Mark Driscoll

[JaneFW]

Post 227.

By suggesting that undisclosed porn use would be grounds for divorce in the same sentence you talked about disclosing CSA it's pretty clear that you were implying that someone said that undisclosed CSA was grounds for divorce.

That assumption is in your mind only.

Bottom line though is that it's wrong to not disclose something, be it CSA or porn use or whatever that's likely to have such a deep and lasting impact on the marriage, be it in the area of sex or in any other area. I absolutely reject the idea that being a victim of CSA or anything else excuses someone from being open and honest about something that has such a potential for such serious long lasting effects on both spouses and the marriage as a whole.

Have you suffered CSA? Have you any idea what that does to a person? Do you remember the man who posted on FL a long time ago, who was having sex problems, and what it finally boiled down to - after he had talked and talked to his wife, and done some thinking and praying about it - was that his stepmom had sexually abused him as a child. His whole interplay with his wife had been screwed up for x years because he could not face what his stepmom had done to him. He had tucked it away at the back of his mind and was not even aware that it was continuing to impact his sexuality or affect his wife and marriage. That's what people do. They are ashamed. The memories are painful and humiliating. It's very very difficult - I suspect more so for men - to admit the things that were done to them to anyone. Many are also threatened not to tell. You don't just overcome that in a heartbeat. That guy had not. Many others do not either.

 

[JaneFW]

Do you really read it as orders? I read it as suggestions, really. Do you mind showing me where?

Right here, in fact - even worse - he suggests it comes from Jesus:

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.’” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help
​

You NEED to go home RIGHT NOW and tell your husband that you've met JESUS and you've been studying the BIBLE and that you're CONVICTED of a TERRIBLE SIN .. you NEED to drop his trousers and you NEED to serve your husband.

Is that just a suggestion? Really? Put in those terms? Using Jesus's name to shame her into it?

He'll have his reckoning I guess. Just like I'll have mine.

p.s. how did she "meet" Jesus?

 

[McScribe]

To be blunt, I think this post reveals that there is a lot you don't understand about human sexuality.

Anyways, why was he marrying her if he was gay in the first place? And quite frankly I've never seen the appeal in someone having sex with me when they really don't want to. I'd prefer to go without. I think if you love someone, you shouldn't pressure them into having sex with you when it "horrifies" them.

Why don't you tell me what exactly it is that I don't know?

 

[hijklmnop]

I find this to be scary stuff:

Mark Driscoll’s Church Discipline Contract: Looking For True Repentance at Mars Hill Church? Sign on the Dotted Line : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

Mark Driscoll’s ‘Gospel Shame’: The Truth About Discipline, Excommunication, and Cult-like Control at Mars Hill : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

It's a two parter about the experience of a young man who became involved at Mars Hill.

If we were ALL treated like this at the church .. well, I just can't imagine it, and get this:


Is anyone else in agreement with this? I mean, my whole history of promiscuity (prior to becoming a Christian) was a man's fault then, right? I'm just fine. No need to repent.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Crazy stuff, imo.

That's horrible!

 

[McScribe]

Right here, in fact - even worse - he suggests it comes from Jesus:


You NEED to go home RIGHT NOW and tell your husband that you've met JESUS and you've been studying the BIBLE and that you're CONVICTED of a TERRIBLE SIN .. you NEED to drop his trousers and you NEED to serve your husband.

Is that just a suggestion? Really? Put in those terms? Using Jesus's name to shame her into it?

He'll have his reckoning I guess. Just like I'll have mine.

p.s. how did she "meet" Jesus?

Well, that's a pretty stupid way to handle it. I don't know the overall context of course. The studying the Bible bit for example...was she, or are orders from Driscoll a sufficient substitute?

 

[chaz345]

That assumption is in your mind only.


Have you suffered CSA? Have you any idea what that does to a person? Do you remember the man who posted on FL a long time ago, who was having sex problems, and what it finally boiled down to - after he had talked and talked to his wife, and done some thinking and praying about it - was that his stepmom had sexually abused him as a child. His whole interplay with his wife had been screwed up for x years because he could not face what his stepmom had done to him. He had tucked it away at the back of his mind and was not even aware that it was continuing to impact his sexuality or affect his wife and marriage. That's what people do. They are ashamed. The memories are painful and humiliating. It's very very difficult - I suspect more so for men - to admit the things that were done to them to anyone. Many are also threatened not to tell. You don't just overcome that in a heartbeat. That guy had not. Many others do not either.

