is teaching is not biblical complementarianism. What was hard for me writing this was winnowing out the instances of blatent misogyny vs. Driscoll's narcissism and bullying of which there is also much evidence in actions in words. It's really beyond the scope of a single blog article to point out all the ways Driscoll has displayed his misogyny through the years.

The way the book was written I think demostrates Driscoll's misogyny and his narcissim. The book seems to be Driscoll's way of trying to rehabilitate himself by saying "sure I was bad at times, but look what I had to deal with at home, it's all her fault and I was really good considering what I had to deal with." Driscoll throws his wife under a fleet of buses in just the first chapter.

Driscoll and Acts 29 can do what they want. What's disturbing is that so many in the SBC continue to hold this man up as someone to emulate. There's a point where we have to ask ourselves is someone like Danny Akin really qualifed in his position if he has so little ability to discern the bad guys from the good? Driscoll should not be in any position of authority anywhere and no one should point to him and say "this is a man from whom we can learn"

Mary

Max, what struck me about that quote was if Driscoll was such a manly man wasn't it his repsonsibility to protect her from such disrespect. Driscoll was actually the one rambling on not letting anyone speak, why didn't he bring her into the conversation. He's hiding behind her to excuse his poor behavior in the interview.

Max

Mary, you wrote "it is his repsonsibility to protect her from such disrespect". Agreed. My point is that the content of the book, involving his wife in the production of it, and his long-running distorted view of gender roles = disrespect. Unless I missed it in the blogoshpere buzz, no one is accusing Driscoll of respecting women.

Debbie Kaufman

Mary: I agree with your piece here. It's as if aging is not to occur, disease is not an option. It's more damaging to marriage than helpful. Then we have Ed Young and his wife who did a bed in telling people to have sex for 7 days straight. Where is the emphasis on Christ in any of this, who loves us when we are sick, aging, crippled?

I am not afraid of the word feminist. I don't think it's a dirty word. But, not even a Fundamentalist, which is my background, would think any of what Mark Driscoll is preaching concerning women is OK.

I also cringe at the way Grace(Mark's wife) is being put on display as the one who sinned, was a problem, having all her past sins put out for all to see. That is humiliating to me just to listen.

Mary

Max, I absolutely agree with you. I also think Driscoll is attempting to use the book to hide behind his wife - telling us all about her mistakes to excuse his mistakes. The book I think shows us that Mark has never really repented of any of his bad acts - he simply sees the things he's said and done as the fault of his wife.

Debbie, the feminist movement in America has brought some needed and necessary changes. Our daughters have the right to the same education and opportunities as our sons in the world. The feminist movement of today is unfornately being hijacked by the radical feminist teaching that gender is simply a social construct - the idea that there are no differences between men and women, society is guilty of teaching that men and women are different. Abortion is the equalizer - men can have sex without consequences and so abortion allows women to have sex without consequences. If men and women are not different in any way than it doesn't matter who one marries, we are all just humans not men and women. One can also choose one's gender now if you decide that you were born in the wrong body. The feminists thoughts of today are not the feminists thoughts of our mothers which was, if a woman has to work shouldn't she be paid the same as a man doing the same job? Should women have to put up with sexist demeaning talk in the workplace. The secular feminist movement is not anything close to what I see Christian egalitarianism. So as always it all comes down to how one defines the terms we use.

but this complementarianism that Driscoll is teaching and that we see being embraced by much of the YRR is not the complementarianism that I've been taught and believe. Much of the YRR have a problem with someone like me posting comments on a blog and would take issue with Peter for posting an article by a woman. Many of them would have a huge problem with Dorothy Patterson having a doctorate and writing a commentary. Driscoll et al truly believe that woman are not supposed to read their Bible without their husband directing their reading, so the lil' woman doesn't start thinking on her own.

I could wander on here, but the point is that just because someone is calling there belief complementarian doesn't mean they are being biblical about it.

Mary

Ugg! Important typo correction - gender is social construct is the idea that there is "NO" difference between men and women.

boB Cleveland

Well stated, Peter. Dad always said study the evidence and reach a conclusion and see if it makes sense. Then see if any other conclusion makes sense.

Others don't. I agree with yours.

peter lumpkins

Bob,

Thanks Bob. I wish I could take credit for this well-thought out piece. Alas I cannot. Our own Mary England is the literary artist of this one.

And, I think I'll keep her. She has brought some amazing co-belligerence to the forefront since she started contributing. Our sister Debbie stands as Exhibit A! (just kidding Debbie :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

Max

Bob Cleveland - your Dad obviously possessed a gift missing in the YRR ranks ... anointed common sense. The pursuit of reformed logic, the gospel-according-to-Driscoll and Piper-Points have replaced spiritual discernment in the YRR movement. An exercise of common sense, combined with a growing heap of evidence, indicate that the end-result of Driscollism is antinomianism.

I fear that the ministry potential of our youth is being stripped away from the SBC by the influence of such teachers. It also appears (from this and other writings posted on this site) that the SBC leaders who endorse non-SBC influencers have become so open-minded that their brains have fallen out.

Debbie Kaufman

She has brought some amazing co-belligerence to the forefront since she started contributing. Our sister Debbie stands as Exhibit A!

:)

Debbie Kaufman

You know, I think my biggest concern, and there are many with Mark Driscoll and this book is how he portrays his wife while he comes out smelling like a rose. And not just smelling like a rose, but as a man who has supernatural gifts that seem only to see rapes and sex sins as has been brought out in earlier comments.

