Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Mars Hill Protest: About Freaking Time

1

Is it just me, or does his admonition to Christian men to "man up" sound kinda, oh I dunno, gay?

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 13, 2006 11:37 AM
2

I'm sure declining testerone levels are in no way related to Americans' shitty lifestyle, exercise, and eating habits. No siree. It's all the fault of those castrating feminists.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 13, 2006 11:43 AM
3

huh, nice to see some christian community in-fighting.

oh and, does this make him Mark "The Bunny Fucker" Driscoll?

Posted by seattle98104 | November 13, 2006 11:56 AM
4

One can honestly say that Mark Driscoll is a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.

Posted by Andrew | November 13, 2006 12:22 PM
5

Perhaps the good pastor and his christianist male ilk suffer from TMM - tiny meat madness.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 13, 2006 12:26 PM
6

Dan - thanks for keeping up on this. It would be great to see you and ECB do a follow up print piece on the Seattle bands that belong to this church and how the church is co-opting the Seattle music scene to mine for new recruits.

Posted by Meinert | November 13, 2006 12:35 PM
7

May I suggest a Mark Driscoll photoshop content a la this: http://www.newspeakblog.com/the_blog/2006/07/fred_phelps_pho.html

Posted by Noel Black | November 13, 2006 12:46 PM
8

er, "contest"

Posted by Noel Black | November 13, 2006 12:46 PM
9

I, for one, would love to ask some of the following bands why they have consistently played their Seattle shows at the Paradox despite it being owned by conservative christians: Xiu Xiu, Cex, Plot To Blow Up The Eiffel Tower, Botch, Q and not U, Trial, Deerhoof, etc etc etc.

Some of these bands are explicitly political, while some merely advance punk/hardcore's general culture of anti-authoritarianism and self-determination.

Playing for a conservative christian church is not cool. What's up, rockers?

Posted by djfits | November 13, 2006 1:02 PM
10

#4, thank you for the lovely "9 to 5" reference! So true...so true...

Posted by 9 2 5 | November 13, 2006 1:05 PM
11

I guess you can make the "buying only CDs at Best Buy" analogy wrt The Paradox's role with MHC. MHC donated their space to The Paradox in a way to hopefully subtlely(?) show that MHC is down with the underground rock and not much more, based on what I know.

Paradox cover charges go to compensate the bands, and anything beyond that goes to the Paradox to keep their operations going. I don't think any money from Paradox shows goes to MHC.

I stress "I don't think", though.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | November 13, 2006 1:22 PM
12

@ fits: money speaks louder than politics, even for punks.

yeah, I'll frame it like that.

Posted by seattl98104 | November 13, 2006 1:22 PM
13

98104: I know, I know. We're all guilty of compromise for the sake of our own survival, and it never fails to make me sad. I'd still like to hear some artists defend/justify their choice to support the Paradox and, by extension, Mars Hill.

And, MFW, it's not just a matter of financial support. These bands help add ideological legitimacy and street cred to the church, even if there's no profit.

Posted by djfits | November 13, 2006 1:30 PM
14

To: #4 & #10
I say we hire a couple a wranglers to go upstairs and beat the shit out of'm.

Posted by monkey | November 13, 2006 1:49 PM
15

djfits, do a lot of the Paradox shows do that though? How can you gauge something like that?

I've only encountered two types of folks wrt opinions/observations at the Paradox

* the people who never noticed the Paradox was in a church, or if they did notice, just shrugged it off

* people who knew about the church connection for quite a while and never go to the Paradox for that reason

In either scenario, either the non-converts are not getting converted, or the vigilant are just reaffirming their vigilance. MHC doesn't score very well in the end.

I mean, why would MHC sever their relationship with the Paradox if things didn't seem to be going MHC's way in the end?

THAT SAID, I'm blissfully ignorant of the actual Mars Hill music culture itself. I've seen only a couple of shows at the Paradox since they moved from the North Ave in the U District, and these were known bands in the underground i.e. not direct MHC fodder.

I assume the Paradox hosted the MHC-related band shows as well? If so, how accountable are they to folks who see the secular shows at the Paradox?

What about the church basement shows in Philly i.e R5 Productions? Is the First Unitarian Church in Philadelphia "cool"? Probably cooler than Driscoll obviously, but should we not question the age-old traditional of church basement hardcore shows as well?

