For All Of You Upset About Mark Driscoll’s Take on Women…
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, April 09, 2009
- Viewed 62
- (27) comments so far
Mark Driscoll has taken alot of flack for his view of women in ministry. Many have taken his view of women in leadership and misconstrued it to mean that Mark doesn't value women. After watching this clip, I think we can put that issue to rest. Driscoll is actually quite articulate on the other end of the spectrum as well: Men need to treat women with respect and dignity. Listen to Mark as he gets fired up against them 'boys' in his own church that don't treat women with respect. Let's just say that it ticks him off just a little...
I find it rather refreshing to hear a pastor ask his men to 'man up'. What do you think?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Clayton Bell on Thu, April 09, 2009
How dare he talk to men this way, not being more sensitive to their feelings?!
Oh, wait… http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
Art Good on Thu, April 09, 2009
My respect for Mark Driscoll just shot through the roof. 100% right on.
Nora on Thu, April 09, 2009
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.
Lex on Thu, April 09, 2009
I’m a woman - in ministry - and I’ve got nothing but love for Mark Driscoll. I don’t know if I agree with his interpretation of scripture as regards women and eldership (I haven’t really dug through the scripture enough), but I appreciate that he sticks to his guns because he believes it to be biblical. I’m sure he’d rather not get all the crap about it, but he’s faithful to his convictions and the Word (as he understands it) and you can’t ask much more of a pastor than that.
Jason Ebeling on Thu, April 09, 2009
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
brgulker on Thu, April 09, 2009
I listened to both his sermons via vodcast, and he articulated the complementarian view as well as anyone I’ve ever heard.
That said, I’m not sure repeatedly calling men “a joke” is the most effective pedagogy I’ve ever heard. Don’t get me wrong, I think he was dead on with a lot of his points, but insults usually don’t spur positive change (at least in my experience).
Moreover, as a man living in Michigan, where the unemployment rate is now over 12%, it’s not quite fair to assume that every guy who doesn’t have a good job finds himself in that situation voluntarily. I’m working for peanuts right now, and so is my wife. I’ve got a Master’s degree, and she’s got a college degree. We both work because the alternative is homelessness.
Times aren’t that tough in Seattle, so I can understand why that might not be on his radar.
But, for some of his sermon to work pragmatically, you have to assume an economy where every willing and capable worker gets the opportunity to earn a day’s wages. That simply doesn’t exist in MI right now, and I don’t think it’s fair to call a hard-working, able, and willing man “a joke” because the economy is in the crapper.
To the issues of abuse and neglect, however, I think his anger was completely justified.
============================
One thing I would like to say as a bit of an egalitarian is this: just because Mark came down hard on men doesn’t mean he was right about last week’s message (which was equally hard for a lot of women to hear).
Ricky on Thu, April 09, 2009
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 on Thu, April 09, 2009
brgulker:
“That said, I’m not sure repeatedly calling men “a joke” is the most effective pedagogy I’ve ever heard. Don’t get me wrong, I think he was dead on with a lot of his points, but insults usually don’t spur positive change (at least in my experience).”
But you know what? Some men are a joke. He’s telling the truth here. Just like Solomon called some men, “fools,” and Christ called men, “whitewashed tombs.” And even though you may not like what he had to say, and instead talked about the economy, Driscoll was right on with what he said.
I’m frankly angry after hearing this, because few pastors have the mind, heart, and holiness to speak in this manner. Why don’t we hear more of this in our churches today? Play the man, people!
—
CS
brgulker on Thu, April 09, 2009
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.
CS on Thu, April 09, 2009
brgulker:
“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.”
I ask this in kindness: What is your biblical backing for your point of view, both demonstrative and explicit?
—
CS
brgulker on Thu, April 09, 2009
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.
Doug on Thu, April 09, 2009
AMEN!
Guys dont normally respond well to fluff - thanks for laying it out point blank - and I dont believe it was a response of “anger” as much as it is a response in “righteous indignation” -
I dont see where he was angry and sinned…
brgulker on Thu, April 09, 2009
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.
todd on Thu, April 09, 2009
Sorry, this is just old school hell fire and brimstone preaching only against men. While there is nothing wrong with what he said, it gets really old watching this and acting like its relevant, edgy, or noble. Its just old fashion yelling…...that’s all. And it doesnt take much courage either. I get the feeling that Mark was beat up a lot as a kid.
Rob on Thu, April 09, 2009
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.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment