« Taking a much needed break by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Al Mohler "chides" some evangelicals for holding homosexuality a choice that’s "relatively easy to change" by Peter Lumpkins »



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


Why are you always so angry?


Dear Andrew,

I'll give you one slap toward me personally. If you log again about this, it will not be posted. Clear?

There is no anger in this post...I repeat, no anger in this post--N-O-N-E.

Hence, if you cannot see the striking irony between the reformed's perpetual plea toward conciliatory conversation on non-essential issues and Driscoll's inflammatory comment about non-manly males but nonetheless can readily read into this post implicating me as an angry man always spewing vile, angry emotions when I write, I cannot assist you.

Pretty simple.

With that, I am...


I have found over the years that one who is guilty of overt homophobia and effeminaphobia is usually a closet or repressed homosexual themselves. My friends in the gay community have told me that the macho male who is always attacking and ridiculing gays is usually the easiest seduced. I think I would tend to agree.


Who would you be more willing to side with on these presentations? Mohler and his words of "homophobia" or Driscoll and his controversial status containing effeminaphobia?


Eric, having watched Driscoll these many years I would agree that he has some serious issues surrounding sex and a very low views of women (just look at how he speaks of his wife in public). Not sure whether he's "closeted" or not but he definately has an obsession as he has the tendancy to take what ever issue he's speaking or writing about and take it round to some sexual joke or sexual analogy - the last thing I read by him was actually a pretty good piece about the obsession of some with going from seminar to seminar, but right in the middle of it he had to throw some sexual analogy into it. He's obsessed with sexual issues.


I like this post, Peter. I try to avoid hearing too much about Driscoll for the reason you stated, which sums things up nicely:

"one loud mouth like Mark Driscoll can potentially cause more collateral damage to Christianity’s cultural engagement with society than a century’s worth of denominational pronouncements"

I am so sick of Christians I know, trying to push Mark Driscoll and his poor judgment & 'potty mouth'. A woman I run into about once a week tried to sell me on Driscoll just last weekend. When I responded with truth about Driscoll, she said, "Well, yeah, but have you listened to his sermons?"

No! Why would I sit at the feet (so to speak) to listen, to be taught in hopes of learning anything from a man who simply doesn't live up to Ephesians 4:29 (and many other verses like it)?

Perhaps Driscoll should read James 3, with special focus and obedience to James 3:1?


Wit recharged I see. Even whit with a purpose, Clever!!!!


Effeminaphobia, homophobia, potty-mouth macho preachers … what strange topics we are dealing with these days in Southern Baptist life!

When I was a teenager, my parents threatened to send me to "reform school" if I didn't straighten up. Those were bad places, where many juvenile offenders emerged from incarceration far worse than when they were first sentenced ... a result of receiving instruction in more advanced and serious ways of being bad actors. Of course, refusing to mow the lawn wasn't that bad, but the possibility of having to go to such a place was enough deterrent to move me to crank up the mower.

Has anyone else noticed that the Southern Baptist dialogue increasingly addresses a downward spiral of morality ... in the church? From alcohol to bad movies to dirty language, some in our ranks seek to justify that Christian participation is OK. Our children toss aside the exhortation to be holy in favor of the new contemporary offerings of some churches. Perhaps the result of another sort of “reform school” in our midst?



That's bogus. Homosexuals always claim everyone who thinks what they are doing is wrong, is actually a closet case. Basing that claim on what your actively homosexual friends claim is fallacious reasoning. They probably think Jesus was gay, too.


Peter, where has there been discussion of Dr. Mohler being a "friend and mentor" to Driscoll?

A different Andrew

Trying to be as neutral about someone else's pastor as possible here, but...

When will Mark Driscoll learn to think BEFORE he speaks? He seems (at least in my entire awareness of him these past few years) to pride himself on keeping his foot in his mouth, week after week.

I'm sure I will also say something stupid soon, but hopefully I will keep it off social media....


There are indeed those who think Jesus was gay but I just avoid that conversation as soon as possible. I find it difficult to believe that any preacher of the Gospel would even interject a crude remark much less a vulgar one into a sermon. They should be ashamed.


It was a simple question.

Scott Smith

How can you be so sure "Driscoll's faithful band of young “reformed” albeit restless lieutenants, Driscoll’s friend and mentor, Al Mohler, any number of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors, Kevin Ezell, Ed Stetzer, or Danny Akin" were not the ones who "paddled the macho man’s little behinny?" Could it be, they simply followed Matt 18 and went to him privately?



Well, I'm afraid you got me there, brother--I am unaware of any discussions about Driscoll being either Mohler's friend or disciple. My chosen description presumes such a liaison inferred from what we know about A29, Driscoll, and Mohler. And, I think there is sufficient reason to use the friend-mentor image--unless, of course, one holds the most wooden nuance possible of the terms. In that case, the image I've used would undoubtedly fail. In fact, if you're thinking of a very restrictive nuance of my friend-mentor image, I glad concede your point.