There was one church near 15th in Capitol Hill that hosted a few hardcore shows for a while. (Maybe related to the Punkin House folks? Maybe not.)

Lots of great questions to be asked. Thanks DJFITS.. seriously.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | November 13, 2006 2:09 PM
16

Wow, this might be the first civil, thoughtful dialogue I've been a part of on slog. Thanks, MFW.

-I do think there are some important differences between the UU church and Mars Hill. I'd prefer my punk shows totally secular, totally diy, but the UU basement is certainly the lesser evil, maybe even a neutral or neutral-good. Mars Hill expresses values that are incompatible with DIY, punk, what have you; the UU church, less so.

-Of course, it's difficult to quantify the effect of the Paradox on Mars Hill in terms of either new converts or perceived ideological legitmacy, but those seem like the only reasons the church would have for running such a program. It doesn't even have to be about new converts, though. The Paradox helps to cloak the church's expressly patriarchal dogma in a veneer of tattooed coolness that keeps current members feeling "hip" when in fact they're totally regressive and (gasp) lame. And the bands that play there have a hand in keeping those misogynists feeling cool.

Posted by djfits | November 13, 2006 2:32 PM
17

FITS@16

Thank you! Your final point is indeed a very good one as far as stating a non-obvious tangible side effect of the Paradox/MHC connection that helps promote the church.

I was thinking about the possible side effects purely from the perspective of a Paradox attendee at some metal or math-rock show there.

My only refutation is this: would we find equally ill social side effects -- non-religious as they may be -- if we investigated what venues like Neumo's, The Showbox, Chop Suey, The Redmond Firehouse, Vera, etc. do?

Of course, I'm purposely picking venues where I've known at least one or more great, great people who work there, and I'd trust, to some degree, wouldn't aid in spreading poisonous dogma via hosting shows. (no Buju mentions, please)

My greater point was already made above, which is: how much of our participation and spending contributes to things we don't realize promote dogma that each of us would find disgusting? If/when one realizes this, how many people would care to stop that behavior?

As for the Paradox, sigh.. well, Mars is cutting the Paradox off, so my guilt about attending the Paradox has severely decayed. I don't know anybody who runs the Paradox, but I'm curious if this is case of the people there not realizing who they were being accompanied by when they agreed to accept the offer for the space, or there are people in the Paradox who are married to MHC, or something in between?

I'm glad this won't matter anymore, and the Paradox's next move will hopefully give some indication what the relationship was like, and why it started in the first place. Even though it's not of our business what those details were/are.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | November 13, 2006 4:42 PM
18

Matthew - keep in mind that the Paradox is not now nor was ever a sperate entity from Mars Hill. Even in Driscoll's bio he takes credit for starting two things - the Paradox and Mars Hill. The Paradox is fully funded by Mars Hill and from what I know always has been. The church pays the rent, the PA, the non-volunteer employees, the electrical, advertising, etc. Any money made at the door goes back to the church if there is a profit. Make no mistake, the Paradox is a fully funded outreach arm of Mars Hill. Many people I know have stories of friends who attended shows at the Paradox and now are full on cult members giving their souls and money to Pastor Mark.

Ironically, the no church members who ran the Paradox were so vocal about how the venue was not an outreach arm of Mars Hill that Mars Hill took note and fired them. Afterall, if the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by Mars Hill on the Paradox was not working as outreach, then the Paradox needed new leaders.

As Savage and Fits slam Mars Hill and the Paradox, The Stranger continues to support the shows both editorially and with advertising. After calling for a boycott of Neumo's this borders on hypocrisy.

Posted by Meinert | November 13, 2006 6:40 PM
19

Why do christians hate gays so much. Jesus was the worlds first drag queen. I mean look at him, he has long blonde hair and wears a "tunic" which is actually a dress. To top it off he wears sandels to show off his perfectly pedicured toenails. Plus, he was a "carpenter" which is a man who likes to play with long hard wood. And who did he eat his last supper with, a large group of men. Jesus sure did hang around with a lot of men. So, christians....stop blaming the gays for all of your stupid problems and realize that your god was a totally hot blonde gay guy who was secretly plowing noah on his arc.

Posted by jesuspuncher | November 13, 2006 11:13 PM
20

Hey Dave - there are no "non-volunteer employees" at the Paradox. Just sayin'.

Posted by Alicia | November 14, 2006 9:19 AM
21

Down with Mars Hill.

