Mark Driscoll

[Luther073082]

If one chooses to divorce for reasons of preserving their mental health.....wouldn't that mean there were ongoing and habitual actions that were not beneficial to the covenant promises?

It's a matter of interpretation (and how one perceives God) as to whether or not that's "contrary to Christ's commands".

Christ commands are clear on divorce. Going outside of those is contrary to his commands.

You start watering down Christ's commands and pretty soon you can divorce for practically any reason you wish and have (in your own mind) God's full support.

 

[I Art Laughing]

I think he's a reactionary, as I stated on the other thread. A lot in me wants to react the same way (hence the mega-church, since I'm not likely to be the only guy who feels this way) but I know that is not the answer. On the other hand what is he reacting against?? Clue: it's not the Gospel. It seems masculinity has been on trial all of my life with all of its advocates labeled as "whiners" or "male chauvinist pigs" or "legalists". The worst part is when the accusations are true, but quite often they are not.

When there are equal parts outrage on the false teaching landing on the other side of the "aisle" then I think we'll have some balance, then guys like this wont be having mega-churches. They wont have "the voice crying in the wilderness" cache that makes them so appealing. This honestly doesn't look that terrible (as some seem to be painting it). I suppose somebody has already e-mailed his wife a DV questionnaire.

 

[Conservativation]

I think he's a reactionary, as I stated on the other thread. A lot in me wants to react the same way (hence the mega-church, since I'm not likely to be the only guy who feels this way) but I know that is not the answer. On the other hand what is he reacting against?? Clue: it's not the Gospel. It seems masculinity has been on trial all of my life with all of its advocates labeled as "whiners" or "male chauvinist pigs" or "legalists". The worst part is when the accusations are true, but quite often they are not.

When there are equal parts outrage on the false teaching landing on the other side of the "aisle" then I think we'll have some balance, then guys like this wont be having mega-churches. They wont have "the voice crying in the wilderness" cache that makes them so appealing. This honestly doesn't look that terrible (as some seem to be painting it). I suppose somebody has already e-mailed his wife a DV questionnaire.

lol

 

[sdmsanjose]

Since the majority of responses on this thread wanted to comment on Mark’s views on sex and other issues and not on the Videos that were posted on this thread I decided to try and look up information on Mark’s sex messages.

I viewed a couple on YouTube and the only one that I found that spoke a little about the sex issues mentioned by the poster was titled Pleasuring your Spouse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqFG8nCvPg4

As far as the sexual DON’T in marriage Mark states “… don’t do that it hurts like crazy”. Mark was saying that if it hurts then DON’T do it. That tells me that if anal sex or any other sex hurts then don’t do it.

I like how mark summed it up with these words:

I have been a totally faithful guy to my wife; we have a very enjoyable marriage relationship and we take care of each other

I am satisfied with my wife and she is satisfied with me; my goal is to make her happy and her goal is to make me happy”


I really think that the attitudes above make for a very good possibility of a good marriage. I did not see the criticisms that those that made negative remarks about Mark’s sexual messages presented in the videos that I have viewed.

As far as alleging Mark’s cruelty towards his wife for having an affair before they were married mark made a statement on another video that stated

“I have now overcome my bitterness and sin”

The videos that I have posted on CF are

Mark Driscoll on Manhood
Why I hate religion
10 things forgiveness is not
Talk about Jesus
Pleasuring your spouse

I do not see any evidence that Mark is a person that “…the Spirit is not in him” See reprint of Luther post below. Besides I think it is just as un-Christian-like to make that judgment on a brother even if it is true that Mark does think that video games are stupid and that he likes marshal arts or that he has dreams that you question or has sexual attitudes that differ from you. I think the Bible has something to say about who can judge who as having the spirit in them; does it not?

Quote of Luther
Seriously. . . Adolf Hitler probably had a few good points as well. Having a couple of good points doesn't give anyone instant credibility.

And I say it again. . . the spirit of God is not in him.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Mark has given interviews that never ended up on You Tube. I am not sure why we have to find something on you Tube?

 

[JaneFW]

And his book says very different things to his video. It ends up with what do you believe? It's my belief that he will wear whatever 'face' he needs to wear at that given moment to win people over. I find that dishonest.

 

[Athene]

He should run for politics really.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Romans
Mark has given interviews that never ended up on You Tube. I am not sure why we have to find something on you Tube?

Who said that you have to find something on YouTube? I sure did not.
I informed the readers that I finally got interested in all the negative posts about Mark and decided to look up information on the negative claims made about Mark on sex. I did not find anything on the videos that I have researched so far that verifies the negative claims on this thread but I am open to other credible sources.
I have not read his book that came out this month and do not want to buy it if Mark is bad as some of you claim.

