Mark Driscoll

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

She should do it. If she's opposed to it he shouldn't demand it (or guilt her into it). If he wants it he should ask (prayer is also in order), she should help him out (again, prayer is in order) if she can. I think it is a matter of benevolence, it's a way of expressing love. Why wouldn't she want to?? If she doesn't want to why would he want her to? We are talking about spouses that love each other here right? Not some power tripping ego-fest wherein one person has to have their own way?

I agree. I don't think what he said is as evil as some of you are making it out to be. He said it to one specific person who he knew very well because of extensive counseling. He isn't saying it's for everyone everywhere at all times.

Aren't we all supposed to not apply generalities to specific people. Why are you all now applying what was said to a specific person which was lightheartedly mentioned in a sermon to prove a different point to a general population? I don't think that's fair of you guys to take the specific in this situation and apply it to the general.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Sounds like Joel and Kathy Davidson stuff right there. . .

I agree, that stuff is crazy.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

What???

She should do it as an act of love only if she's comfortable with it. If she's not comfortable with it, then she shouldn't have to. And a pastor should not be commanding a wife to give her husband oral sex as a specific sex act.

I can see a pastor telling a wife that the bible commands her to have regular sex with her husband. . . because it does. But you are starting to specify specific acts here which the bible does not do.

I also agree with this.

But at the same time, I don't think he was commanding her as much as recommending to her what she could do to help her husband (who is an unbeliever). Remember, she was in counseling with them so it's a totally different context than a pastor teaching his church. It's one person being counseled by another couple (who happened to be Mark and his wife). The way he relayed the store in the sermon was light-hearted (as is demonstrated in the text by the "laughter from the audience"), which strongly implies that it was a suggestion and not a strict command. I do not believe it was meant to be taken as a command.

If it truly was a command than he must have completely skipped the whole counseling bit in pastoral school. A counselor won't command you to do anything. They will definitely suggest things and give their take on it but it won't be in the form of a command.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

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.

He's actually not misogynistic.

His teachings as demonstrated by Jane's links earlier are actually pretty close to Joel and Kathy type theology. Basically, if there is any sin committed in the relationship the man is solely to blame because the woman is the "weaker vessel" and relies on the man for spiritual leadership. So it is equally offensive to both men and woman!

Even though I consider this form of theology equally offensive to men and women, men and women seem to suck it up like crazy for some reason. My theory is that many if not most men are masochists (especially when it comes to male female relationships). And my theory for the women is that they are willing to take the "weaker vessel" role (almost a victim role) if it allows them to also take the blame-all-problems-on-men role.

Don't bash me too much though, it's just a theory.

 

[Conservativation]

He's actually not misogynistic.

His teachings as demonstrated by Jane's links earlier are actually pretty close to Joel and Kathy type theology. Basically, if there is any sin committed in the relationship the man is solely to blame because the woman is the "weaker vessel" and relies on the man for spiritual leadership. So it is equally offensive to both men and woman!

Even though I consider this form of theology equally offensive to men and women, men and women seem to suck it up like crazy for some reason. My theory is that many if not most men are masochists (especially when it comes to male female relationships). And my theory for the women is that they are willing to take the "weaker vessel" role (almost a victim role) if it allows them to also take the blame-all-problems-on-men role.

Don't bash me too much though, it's just a theory.

Its a sound theory young grasshopper

 

[JaneFW]

And my theory for the women is that they are willing to take the "weaker vessel" role (almost a victim role) if it allows them to also take the blame-all-problems-on-men role.

Kind of sounds like a submissive wife role to me.

 

[Luther073082]

He's actually not misogynistic.

His teachings as demonstrated by Jane's links earlier are actually pretty close to Joel and Kathy type theology. Basically, if there is any sin committed in the relationship the man is solely to blame because the woman is the "weaker vessel" and relies on the man for spiritual leadership. So it is equally offensive to both men and woman!

Even though I consider this form of theology equally offensive to men and women, men and women seem to suck it up like crazy for some reason. My theory is that many if not most men are masochists (especially when it comes to male female relationships). And my theory for the women is that they are willing to take the "weaker vessel" role (almost a victim role) if it allows them to also take the blame-all-problems-on-men role.