Posted by MW | November 14, 2006 1:35 PM
22

Jeebus on a trailer hitch, first the guy says he's gonna "lean over the plate and take one for the team," now he's bemoaning the loss of male testosterone and admonishing other men to "man up." For crying out loud, Driscoll, just come out already. Go do Manly Things with Other Men aboard the Raging Queen.

Posted by Geni | November 14, 2006 1:38 PM
23

As a member of Mars Hill and a woman, I would like to say just one thing: come to the church and see for yourselves. Mark is not a misogynist or any of the other horrible things he has been called. He is a sinner, as we all are. I've heard him proclaim this many, many times from the pulpit. He is a sinner saved by the grace of Jesus. I invite any of you who have been personally offended by things heard to come to Mars Hill and form your own opinion. The purpose of the church is to serve Jesus and share his message of salvation set forth in the Bible with the city of Seattle and the world.

Posted by Mars Hill Member | November 14, 2006 3:01 PM
24

Alicia - who cleans he bathrooms, replaces the light bulbs, paints, installs the PA, pays the electric bill, does the accounting, oversees the website and email list, etc, etc? At all other venues these people are employees of the venue. At the Paradox I assume these jobs are done by staff of Mars Hill. Maybe technically they are employees of Mars Hill and not the Paradox, but that only further emphasizes my point.

Posted by Meinert | November 14, 2006 3:46 PM
25

So...he's not a misogynist, he's a sinner? Don't you mean his misogyny is a sin, but it's ok because Jesus has already forgiven him?

Posted by Meinert | November 14, 2006 3:48 PM
26

Aside from the cleaning, paying the electric bill and taking the settlement reports for all the shows, everything else was and is done by volunteers. Volunteers painted the room, hung the curtains, put up the PA, wired the stage, runs the website, deals with e-mails, etc, etc.

But after Dec. 16th, there's really nothing else to be said. Looks like things are closing down.

Posted by Alicia | November 14, 2006 4:49 PM
27

Mars Hill Member -

If he's not a misogynist, why is does he feel the need to slam another church for ordaining women? Does he slam the Roman Catholics for its celibate priesthood, the Seventh Day Adventists for encouraging vegetarianism, or the Quakers for advocating non-violence?

The Episcopal Church started ordaining women in 1976, but as recently as the 1990s it accepted there was value in the theological conviction that only men should be ordained. The EC has STILL not kicked out the three US bishops who refuse to ordain women... and those three bishops were able to vote in the election of Jefferts Schori.

Who would you say is "bearing one another's burdens" here?

Posted by JenK | November 14, 2006 5:04 PM
28

Alicia - so there are 'non-volunteer' employees at the Paradox.

And all due respect for the job you did - you are a good booking agent. However, the Paradox was, is and will always be part of the marketing for Mars Hill - a corporation which supports and promotes homophobia and sexism, and makes a lot of money while doing so. Calling the bullshit Driscoll teaches 'religion' is no excuse. We don't tolerate it when Microsoft backs that shit and we shouldn't when Mars Hill does. It may not be pleasant for you to deal with, but the Paradox is a key and effective part of drawing young people into Mars Hill and their destructive teachings.

Posted by Alicia | November 14, 2006 10:05 PM
29

Understood.
I'm not looking for an argument, I just wanted to make sure you knew that about 95% of the work being done there is voluntary.
And no, there are no non-volunteer employees at the Paradox. There are Paradox volunteers and then there are Mars Hill staff - two separate entities.

Posted by Alicia | November 15, 2006 8:24 AM
30

I don't care for Driscoll's attitude towards women at all, but putting him to the right of Fred Phelps is an absurd exaggeration on the level of Kent Brockman at Kamp Krusty: "Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together!" I'd say he's more comparable to your average boorish frat boy — except, unfortunately, with a lot more influence.

By the way, it should be noted that many of the people involved with this protest are Christians who are pissed off at Driscoll for (a) the comments themselves and (b) making them look bad by association.

Posted by Dan Brown | November 15, 2006 11:40 AM
31

jesuspuncher, learn your history not from your grandma's jesus picture but from reliable sources. if you're going to punch jesus you'd better be sure you can take 'em.

Posted by scott | November 15, 2006 2:44 PM
32

lets all play our rhetorical games so we can keep obscure the real issues, you know...in good dilettante yet power hung fashion.

also, i must say some of you are quite like the fundamentalist literalists you dislike, in your naive approach to language and its functions.

long live the bullshit syndome!