Romans if you have some credible sources about the negatives of Mark please post them. Do you have any?

In my posts I try and post direct quotes and references to my research and that is what I will make my conclusions on. I do not want to make a judgment about a person preaching the Bible based on just someone’s emotional opinion of Mark without credible sources that back up the opinion. I have seen Mark make some statements that I think are whacked but they are not the kind of statements that would lead me to throw out the truths that are in Mark’s messages.

Romans my post had nothing to do about telling people to find something on YouTube; the main point (“the spirit is not in him&#8221 was what I closed my post with which is reprinted below

Reprint of sdmsanjose
I do not see any evidence that Mark is a person that “…the Spirit is not in him”See reprint of Luther post below. Besides I think it is just as un-Christian-like to make that judgment on a brother even if it is true that Mark does think that video games are stupid and that he likes marshal arts or that he has dreams that you question or has sexual attitudes that differ from you. I think the Biblehas something to say about who can judge who as having the spirit in them; does it not?

Quote of Luther
Seriously. . . Adolf Hitler probably had a few good points as well. Having a couple of good points doesn't give anyone instant credibility.

And I say it again. . . the spirit of God is not in him.

On this same point LinkH asked a question several days ago that went right to the heart of this issue. As far as I know everyone that condemned Mark did not answer this question.

Quote of LinkH

And then there is the issue of judging. Let's say Mark Driscoll got bent out of shape and was unmerciful for a while after finding out what his wife did when they were dating. Can you say the man doesn't have the Spirit because of this? You'd better be careful.

When someone makes some very negative remarks about a Christian then will not answers questions that get to the heart of the issue, I wonder how credible those negative statements are. Don’t you?

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Jane
And his book says very different things to his video. It ends up with what do you believe?

What I believe is what conclusion I come to based on the credible evidence that I get. So far the videos that I viewed have some very good truths in them that can help people. The fact that Mark did not treat his wife correctly 10-15 years ago when he found out of her affair is not enough for me to discount his messages that have valuable truths in them. Have you always treated your spouse fair in the last 10-15 years?

Besides it seems according to the words of Mark reprinted below that Mark and his wife have “… a very enjoyable marriage relationship”. So apparently they have got past that incident of 10-15 years ago.

Quote by Mark
I have been a totally faithful guy to my wife; we have a very enjoyable marriage relationship and we take care of each other

I am satisfied with my wife and she is satisfied with me; my goal is to make her happy and her goal is to make me happy”

Jane, do you have some quotes to post from his book?
I am willing to learn more about Mark

 

[Chaplain David]

This thread popped up on my New Posts area so I thought I would comment on it again.

I cannot give credibility to "the book" or "other talks he's given" if I haven't seen them. Unless someone can quote them with attribution they are just hearsay. It is troubling that there seems to be such a disparity between the kind of decent guy pastor in the presented OP and some of the paraphrases, and views presented quite strongly by some of the members.

When I get in some of these threads there sometimes seems to be a faction, that remind me of the old English movies where the crowd was watching a public trial of someone while chanting "stone him, stone him."

As far as anyone not liking him as a pastor my opinion is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, as long as he's not preaching a different message than the Bible preaches centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ I say, fantastic that he has a church of 15,000. May he and his flock continue to prosper.

 

[JaneFW]

Some people have done the research by looking a bit wider than just what the guy says. Anyone can do that for themselves. His book is out there, available, for anyone to pick up. I'm not going to read any more of it. His reading of the Bible is not for me.

 

[Romanseight2005]

There are some sites that I found last summer, that were parts of other sites, too. Mainly my interest was in Leon Podles, because his ideas seemed to be at the base of the movement as a whole. I can find those, but it will take awhile.

 

[Conservativation]

There are some sites that I found last summer, that were parts of other sites, too. Mainly my interest was in Leon Podles, because his ideas seemed to be at the base of the movement as a whole. I can find those, but it will take awhile.

what movement is that? Leon Podles has written scholarly historical based texts, including the excellent book "The Church Impotent". He is not a movement kind of guy, he is a historical theologian, and unless you are prepared to actually follow his pages and pages of bibliography and show factually where he makes a statement that is in error, then there is no basis to "agree" or disagree with him. He follows church evolution from pre-middle ages, its a dead dry book unless the subject is of interest, but a movement starter its not. His book appealed to some in a movement, but his book has really nothing much to do with these topics on submission etc. His book is more akin to David Murrows book about men not liking church, where Murrow writes about superficial things like decor and music, Podles actually shows historical happenings and paradigm shifts that unequivocally document what was happening in the middle ages between men, women, and the church.

 

[Athene]

Well his first mistake is the title of his book The Church Impotent the feminization of Christianity.