The fact that it's so deeply damaging and long lasting is exactly why it should be disclosed before marriage though. The person they are marrying at least deserves to know what they are signing up for. Look I'm not saying that it's a sin not to disclose. I'm not saying that they should disclose because their future spouse deserves to know they are marrying "damaged goods". I'm saying that the future spouse deserves to be making an informed choice as to who they are marrying and what baggage will have to be dealt with. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying that to the degree possible it should be done and that I can very easily understand the spouse that was kept in the dark about it being a little angry, maybe feeling deceived when they later find out about it. Not for a second suggesting that it would be appropriate for them to "go off" on their spouse either. Just saying that anger in such a situation is a perfectly understandable response.

 

[McScribe]

Excuse me, no offense to anyone but I'm going to bow out of this thread, the CSA stuff is striking a little close to home. Nothing personal, no one has offended me, it's just personal. Please continue. I apologize if I'm leaving any conversations hanging, it's not you folks at all.

 

[mkgal1]

**Sorry I'm responding to this so late in the thread***

I live not too far down the road in Portland OR and have spent enough time in Seattle and hear/see enough on the news to have a pretty good handle on the political/social climate of the area and I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that the whole macho male domination thing does not play well at all.

I think the liberal syle of doctrine he's preaching.....and the portrayal of, "this isn't like your grandma's church" fits in perfectly---the subtle macho man is a side-benefit (for the men, of course). That this is portrayed in a metrosexual area makes it even more of a draw---it sets these men apart from the rest.

There's a similar church growing all over the country. I don't think it's odd that these churches are thriving in financially flourishing and liberal areas.

 

[chaz345]

To be blunt, I think this post reveals that there is a lot you don't understand about human sexuality.

Anyways, why was he marrying her if he was gay in the first place? And quite frankly I've never seen the appeal in someone having sex with me when they really don't want to. I'd prefer to go without. I think if you love someone, you shouldn't pressure them into having sex with you when it "horrifies" them.

If you love someone you shouldn't, like the guy in McScribe's example or for that matter his own wife, marry them when the idea of sex with someone of the opposite gender is horrifying.

 

[hijklmnop]

That's what I said.
(by asking why he married a woman when he was gay).

 

[chaz345]

**Sorry I'm responding to this so late in the thread***



I think the liberal syle of doctrine he's preaching.....and the portrayal of, "this isn't like your grandma's church" fits in perfectly---the subtle macho man is a side-benefit (for the men, of course). That this is portrayed in a metrosexual area makes it even more of a draw---it sets these men apart from the rest.

There's a similar church growing in the OC (Free Chapel--Orange Co, California). I don't think it's odd that these churches are thriving in financially flourishing and liberal areas.

I disagree. He's being accused of a pretty strong "man first" mentality which definitely does not fit in with politically liberal thinking. The point being there's no way he can be as mysoginistic as people are trying to say he is and be sucessful in such a politically liberal area.

 

[mkgal1]

I disagree. He's being accused of a pretty strong "man first" mentality which definitely does not fit in with politically liberal thinking. The point being there's no way he can be as mysoginistic as people are trying to say he is and be sucessful in such a politically liberal area.

It's being repeated all over the country. I think it flourishes in these areas because of what the majority of men are like there. It's like the pendulum being swung in the opposite direction, and women think it's a refreshing change.

 

[I Art Laughing]

It's being repeated all over the country. I think it flourishes in these areas because of what the majority of men are like there. It's like the pendulum being swung in the opposite direction, and women think it's a refreshing change.

About time. I just want the pendulum to swing in a Godly (and masculine) direction. The church has been feminized to practical extinction. (A place where more and more women have left there men behind).

 

[hijklmnop]

What is `feminized`about the church and what is not `godly`about it? Are you aware that God created both male and female in His image?

Also, the church is not extinct and that's a ludicrous statement IMO.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Are you aware that God created both male and female in His image?

Are you?

 

[Romanseight2005]

Are you?

Let me ask you a question. How do you view the fruit of the Spirit? Do you view it as some male traits, verses female traits? or do you view it as the embodiment of all believers, who are being led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[hijklmnop]

Are you?

LOL. I asked you first.