Posted by ryan | November 15, 2006 6:38 PM
33

Isn't the bigger problem that a pro-homo bishop got elected. Woe to them that call good evil and evil good.

Posted by chase | November 16, 2006 8:10 AM
34
As a member of Mars Hill and a woman, I would like to say just one thing: come to the church and see for yourselves. Mark is not a misogynist or any of the other horrible things he has been called.

There's no need to go there in order to hear what he has to say. Much of it is conveniently archived on the Web.

Here are a couple quotes from Mark Driscoll's "Spiritual Gifts VI: (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)" sermon.

To provide some context, he's talking about part of The Bible that says women should remain silent in churches. He says (beginning at around 37 minutes) that this applies only to women who are un-godly, because in chapter 11 of the same book, it is stated that godly women (those who are wearing a head cover, which is "symbolic of respect for authority," which he later says means that they are respectful of their fathers and husbands) may speak in church, and to those women who are feminist (apparently when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he was dealing with some outspoken, contentious, feminist, women who were disrupting the church). He goes on to explain what is wrong with feminism (this is at 49:26):

No woman wants a man to treat her like another man because if we do, you cry.

Men are horrible to other men. And they don't cry. And if they do we mock them and tell everyone. That's probably not what you want. True story, right men? Right? My wife she tells me all the time, "I'm not one of the guys," which means I do not treat her like a man, does that mean I treat her with-- no, I treat her like a lady. See this whole gender conflict is if men-- you know, we're not about chauvinism, we're not about feminism, we are about chivalry. Men loving women in their femininity and not treating them like men but treating them like ladies. That's what we're about.

The problem with women, though, who want to be treated like men, is as soon as you do, they say, "You know what, you heart my feelings. I'm a girl."

Then he explains that "some women think they can do everything on their own" and that if men sit by idly like cowards because they don't want to get into with with their hot-headed, emotional, wives, eventually the women will take over the church, and then the church will go to hell.

Another quote from later in the sermon (at 56:04):

Does it say, "Ladies, don't have any questions"? Does it say that? No. Does it say, "Ladies, don't disagree." No. Does it say, "Ladies, don't think for yourself." When you disagree, when you're super-theological, when you're all fired up, the first thing you don't do is start yellin' at the pastor and yellin' at the church, firin' nasty e-mails, and declarin' war and puttin' tother a, a, little group of, you know, feminist women with guns who are gonna make a difference."

If you're married, you go talk to who? Your husband. You say, "Sweetheart, I was readin' The Bible, I think it's ridiculous." And he would say, "We should probably talk." "Honey I was readin' the Bible, I don't understand." He should say, "Let's, let's study that together. Let's take some time, and study -- together. Now some of you will protest and say, "THAT is SEXIST!" As a married man, I will tell you, it is sexy. That's what it is. There is nothin' hotter than a wife with a great new testament, commentaries, concordances, and questions. That is theological foreplay. It's awesome. Because now you're connecting at the level of then heart and the soul and god is honoring of that.

Following is the related portion of Mars Hill Church's notes for the sermon:

Guidelines for Women
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Apparently some of the more feminist-minded women were disrupting the church service with combative questioning that was intended to undermine the doctrine and leadership of the church. Paul seeks to bring them into godly order with some guidelines.

  • Women are not to speak in a disruptive and contentious way. However, he has already said that a godly woman can speak if it is in a godly way (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). Therefore, the problem is not that the women were speaking, but that the wrong women were speaking and saying what they shouldn't have.
  • Husbands are responsible to ensure that their wives are not ungodly and acting in sinful and disruptive ways in the church.
  • A wife with a Christian husband should expect him to be theologically informed and ready to study Scripture with her. This does not negate the kind of women's ministry encouraged in Titus 2:3-5, but does negate Christian men expecting the church to be the sole place where their family learns about Jesus.

Posted by Phil | November 16, 2006 11:33 AM
35
Posted by Phil | November 16, 2006 11:52 AM
36

see also: an open letter from Rose Swetman, the Co-Pastor of Vineyard Community Church in Shoreline, WA, to Mark Driscoll

In her letter, Ms. Swetman writes:

I do not make a habit of responding publicly to church leaders about controversy (although I have placed the comments noted above recently). I rather, because of my leanings toward peacemaking, try to find and keep unity (not uniformity) in the body of Christ. However, recently I have felt like Jude. I find it necessary, in light of the protest planned on your church, to speak out as a pastor, not a feminist pastor, but a woman pastor, on this present controversy because it is affecting the local body of believers who I am called to serve.