He describes the church in terms of male sexual dysfunction and in that context the feminization of Christianity can only be a bad thing. He then goes on to weep and moan about feminine men and how masculine men sneer at the church. Subtext - any institution which attracts women and men who don't kill small animals with their bare hands - is bad and rubbish and sub par.

I am sick to the back teeth of womanhood being the negative, being bad. A feminine man is bad, a feminine church is bad.

 

[McScribe]

Well his first mistake is the title of his book The Church Impotent the feminization of Christianity.

He describes the church in terms of male sexual dysfunction and in that context the feminization of Christianity can only be a bad thing. He then goes on to weep and moan about feminine men and how masculine men sneer at the church. Subtext - any institution which attracts women and men who don't kill small animals with their bare hands - is bad and rubbish and sub par.

I am sick to the back teeth of womanhood being the negative, being bad. A feminine man is bad, a feminine church is bad.

Actually it is bad, because it is not balanced. An entirely masucline church would also be bad. It's not that being a woman is bad--it's that edifying women to the detriment of men is bad. Edifying men to the detriment of women is bad.

 

[Athene]

As early as the second century, Christianity was criticised as the religion of women, slaves and little children. It seems it's always attracted those with subordinate status in society.

The likes of Driscol and this Podles guy would have us believe that the problem is with the church. The church needs to change so that men will come. My question is, why does the church need to change? Maybe the problem is this uber masculinist society which sneers and scorns men for not living up to the macho macho man stereotype, and that treats women and 'weak' men with utter contempt. Maybe it's society that needs to be changed. Now that is a radical thought.

 

[Athene]

ETA - I don't believe the church is feminine, I think the church is fulfilling it's role as the refuge for the suffering. Men don't 'need' the church because they don't suffer as much as women and those men who don't fit in to the masculine stereotype. The values promoted in Christianity are in direct contradiction to what society expects of men.

 

[McScribe]

ETA - I don't believe the church is feminine, I think the church is fulfilling it's role as the refuge for the suffering. Men don't 'need' the church because they don't suffer as much as women and those men who don't fit in to the masculine stereotype. The values promoted in Christianity are in direct contradiction to what society expects of men.

What do you mean men don't suffer as much as women?

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Athene
I am sick to the back teeth of womanhood being the negative, being bad. A feminine man is bad, a feminine church is bad.

I am starting to get sick to the back of my teeth of my thread being turned into a womanhood being the negative, a famine man is bad, all this woman- man thing.

This thread is about the messages of Mark Driscoll being biblically based in his messages or Mark being a hypocrite Christian or mark not even being a Christian because the spirit is not in him. The man-woman thing would be appropriate in it's own thread but it is not the main issue in this thread.

I read on the CF forum how Mark Driscoll has been called all kinds of anti-Christian names and even insinuated that Mark is not a Christian and does not have the spirit in him. That got me curious and I have been getting information on Mark and so far have found his messages to be very biblical and helpful. I have posted my evidence of my position so far and have asked over and over for those that have negative comments to post their evidence but not much has been posted. It makes me think that some on here have been affected by their own personal experience with man-woman relationships and have made that the dominant criteria for their evaluation. In other words their personal man-woman experiences has given them a bias view of Mark Driscoll

Sacredot made a good comment in his post reprinted below.
“…as long as he's not preaching a different message than the Bible preaches centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ I say, fantastic…”

Reply by Sacredote

I cannot give credibility to "the book" or "other talks he's given" if I haven't seen them. Unless someone can quote them with attribution they are just hearsay. It is troubling that there seems to be such a disparity between the kind of decent guy pastor in the presented OP and some of the paraphrases, and views presented quite strongly by some of the members.

When I get in some of these threads there sometimes seems to be a faction, that remind me of the old English movies where the crowd was watching a public trial of someone while chanting "stone him, stone him."

As far as anyone not liking him as a pastor my opinion is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, as long as he's not preaching a different message than the Bible preaches centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ I say, fantastic that he has a church of 15,000. May he and his flock continue to prosper.

So far the evidence for the negative comments against Mark are minute compared to the evidence posted showing Mark to be giving messages based on the Bible.

 

[Chaplain David]

Some people have done the research by looking a bit wider than just what the guy says. Anyone can do that for themselves. His book is out there, available, for anyone to pick up. I'm not going to read any more of it. His reading of the Bible is not for me.

And I believe that is how you feel and there are others who do not like him in married couples but I see statements, some of them negative, a few of them off the wall IMO being made about Him and no proof is provided as backup. In the debating forums on CF usually proof is provided, if not required to have a good argument or one that holds up. I'm not using argument in the sense of two people arguing but as one of the terms that is used for debate-like discussion.