Yes, of course I am. I'm curious as to why you asked me that, though. I'm not the one who implied that "feminized" is ungodly.

Do you think that because I don't think my husband has "authority" over me by virtue of his having a penis that I don't respect men for who they are as individuals made in God's image? You'd be sorely mistaken. I love my h and recognize that he was made in God's image as was every human being regardless of gender, race, etc...but I don't believe God sees me as "less than" any man or less worthy of freedom to follow wherever He leads me just because I'm a female.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Let me ask you a question. How do you view the fruit of the Spirit? Do you view it as some male traits, verses female traits? or do you view it as the embodiment of all believers, who are being led by the Holy Spirit?

I don't think they are masculine or feminine. I think that God did make us male and female and the parts that are alien are sin. Saying that, I think that they tend to line up better with the traits that are encouraged in women. Those feminine traits are not necessarily of the Spirit. I think that it makes it very easy to "gang up" on masculinity by our society. It also makes it tough for a man with strong masculine traits to surrender himself to what are often miss perceived as feminine qualities.

My fruits don't look like my wife's (thank God), and they shouldn't. Most of what I've seen has been about equal parts: Drive Jesus out of the Church (don't have a hearing ear relationship) and drive men out of the Church (they are especially sinful, and dirty, and masculine). I think it's become easy to blame husbands and fathers and clothesline preach them and hardly anyone is telling wives to buckle down and sending some Godly marital correction their way. I attribute this to women in the Boomer set, who underwent the "sexual revolution" as older women failing to teach the younger as they ought (according to the Bible). It looks to me like a great big generational disconnect.

And then when a reactionary pastor of a mega-church taps into it ($$$) I see reactionary men rushing in and privileged women squawking about how ungodly it all is.

How does Jesus feel about the "church"? He has an opinion.

This is the verse that I felt Him give me (very clearly) while I was listening to Rick Warren give an interview wherein he answered about the purpose of life:

The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet: And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(Isa 28:3-12)

IMO it was a man-made answer and it was in opposition to Christ. I don't want a "Purpose Driven Life" I want an "Abiding in the Most High Life". I don't want a preacher giving me my responsibilities from the pulpit (or towards my wife) I want someone to encourage me to press into Jesus, hear His voice and lay down my own life.

I personally don't think God is very happy for what passes as the church in the West.

 

[I Art Laughing]

LOL. I asked you first.

Yes, of course I am. I'm curious as to why you asked me that, though. I'm not the one who implied that "feminized" is ungodly.

Do you think that because I don't think my husband has "authority" over me by virtue of his having a penis that I don't respect men for who they are as individuals made in God's image? You'd be sorely mistaken. I love my h and recognize that he was made in God's image as was every human being regardless of gender, race, etc...but I don't believe God sees me as "less than" any man or less worthy of freedom to follow wherever He leads me just because I'm a female.

I don't think that God see you as less. I do think it's clear that women need a covering. Looking at society today I think it screams out why.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
(1Co 11:7-13)

I think deception is rampant due to the lack of covering. Rebellion towards God's order run amok and miracle of miracles it showed up in the Church.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
(2Ti 3:1-9)

So what does this "form of Godliness" look like? Hint, hint, it's appealing to women.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I find this to be scary stuff:

Mark Driscoll’s Church Discipline Contract: Looking For True Repentance at Mars Hill Church? Sign on the Dotted Line : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

Mark Driscoll’s ‘Gospel Shame’: The Truth About Discipline, Excommunication, and Cult-like Control at Mars Hill : MATTHEW PAUL TURNER ✪ Believing.Doubting.Writing.Parenting.Laughing.Thinking.Creating.Hoping.Living.

It's a two parter about the experience of a young man who became involved at Mars Hill.

If we were ALL treated like this at the church .. well, I just can't imagine it, and get this:


Is anyone else in agreement with this? I mean, my whole history of promiscuity (prior to becoming a Christian) was a man's fault then, right? I'm just fine. No need to repent.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Crazy stuff, imo.

Wow that is exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for Jane. Those links are just downright crazy. Amidst all his manly church stuff, it is definitely clear from that testimony that Driscoll is downright man bashing. He's almost got the theology of an all too familiar Joel and Kathy teachings.

It's blaming any and all mistakes on the man, downright man-bashing, while minimizing the spiritual role that women are capable of. Offensive to men and women alike.