Don't bash me too much though, it's just a theory.

And if she doesn't like going to work much, its a nice place for her because the church pretty much commands him to provide for the family by himself. . . And if he can't, he's not a real man.

And if he would rather play video games (where no one gets hurt) then watch ultimate fighting (where someone always gets hurt) he's not a real man.

And if he questions Mark Driscoll on anything. . . he's not a real man and he gets thrown out of the church.

Why is it that all of Mar's Hill's satellite locations all tune into Mark Driscoll's preaching instead of letting their own pastor's preach? Because that entire church centers around Mark Driscoll. Not Jesus, it's all about Mark.

 

[JaneFW]

Because that entire church centers around Mark Driscoll. Not Jesus, it's all about Mark.

This is something I had always noticed. Like him saying to the wife that she "met with Jesus". How did she meet with Jesus? Uh, she met with Mark. I guess he thinks it's the same thing.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Kind of sounds like a submissive wife role to me.

For sure! I think a lot of times women take on the "submissive" wife role so they can, in their mind's anyway, absolve themselves from responsibility. In their minds, if they're submissive, the husband is to blame for everything and they can feel better about themselves by blaming their actions or inactions on the faults of their husbands. What they are doing is not true, Biblical submission, however. It is a facade submission that may look, talk, and maybe even smell like Biblical submission, but just like with most everything, the motives behind the action determine how genuine it is. It's essentially a form of hypocrisy.

And if she doesn't like going to work much, its a nice place for her because the church pretty much commands him to provide for the family by himself. . . And if he can't, he's not a real man.

And if he would rather play video games (where no one gets hurt) then watch ultimate fighting (where someone always gets hurt) he's not a real man.

And if he questions Mark Driscoll on anything. . . he's not a real man and he gets thrown out of the church.

Why is it that all of Mar's Hill's satellite locations all tune into Mark Driscoll's preaching instead of letting their own pastor's preach? Because that entire church centers around Mark Driscoll. Not Jesus, it's all about Mark.

Yep. The church's authority structure is essentially a dictatorship with Driscoll as the dictator.

 

[chaz345]

He's actually not misogynistic.

Right. If anything he's the opposite which is just further evidence that the accusations against him are not reflective of reality.

 

[JanniGirl]

Right. If anything he's the opposite which is just further evidence that the accusations against him are not reflective of reality.

Which accusations? The one's where he advocates specific sex acts as being sinful for not being performed and "commands" them to be done? Where he says the husband is the one responsible for the wife's sin? Where he kicks people out of the church for disagreeing with him? Where he advocates senseless violence as a fitting recreational activity for men? ....... Either he advocates these things or he doesn't. There's been compelling evidence that he does, indeed, advocate all of the above.

 

[Luther073082]

Right. If anything he's the opposite which is just further evidence that the accusations against him are not reflective of reality.

I dont' think he's missogynistic, he's just a wolf in sheeps clothing bent on leading the faithful astray with his false teachings.

 

[chaz345]

Which accusations? The one's where he advocates specific sex acts as being sinful for not being performed and "commands" them to be done? Where he says the husband is the one responsible for the wife's sin? Where he kicks people out of the church for disagreeing with him? Where he advocates senseless violence as a fitting recreational activity for men? ....... Either he advocates these things or he doesn't. There's been compelling evidence that he does, indeed, advocate all of the above.

What exactly is wrong with watching ultimate fighting? I'm not exactly a fan but your characterization of it as senseless actually illustrates a point. That being that anything that women don't like or don't understand about men is characterized as senseless or somehow wrong. Which is the core of the whole feminization of society and the Church problem.

 

[chaz345]

I dont' think he's missogynistic, he's just a wolf in sheeps clothing bent on leading the faithful astray with his false teachings.

Why is it not enough to simply say that he's wrong on certain points and explain from a Biblical perspective how he's wrong? Why the need to assign evil intent?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Right. If anything he's the opposite which is just further evidence that the accusations against him are not reflective of reality.

