How dare he talk to men this way, not being more sensitive to their feelings?!

Oh, wait…

Kudos to Mark for taking the proverbial bull by the horns and speaking (screaming!) to the issue of the abuse and neglect of women. There is nothing more powerful than a manly, well respected guy like Mark shooting it straight to guys who need to hear this message.  Well done.

Just to clarify, however, for me, the issue has not been that I think that Mark “doesn’t value women”; the issue is that I believe he defines both male and female roles too narrowly, and this excellent bit of preaching does not actually speak to that issue.

Again, though, let me say that I thought this message was very powerful, and that I appreciate his willingness to take on the tough issues.

I thought this was the best.....

“You guys are a joke.  And there’s a handful of good men that are tired of picking up your mess.  So you step up, you shut up, you man up and you use all that anger you have towards me right now, to repent.”

Thanks Mark

Why doesn’t Driscoll just come clean and say that men and women are completely equal when it comes to “ministry” or rather what is defined as such today.

When men and women fulfill their abilities in their individual roles, working and being who they were created to be (i.e., men and women) as unto the Lord, they are in real ministry.

As a friend once said, “All work is holy.”

Stop with the sexism, Driscoll and read the Bible.

CS: Actually, I didn’t say anything about Driscoll being wrong. I didn’t disagree that some men are “jokes,” especially those men who abuse women, and especially those men who abuse their wives.

My point was that hurling insults at them—even if they are true—isn’t good pedagogy in my view.

In other words, if you’re trying to reform a man who has serious temper issues, you don’t fight that temper by employing anger, even when that anger is justified.

To be honest, I can imagine some men hearing that message and getting so mad (at the tone and content) that they went home and took it out on their wives. And that’s the exact opposite of the desired outcome!

You don’t fight fire with fire, in my book. Yes, his anger is justified, but the goal of a sermon like that is not to vent your own (justified) anger, but to seek the transformation of the men in question. And calling an angry man a “joke” is more likely to produce more anger than it is transformation.

I want to be careful how I respond, but what I am about to type could be misunderstood if I’m not.

I was not trying to build an argument for a type of biblical pedagogy. I was simply speaking from my own background, which includes psychology, a bit of educational training, seminary training, and preaching/counseling experience.

I hope that I did not convey that I was doing anything other than that.

In my opinion, Scripture doesn’t prescribe any particular pedagogical method over another. Yes, there are several descriptions, from the satirical, offensive prophets, to the enraged Jesus at the temple, to the tender Jesus who embraces prostitutes and tax collectors.

Those descriptions are informative, yes, but I do not think they are prescriptive.

My best shot at a “biblical pedagogy” would have to be based on Paul’s comments on becoming all things to all people in order to save as many as possible in concert with God’s desire to redeem humanity. When I put those two things together, I think it’s most appropriate to tailor sermons in a way that will reach as many people as possible.

Hence my comment: You don’t teach an angry man by responding in anger, because that just adds fuel to his fire. In my view, you disarm anger by responding in brutally honest love that dispels anger.

Please understand, I’m referring to method and not content here. I’m not saying Mark was wrong about the content, but I think his method could have been more effective.

Moreover, I have heard many sermons preached in this same tone and have been left with the impression that the tone was more the result of an attempt to justify one’s own position rather than to penetrate the hearts of those who are listening.

In other words, sometimes preachers get angry because they perceive a gross violation of holiness, and they simply respond out of that anger and nothing more, and the emotional response simply reinforces itself as it gains momentum. Unfortunately, that can alienate the very audience you are trying to reach.

And in my view, reaching the people is more important than responding in anger, even if that anger is justified.

I’m not saying he sinned. Just that I suspect he didn’t reach the audience he could have, and there’s nothing sinful about that at all.

I totally agree with you Todd.  I’ve been hearing this series and Mark Driscoll seems to be on a litte spiritual power-trip.  I’m not upset because of what he described, because I don’t fit any of his descriptions, but he was completely tactless and honestly just looked dumb. 

I lost most of my respect for Mr. Perfect (Mark Driscoll).  BTW, his voice was too high pitched for any real impact and it just looked like popeye trying to be mean....it didn’t work.

Peter:

“But calling men to be men is Driscoll’s thing and he does it well. It’s okay to not molly-coddle your congregation… but that strong right before communion (as it seems from the clip was the context for this)? I don’t think so…”

Perhaps you’re right about the timing of such a rebuke, but there was one thing I liked directly relevant to the upcoming communion.  He reflected on 1 Corinthians 11:28-30 and made a huge point of it to people.

I almost never hear the admonishment of self-examination prior to taking the Lord’s Supper and the possible consequences of such.  If I do hear of any sort of self-reflection, it’s usually done in a superficial sense, kind of a , “Quick, tell God you’re sorry once more before you put the bread in your mouth.  We don’t have time to wait.  The band’s about to play again and we have to then take the offering.”

I wish more pastors would talk about people who capriciously eat and drink may be putting their very lives at risk and adding damnation to their heads.  I’m grateful for Driscoll saying this.

--
CS

I did not much care for this approach.  I am sure in it’s Mars Hill context it was fine but it seems more commanding than leading.  It came across shrill to me.  In my context the words would work for the most part but the tone wouldn’t.