I wonder why he only sees in vivid detail sex sins and not other sins in people. That alone should let us know he is a false prophet in every sense of how the Bible describes false prophets. He is an exhibitionist and a blow hard(to put it bluntlyJ).

Mary

I've stated before, but IMO I think the fact that he believes he's getting pornographic visions from Jesus should send Christians fleeing. You can debate whether it's possible for a Christian to receive visions. But THIS I KNOW, God is not giving anybody anywhere on this planet visions of a pornographic nature. Pornovision ain't coming from God.

And Debbie, I agree it's very disturbing to me that in the book Mark portrays himself as not as bad as he could have been and all the problems in the marriage seem to originate with Grace.

Narcissist is another word that I think applies, along with bully...where's my thesarus when I need it.

lmalone

Many are glossing over the haircut story and not seeing the raw abuse and narcissistic nature inherent. I have been shocked to see several YRR types parsing it and explaining it to us trying to put a spiritual positive spin on it as normal. This is normal in their world?

Mary, does your husband get angry or consider it an affront to him if you do not consult him before changing your hairstyle? Just curious. I did not realize this was a such a big deal in that world.

Mary

lmalone, LOL! When I was putting this piece together I had a huge rant on the haircut story.

#1 There is no such thing as a mommish haircut, that's just an idiot thing to say. I'm a very busy homeschool mom and my hair is currently to the middle of my back because that's the style that's easiest for me - put the whole mess up in a hair claw. Short hair is actually harder for me because of colics.

#2 Why on earth is it bad for a woman to think of getting a new style that might be easier?

#3 Preganant women has all kinds of emotional issues and it's a shame Driscoll abandoned his wife during her first pregancy.

#4 The narcissism that the haircut was somehow about him.

#5 Mark seems to have this idea that a woman should be seprately a wife and mom - "do this mom thing on your own time because I don't want my life to change in any way ie your role of wife needs to not change one wit just because you're a mom.

6,7,8,9..... I could go on and on with how messed up the haircut thing is and how there is nothing right about his reaction.

Personally, what I do with my hair is my choice, though I do ask the hubby's opinion and he loves everything I ever decide, from the really short does to the really long. I don't have a doubt in my mind that if I went out tomorrow and shaved the head that the hubby would have something kind to say and know better than to show anger over something that cannot be undone - he has enough compassion to keep his mouth shut and not hurt my feelings. Kinda of a way to love me you might say.

David (Mary's husband)

The haircut story points out precisely how Mark Driscoll does not love his wife the way Christ loved the church. Part of loving your wife that way is holding an opinion, very tenaciously, that your wife is the most beautiful creature under the heavens. You will feel this way year after year, regardless of how hair styles change. And in the grand scheme of things, the choices your wife makes about her hairstyle are small, to say the least. That is the very nature of love - it remains even though everything else will change. That he would proudly include this episode in a book about "real" marriage tells you everything you need to know about Mark Driscoll and marriage - he is clueless.

Ron Hale

Mary,

I enjoyed your article in both subtance and style. You're a great writer! Thanks for sharing your perspective on this driscoll-drama! I'm warying of celeb Christian pastoral couples being so risque. I'm glad that Billy and Ruth Graham were more "Gospel centered" in their writings (books, movies, etc.) instead of so "man-centered."

Blessings!

Kathleen

Mary, your analysis of Grace and Mark's book was very incisive. Brava! Wow!

The only thing that bothered me was the comment, "rabid feminist blog." It sounded like feminist-bashing. I am a women's rights activist and found it insulting.

I have read some of the comments about feminism on this thread and want to tell you that there is a wide diversity within the feminist community about differences between women and men. However, what unites all feminists is the belief that differences should not be used to privilege men over women, and that "the masculine" should not be elevated over "the feminine."

Mark Driscoll idolizes "the masculine" and demonizes "the feminine." That's about as misogynistic as one can get.

Eric

Driscoll et al truly believe that woman are not supposed to read their Bible without their husband directing their reading, so the lil' woman doesn't start thinking on her own.

Where did Driscoll say that?

Mary

Kathleen, thank you. In my comment to Debbie, upstream you can get more of a feel for what I mean when I say "rabid feminist" - the feminist who begin at a place that there are no differences between men and women except those as the results of social constructs.

When you say "Mark Driscoll idolizes "the masculine" and demonizes "the feminine." That's about as misogynistic as one can get." The "rabid feminists" would say there is no such thing as masculine and feminine and to claim there is, is to be misogynistic. So from what I read - the "third wave" feminists if you will, are starting from a place that there are no differences.

I agree that Driscoll demonizes the feminine. I don't know a lot about Islam, but he sounds very similar to some of the rhetoric I've read regarding the fanantical factions - women are evil and so must be controlled so men can stay pure sorta thing.


Eric, when Driscoll speaks of Women's Bible studies, he's spoken of the fact that Women's Bible studies are a sign of the weakness of men not teaching their wives. I wish I could link to it specifically, but Driscoll has been embarrassed so frequently with the things he says that he deletes his work. If women are easily "deceived" do you think they should be doing things like reading their Bible? If Grace isn't even competent enough to read email should she be doing something like studying the Bible on her own? Part of his misogyny that is prevalent through all of his words regarding men and women is that women are less than men in every way. There's a point where people have to stop defending.

Deakon

anybody else think this is Satanic? I'll defend him, just read his twitter and was super encouraged that he's trying to address porn and minister to porn stars...I haven't done that today...he's better than me...

The comments to this entry are closed.