From the things I have read, it is apparent that we do not share the same starting point theologically about “women in ministry.” You seem to place yourself in a view held by such noted biblical scholars as Wayne Grudem, called the Complementarian view of male and female gender roles. As I have read your posts and listened to some of your sermon presentations, I rather think you are theologically a Traditionalist and maybe, without knowing it, you are masquerading as a Complementarian.

[...]

Here are a few illustrations of what you have said verbally or in writing that I personally find offensive. I have not referenced these quotes but can if need be.

[...]

All of this has led this blogger to speculate that if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men. When asked for their perspective, some bunny rabbits simply said that they have been discriminated against long enough and that people need to "Get over it."

It appears to me that in an effort to be cute or funny, neither of which works, this statement is one of the most mean-spirited I have ever read. Even if you had many valid points from your theological lens in your post, to name-call an ordained minister, whether you agree or not, a “bunny rabbit,” you need to “man up” and retract such a demeaning statement and issue an apology. I wonder why you don’t use such inflammatory language when you write for the Seattle Times!

Posted by Phil | November 16, 2006 1:11 PM
37

I think it's hilarious that so many people want to bash on Mark in a way more offensive and demeaning manner than he supposedly used in his blogs. I suppose it takes a hypocrite to know a hypocrite.

Posted by Fred | November 16, 2006 1:50 PM
38
I think it's hilarious that so many people want to bash on Mark in a way more offensive and demeaning manner than he supposedly used in his blogs.

Hilarious, huh? Please share an example of this lop-sided bashing-on so we can all laugh with you. I'm quoting his own words and citing sources. No "supposedly" here.

Posted by Phil | November 16, 2006 4:37 PM
39
Posted by Dan Brown | November 16, 2006 5:11 PM
40

How annoying — the link got stripped out. Driscoll's response is here:

http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-16_thank_you_critics

Posted by Dan Brown | November 16, 2006 5:13 PM
41

Thank goodness this is a free country and those who wish to listen to Mark's sermon have the freedom to do so and those who disagree are free to disagree. What do these protestors hope to accomplish? They obviously disagree, but the women who attend the church agree with his teachings. It's not like Mark is going out to these people and force feeding them this sermon. He is teaching it in his church and putting it up on his blog. People choose to attend the church and choose to read his blogs. Are these protestors saying that we, the women of Mars Hill are not smart enough to make our decisions? Who are these so called "oppressed?" It's not like we're in a communist country. Nor is what he preaches hurting anyone. It doesn't hurt the women who attend MH because he teaches men to respect women and love them as Christ loves the church. And frankly, a man opening the door for me once in while does not hurt me. It doesn't hurt the People against fundamentalism or anyone who doesn't agree because...well, it doesn't effect them in any way. Who are they to say that their belief is better then ours, that they can enforce their opinions on us? If we were to ever enter their territory and tell them that they are wrong, which is what they are essentially doing by protesting...then boy would there be hell to pay. Mark preaches what he preaches...to people who choose to listen. If you choose to listen then maybe you will hear it in the context that it is preached.

Posted by LinC | November 17, 2006 2:54 PM
42

You all should really stop and realize that you are no better than Mark if all you can do is bash him. How many people here actually read his blog, or have ever gone to Mars Hill on sunday, how manyof you just want someting or someone to bitch at. Mark Driscoll's words have been taken way out of context, and hey if people want free rights to do whatever they want then shouldnt this guy be able to say whatever he wants to say?

Posted by I feel bad for all of you | November 19, 2006 1:27 AM
43

It's curious to me that so many people get so bent on what one Christian says. If you want to judge a religion you look at it's founder, not it's followers.

Oh and another thing, if you're a skeptic like I was try reading the book of Matthew and make Jesus earn it from you, then make up your mind.

Posted by powder p | November 19, 2006 7:15 AM
44
Mark Driscoll's words have been taken way out of context

Please, someone, provide the context for us.

Posted by Phil | November 21, 2006 1:05 AM
45

Phil, I appreciate your excerpts... having watched that sermon via vodcast (an easy way for people to "get the context" on some of Mark's sermons without walking into Mars Hill, if that would be contradictory for you... they're free on iTunes as well).