Have a great day.

With that, I am...



Well, no it was definitively *not* a "simple question." Indeed the question you asked is the first cousin to the classic textbook complex question--"Have you stopped beating your wife?" The presumption is, the person questioned is now--or has known to have done so in the past--in fact, beating his wife.

You asked, Andrew: "Why are you always so angry?" You presume, as agreeable fact to me, I not only expressed anger in the present post, but also that such anger is always the case. Not only are both false, the former is hardly demonstrable and the latter is absurd. You're not addressing a single slither of what I actually wrote. Rather you've logged on with a prejudiced psychological evaluation posed as a question toward me to explain the origins of my supposed ubiquitous anger.

I do not know if you've been formally taught literary criticism, Andrew, but I must be honest--critics like you I mostly avoid like the plague. Rather than offer an alternate perspective on the data I cite or interpretation I offer--a real contribution to the thread--you enter with a prejudged, fixed psychological assessment of me as a perpetually angry writer, and expecting me to dialog with you about my alleged anger issue. You then have the audacity to retort--it's only a "simple question."

Finally, let me be clear: I remain uninterested in your personal, psychological and/or spiritual evaluations of me personally. I do welcome comments from you or anyone else on whether the point(s) I make in a particular piece possesses literary teeth or not, a point concerning which, I assure, I'm delighted to exchange.

Have a great afternoon.
With that, I am...


Eric, you are correct, he should be ashamed.

What it comes down to is, Christians defend and support Driscoll because they have placed his calvinism in a position of higher importance than his lack of holiness. The problem for them is, the bible never makes this distinction.


Driscoll is just as Holy as any of you...


Friends... I prefer my male friends to be masculine and my female friends to be feminine.
Perhaps I am old fashioned, but someone God has created to be beautiful in either their femininity or their masculinity is to be appreciated.

Is this not why there is the scriptural encouragement:
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:5

Barnes says "The distinction between the sexes is natural and divinely established, and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity"

Kiel and D say "to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction.... was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God."

Manly men, feminine women... speaks to our culture of vibrant Christianity that can be emulated.

Or, peter's dear friend John Calvin;

This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: (97)
“What shame can she,who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?” Juvenal, Sat. 6:252 Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty.


It is not a question of someone's holiness--it is a question of integrity and simple class in the pulpit. The words a pastor utters are important and should possess honor and dignity. Calvinism has nothing to do with it.


so let me get this straight...non reformed people enjoy effeminate worship leaders? seems surprising to me, hope your anti-Driscoll stance hasn't backed you into defending something a little creepy



Scripture would disagree with you. Read Ephesians 5. Holiness means something. Jesus died on a cross to save us from sin and wickedness. He hates the immorality that Driscoll embraces and promotes.

Eric, I agree, but a lot of people overlook his immorality and hatred of holiness because of his reform theology.


And he enjoys his notoriety even more when people blog about him and speculate on his motives and heart. If we just ignored him, he would eventually go away because the Lord sure won't honor what he is saying.


Scripture would disagree with you...any holiness we have is from Christ...you aren't Holy, Driscoll isn't Holy, I'm not Holy, Jesus is...we may sin but aren't less Holy cuz as believers Christ makes us Holy (being united with Christ and such) if you disagree, enjoy your insipid, empty works based salvation...

oh and what immorality does Driscoll embrace?


Deakon, You confuse justification and sanctification. Scripture commands us to be holy. It is a work we do as enabled by the Holy Spirit. We work with Him in becoming holy and against Him in being carnal.


not really confused...from my perspective I am not Holy, but praise God that in Christ I am Holy... Hebrews 10:10,14 ...there is a definite "finished, not yet" paradox regarding sanctification...look I am never one to brush past sin or take it lightly - yes we should pursue holiness - just don't like to see a guy like Driscoll trashed publicly...follow him, he lifts up Jesus like crazy...did anyone take a stronger stand for Hell during the Love Wins fiasco as Driscoll...he's not perfect but I'm pretty sure this is excessive (esp. what Remi said) again, why is Calvinism even part of the title of this post...just another opportunity to create division unnecessarily???

and what about my earlier question, I'm seriously curious, why are people defending effeminate ministers? Am I being sinfully cautious? I would not let my kids hang out with a man I thought was effeminate...kinda think of that as my job as a parent...


Deakon, I think the real issue that is articulated is that one's pastoral qualifications are questioned because of behavior. That tweet is totally inappropriate and lends itself to all types of gossip, malicious speech, slander and hordes of other sins of the heart expressed by the mouth (keyboard).