I don't think he's misandric either. He's a mixture of both things which are equally offensive to men and women. In blaming men for all the problems in the relationship, he is minimizing a woman's capacity for spiritual autonomy. And in minimizing a woman's capacity for spiritual autonomy, he blames men for any and all relationship problems.

What this translates into is a pastor who is extremely hard on men. Just read or watch his sermons. He harps on men all the time; especially on young adult men who are not yet married. Perhaps an argument could be made that he's more misandric than misogynistic because the main focus of his message is man-bashing. He does put the onus on men, but like my previously mentioned theory suggests, men seem to tend to be masochistic so they drink all his man bashing up.

 

[Luther073082]

Why is it not enough to simply say that he's wrong on certain points and explain from a Biblical perspective how he's wrong? Why the need to assign evil intent?

Because its very simple. . . If Mark was simpily just in error he would still be pointing to Christ and leading people to Christ.

However Mark doesn't do this. Mark leads them to a long legalistic list of "how to be a real man", Mark then gives women a legalistic list of what they are suppose to do as a wife. Then he makes a rule that essentially forbids anyone from questioning him and excommunicates people who do.

He then sets up a bunch of churchs elsewhere and makes sure that these church's pastor's don't have the authority to preach to their congregations but instead makes sure they all tune into Mark Driscoll's sermon.

These things arn't mistakes, its a cleaverly designed strategy for the benefit of Mark Driscoll and only Mark Driscoll.

A Christian man might listen if someone questions him or admonishes him or gives him Christian council about how maybe he's turning his so called "church" into his private little dicatorship where he is worshipped and adored.

Mark Driscoll gets angry "breaks their nose" and throws them out of the church.

It comes together far too well to be a mistake.

 

[chaz345]

but like my previously mentioned theory suggests, men seem to tend to be masochistic so they drink all his man bashing up.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's more a case that they've gotten so used to the bashing that anything else is foreign to the point of being uncomfortable/unsafe. Not too much different than the abuse victim who is completely unable to trust or believe that someone isn't out to hurt them.


For those that are wondering, yes I did just compare men in today's society/church to abuse victims. The dynamic of what's going on is in fact quite similar. In this case is compounded by the fact that it's normal and accepted though.

 

[chaz345]

Because its very simple. . . If Mark was simpily just in error he would still be pointing to Christ and leading people to Christ.

However Mark doesn't do this. Mark leads them to a long legalistic list of "how to be a real man", Mark then gives women a legalistic list of what they are suppose to do as a wife. Then he makes a rule that essentially forbids anyone from questioning him and excommunicates people who do.

He then sets up a bunch of churchs elsewhere and makes sure that these church's pastor's don't have the authority to preach to their congregations but instead makes sure they all tune into Mark Driscoll's sermon.

These things arn't mistakes, its a cleaverly designed strategy for the benefit of Mark Driscoll and only Mark Driscoll.

A Christian man might listen if someone questions him or admonishes him or gives him Christian council about how maybe he's turning his so called "church" into his private little dicatorship where he is worshipped and adored.

Mark Driscoll gets angry "breaks their nose" and throws them out of the church.

It comes together far too well to be a mistake.

Ok, fair enough. Can't say I agree entirely but it at least makes sense and has as it's basis something resembling facts and thought.

 

[JaneFW]

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's more a case that they've gotten so used to the bashing that anything else is foreign to the point of being uncomfortable/unsafe. Not too much different than the abuse victim who is completely unable to trust or believe that someone isn't out to hurt them.

For those that are wondering, yes I did just compare men in today's society/church to abuse victims. The dynamic of what's going on is in fact quite similar. In this case is compounded by the fact that it's normal and accepted though.

It seems that you've added a new category to the catalog of abuses.

From here on out, I don't think that anything else you can ever say will have any merit for me.

 

[Conservativation]

It seems that you've added a new category to the catalog of abuses.

From here on out, I don't think that anything else you can ever say will have any merit for me.

I agree, this wouldnt fit on the CD list at all