I would say that you did a good job of keeping it in context, so much so, that from my particular point of view, I can't even glean from them what it is that is offending people.

Obviously the bunny statement could be considered as offensive... but if it's against the law for a Christian to have a sense of humor (even a slightly snarky one) you'll have to shoot me, because when I read it in its original context, from my point of view, it was funny.

Not the type of thing I'd blog funny, but funny in an inside joke kind of way... very easy to misinterpret or take offense to, so perhaps in poor taste on the world-wide-web. But tell me you've never done it? Tell me you haven't ALREADY done it within the comments section on this page!

Doesn't make it any better, but can we cut the holier-than-thou crap I'm getting from you bloggers?

Are any of you going to retract your offensive statements? Like the one where the guy, jesuspuncher decides that the fact that he doesn't like Jesus and has seen some interpretive pictures makes him a homo drag queen (Jeusus, that is)? Or Geni's randomized conclusions that Mark Driscoll's just DYING to come out?

Which is why I'm very glad that Mark is one of the few Christian pastors I know who has both a slightly warped sense of humor (Is it REALLY true that no one in this chat room can appreciate that? I find that so hard to believe!) and enough humility to correct himself and apologize when others make a better point.

What type of pastor WOULD you like? Totally depends on where you're at... If you're touchy feely, if you're politically correct, if you're white-washed or concerned about making a good impression, then you will put forth a soft, limp-wristed, touchy-feely version of Christianity, which will disagree with some of the Bible's bolder statements often enough that it will be fairly low-impact.

But none of you seem to be that kind of person... I mean that as a compliment; I don't identify myself with any of these things either, although I do admit I aim to be diplomatic... (I'm sure I'll find out from the backlash whether or not I, in fact, am.)

You seem like the type of people who are strong-willed, opinionated, passionate about a cause, seeing what you percieve as injustice or social wrongs and getting up in arms against it, aiming to set the record, and the world straight. (I see this also as a very good thing).

Which means that you are more like Pastor Mark Driscoll than I think you would like to believe.

I've seen snarky comments on this blog; comments much more rude, politically incorrect, and judgemental than even Pastor Mark at his finest. I'm not actually on here to be that annoying "Christian" commenter that spouts holier-than-thou rebukes and such... I'm just trying to open your eyes to the overabundant commonalities between you and this blog's opponent.

That said, sensitivity is not necessarily Mark Driscoll's "spiritual gift", shall we say. (I'm getting the feeling that some of you may not have it either!) So yes, his big mouth OFTEN gets him into trouble. Couple that above-described personality that I suspect many of you also have with a platform to preach to thousands and the public scrutiny of one of the most Christianity-resistant cities in America (according to statistics) it's no wonder that controversies like these keep coming up.

However, I think a large part of me would die if protests such as the one on Dec.3 were to ever beat Mark Driscoll into submission... as a Christian with an under-represented constituency of non-wingnuts, I urge you that you're simply not seeing the whole picture on Mark Driscoll, a man who has the uncomfortable job of actually telling people what the Bible says and means, instead of conveniently preaching what will please the bloggers.

Posted by Kelly | November 22, 2006 10:08 AM
46

Phil, just to clarify, the "don't tell me you haven't already done it" and all such rhetorical questions were intended outwards and in a more general sense... so that wasn't meant for you particularly.

Sorry man.

Posted by Kelly | November 22, 2006 10:50 AM
47
I would say that you did a good job of keeping it in context, so much so, that from my particular point of view, I can't even glean from them what it is that is offending people.

That's probably because you arrived at your particular point of view as a result of having been indoctrinated with the same bullshit that Driscoll has.

I've seen snarky comments on this blog; comments much more rude, politically incorrect, and judgemental than even Pastor Mark at his finest.

You're comparing snarky, anonymous, comments on a blog to a guy who preaches to a church of 5,000 that if women are allowed to run a church it will go all to hell? A man who says that women should not hold jobs assisting pastors because pastors have such a hard time controlling their manly urges? A man who suggests that infidelity arises from women "not being sexually available" to their husbands -- and that it is the woman's fault in that case? Are you fucking kidding?

Obviously the bunny statement could be considered as offensive...