Please don't try to confuse this by your clever posturing of your question either. Won't fall for the bait. I will state however, that effeminate is subjective...you might be considered that if you grew up in my neck of the woods where catching gators is a hobby....Or in the mountains where de-fanging a rattlesnake is manly. SEE the problem?



You make an excellent point but I doubt Deakon will consider it. Note the irony in Deakon's claim that Driscoll is "trashed publicly." Driscoll can be as offensive as he desires toward music ministers, for example. Yet when someone points it out, he or she is characterized as "publicly trashing" Driscoll. Alas, the public nonsense of the internet.

With that, I am...



I do not solicit readers' opinions concerning what might be a good title for my pieces. Nor is it up for vote. If a title suits you, fine. If it does not, well I suspect you'll have to live with it. Nor does a single thing Driscoll does right negate the fact he got it wrong concerning male effeminacy, which is, as Chris rightly pointed out, notoriously subjective.

Good day.

With that, I am...


Surely we can see hypocrisy, if not the violation of Christian ethic, in such statements as these:
"Friends... I prefer my male friends to be masculine and my female friends to be feminine."
"Manly men, feminine women... speaks to our culture of vibrant Christianity that can be emulated."
It would be equivalent for me to say "I prefer my friends to be white, not black." Christ broke these barriers...Matthew 5 engages that moment---these statements display a bias that has not been changed by Christian experience and teaching. We have no right to make judgement calls regarding mannerisms that are inherent to a person's make-up. We cannot bear a true Christian witness with such thoughts. Driscoll's statements were out of line and pompous, and so are these.


This is an excellent exegesis on driscoll's carnal preaching:

From a calvinist, to boot!

Richard, although I understand your intent, your reasoning is completely unbiblical. To compare men acting feminine to white vs black is not only ridiculous, but 1 cor 6:9 specifically addresses effeminate men, and condemns it.

Mannerisms are often learned, sometimes through experience. They CAN change, in the same way that someone can escape from the predisposition, from early environments, to homosexuality.

How often do we see how our unchristlike mannerisms, such as impatience, quickness to anger, etc, are our "default" behaviors but can be changed?


Richard, I believe man and woman are created in the image of God (Genesis 1) with distinct roles (Genesis 2). It takes a manly man and a womanly woman to experience fulfilment of their God-given roles.
Man up man!


My, how naive we are! We are still looking at gestures, while God looks at our hearts! What we call"effeminate" characteristics are nothing but our own personal judgments of outward behavior. At 68, I've had plenty of time to note the characteristics you disdain in people who live robust, heterosexual lives, many of them in preaching ministry. My wife and I have two great kids and four grandkids...they are athletic, artistic, musical, and very outspoken believers. If God had chosen one or all to have had some characteristic that you disdain, the problem would be yours, not theirs. Remi, you mention unchristlike behaviors. Let's add to the list: judging your fellow on the basis of outward appearance, failure to love, etc. And by the way, the latter was named by our Lord as the greatest commandment! It's high time we got over this kind of attitude, especially if you are in Christian ministry, or else, God might send you to witness to someone with these characteristics. I can't imagine how effective you would be, if you make quality judgments based upon how a person holds their coffee or walks down the street. And by the way, I Cor. 6:9 addresses immorality, idolators, adulterers, and homosexuality. Nothing is mentioned of effeminency, and homosexuality has not been the emphasis of this comment stream, so your attempt to be Biblical is a dead end. And for Grosey, if you want me to "man up," I could don a tiger skin and club and move into a cave, but my prayer has been to not be a man in the eyes of other sinners, but to be a man like Christ was a man of God , who preached and witnessed to the despised of his community, as well as to robust fishermen.


Haha Richard... wow you have a short fuse... ever read Titus 2? its in the Bible.
oh.. Remi is right by the way.. check the Greek on the passage (or the NASB)


Well, it's all a matter of how literally you are going to interpret the Greek isn't it, and how much historicism and 'culture' you include or don't include. I happen to believe that your attempt to spot certain features and categorize them as effeminenite is incredibly subjective, and not related to homosexuality. Ever heard of linebackers who are gay? It's also outside the realm of being Christian...my Lord didn't classify people that way, and neither can I. And no, Steve, I am not angry at all, I'm just preaching to a very provincial crowd. The world , and our Lord, is a lot bigger than this. Let's get out there and witness, and not try to make judgements before we've even gotten to know someone. And that's enough...call me a moderate Baptist, and that's fine, but call me a Christian first. Best wishes.


it incredibly subjective for you to conclude that my statement about manly men and feminine women is culturally attuned to your american culture (ooops... I am not american!!) Perhaps you are the naive one Richard!



You are right. I spoke flippantly and for that I am sorry. Please forgive me.

The comments to this entry are closed.