Well, yeah, it could be considered offensive -- if you consider an opinion leader and "moral authority" saying something like, "If you bunch of limp-wristed, politically-correct, pussies won't man up and quit letting women and fags whine their way into church leadership, you may as well let the poor little oppressed bunny rabbits be leaders, too," to be offensive.

Posted by Phil | November 22, 2006 4:17 PM
48
Please share an example of this lop-sided bashing-on so we can all laugh with you. I'm quoting his own words and citing sources. No "supposedly" here.

Here's one, apparently posted by the same author:

Well, yeah, it could be considered offensive -- if you consider an opinion leader and "moral authority" saying something like, "If you bunch of limp-wristed, politically-correct, pussies won't man up and quit letting women and fags whine their way into church leadership, you may as well let the poor little oppressed bunny rabbits be leaders, too," to be offensive.

Not exactly Driscoll's own words, at least as far as I can tell. I don't see any reference to Driscoll ever making this particular statement - even in the text the "quote" is linked to. These remarks, while quite possibly representative of what many perceive Driscoll to preach, are much more offensive than anything he's actually said in his own words - at least that I've seen or heard. If they weren't, why would the author feel the need to create this embellished interpretation of Driscolls remarks to make his point rather than simply use Dricoll's own words (as he claims to)?

Posted by bonchan | November 27, 2006 4:18 PM
49

as to you all against pastor mark, you are all disgusting "biggots" that you claim he is. but praise our great savior and Lord Jesus Christ for freedom of speech. mark to appreciates this great freedom and does not try to stop you all from it, just as you may not stop him! you speak of such hate and violence. you make me sick

Posted by tom petty | November 27, 2006 11:23 PM
50

It's a shame that Driscoll's satiric wit is apparently wasted on the peanut gallery.

Come on people!!! He's funny! Laugh! It feels great! You're all taking youselfselves way too seriously.

Posted by Spank | November 27, 2006 11:55 PM
51

As a regular female attender at Mars Hill, I highly regard him and how he views women. I've never once felt like he disregarded women, and I agree that the Bible is clear that women should not be pastors. I know many others who have these views too.

Posted by Rilla | November 28, 2006 1:20 AM
52

Well, yeah, it could be considered offensive -- if you consider an opinion leader and "moral authority" saying something like, "If you bunch of limp-wristed, politically-correct, pussies won't man up and quit letting women and fags whine their way into church leadership, you may as well let the poor little oppressed bunny rabbits be leaders, too," to be offensive.

Not exactly Driscoll's own words, at least as far as I can tell.

That's correct. I paraphrased, and that's why I wrote, "saying something like," rather than, "saying the following."

I don't see any reference to Driscoll ever making this particular statement - even in the text the "quote" is linked to.

Again, it was not a quote. But the following is a quote from the text to which my paraphrased statement was linked (Driscoll's November 10, 2006, blog post):

[The] Episcopal Church voted Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori as the first female leader of the entire church at their General Convention in June. [...]

Things really heated up in 2003 when Jefferts-Schori voted to confirm New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson as the first openly gay Episcopalian Bishop, who later also admitted to alcoholism. The global split includes seven American dioceses rejecting her election and wanting their own leader who is not pro-feminism or pro-homosexuality. Joining them in protest are Anglican leaders from Africa, and other places, who are theologically conservative and courageous enough to call their American counterparts to repentance. Her tender response to her critics was very pastoral: "Get over it."

In related news, the testosterone levels of male Americans has dropped significantly in the past twenty years. [...]

All of this has led this blogger to speculate that if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God's men. When asked for their perspective, some bunny rabbits simply said that they have been discriminated against long enough and that people need to "Get over it."

Mark Driscoll's blog - 2006-11-10 15:42 - Mark Driscoll - Bad Theology

I'll paraphrase again: "The Episcopal church voted the first female leader of the entire church. She recently confirmed the first openly gay Episcopalian bishop -- who has admitted not only to his homosexuality, but also to being an alcoholic. Some Anglican churches, including seven in the United States, have joined conservative African church leaders in rejecting the notion of a female leader. They demand a leader who does not advocate women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, and who does not support equal rights for homosexuals. This uppity bitch's very un-pastoral response to her critics was simply, 'Get over it'. American men are becoming less manly every day. The Episcopalians seem willing to let any non-heterosexual-male run their church, so if we don't man up soon, they'll be voting in someone from another persecuted and equally un-qualified group: fluffy bunny rabbits."

[Phil's paraphrasing of Driscoll's blog post], while quite possibly representative of what many perceive Driscoll to preach, are much more offensive than anything he's actually said in his own words - at least that I've seen or heard.

Only if you're more offended the use of words like "pussy" and "fag" than by a good-ole-boy who stands up every week in front of 5,000 adoring followers who believe he speaks the word of some all-powerful deity and indoctrinates them with the ideas that women are inferior to men and that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism. I find the latter far more offensive than the former.

If [Phil's paraphrased words] weren't [much more offensive that Driscoll's own words], why would [Phil] feel the need to create this embellished interpretation of Driscoll's remarks to make his point rather than simply use Dricoll's own words (as he claims to)?

I never claimed to use Driscoll's own words in the comment to which you referred. In other comments, I have quoted Driscoll directly (see #34 above). By paraphrasing and embellishing his "women ain't no better'n bunny rabbits at being leaders" post, I attempted to create a more concise representation of what Driscoll wrote and also to draw attention to the sexist and homophobic nature of his words.

Posted by Phil | November 28, 2006 10:39 AM
53

As a regular female attender at Mars Hill, I highly regard [Driscoll] and how he views women. I've never once felt like he disregarded women

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Driscoll disregards women, only that he claims they make inferior church leaders.

I agree that the Bible is clear that women should not be pastors. I know many others who have these views too.

How many times do the rest of us have to point out the hypocrisy in you fundamentalists taking The Bible literally when it's convenient and not when it's inconvenient? Among other nonsense, your book of Christian mythology * also says it's okay to own slaves. Do you know many others who have that view?

Oh, you say that's from the old part of the book? The Jewish part where your god was just kidding or explaining difficult topics in a manner that the people of the time would understand? You say you are concerned specifically with the teachings of Jesus Christ? What, specifically, did Jesus Christ ever say about homosexuality or women remaining subservient to men?

* mythology: A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Posted by Phil | November 28, 2006 11:06 AM
54

Come check out Mars Hill for yourself. If you feel like your missing something in life I hope you find it there.

Posted by BranDON | November 28, 2006 5:33 PM
55

WooHoo! A nerve touched and the city responds. Any conversation about Jesus in the culture means He hasn't been marginalized. Worse, would be the sound of silence. Keep ranting! Keep raving!

Posted by PuddingHead | November 30, 2006 9:16 AM
56

Can someone please explain to me how this protest is anything more than good, old-fashioned RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, without using a string of invectives, if possible? They believe something that we find stange/backward, and so we're going to disrupt their right to peaceable worship? Have I got that right? And the follwing Sunday we'll protest at the orthodox Jewish synagogue, yes? (they don't ordain women either). And then?

Posted by haterhater | November 30, 2006 7:23 PM
57

Rilla, yeah for you. You are comfortable being less than! We need more women like you. I really didn't want my daughter to grow up with rights anyway.

Posted by carrie | December 1, 2006 1:50 PM
58

way to protest mars hill. 6 people showed. 5000+ showed up at mars hill and all you got is 6 people? Mark teaches us about Jesus and how to respect women. this protest goes to show people talk like they know alot...but they dont believe what they are saying enough to actually stand up for it.

Posted by ben | December 4, 2006 7:52 AM
59
way to protest mars hill. 6 people showed.

The protest was canceled.

Posted by hyperlinker | December 4, 2006 10:52 AM
60

I would encourage anyone who would like to have more info on the mars hill/paradox relationship to view the press section of theparadox.org website.

Or if you want, you can email me at rebecca@theparadox.org and I will do my best to answer any questions you have.

cheers

Posted by rebecca selle | December 4, 2006 12:46 PM
61

I would encourage anyone who would like to have more info on the mars hill/paradox relationship to view the press section of theparadox.org website.

Or if you want, you can email me at rebecca@theparadox.org and I will do my best to answer any questions you have.

cheers

Posted by rebecca selle | December 4, 2006 12:56 PM
62

I would encourage anyone who would like to have more info on the mars hill/paradox relationship to view the press section of theparadox.org website.

Or if you want, you can email me at rebecca@theparadox.org and I will do my best to answer any questions you have.

cheers

Posted by rebecca selle | December 4, 2006 12:57 PM
63

oops! I thought it hadn't worked so I pushed post a whole bunch... sigh...

Posted by rebecca selle | December 4, 2006 1:01 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).