Sunday, November 05, 2006

Mark Driscoll Blames Women...

This is taken from Zach Lind's blog (the drummer from Jimmy Eat World) about what Mark Driscoll had to say about this Haggard situation. If you recall Driscoll's the guy who said some really horrible things about McLaren and Padgitt earlier this year... I'm too lazy to write about this myself... here's from Lind's post

Because he’s such a swell guy, Mark Driscoll has taken upon himself, in response to the Ted Haggard scandal, to share some “practical suggestions” on his personal blog as a way of encouraging young church leaders to avoid the pitfalls of sexual immorality. One of his suggestions is the following:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.


At 11/06/2006 1:07 AM, Blogger Liza said...

crap. I better get on the treadmill if I hope to snag any seminarians any time soon.

I'll lean over the plate and take one for the team on this one, Mark. For centuries, nay, thousands of years, women have been on the bottom of the religious totem pole because of our genetalia. Don't blame us for your problems with yours.

Keep it in your pants. There's a fix I endorse.

At 11/07/2006 10:53 AM, Blogger adam said...

First, let me say I don't really know who Mark D. is. His name is familiar, but in the way that I thought he was a member of Third Day. Assuming he is not, this is my first encounter with him.

The suggestion you posted Andy is ridiculous, and I completely agree with Liza. I don't know how Haggard sleeping around (with men) has anything to do with his wife not living up to the Song of Songs. The way Mark describes it wives are nothing more than sacramental concubines.

Yet, some of his other suggestions aren't quite as insane. For instance: "Pastors must speak freely and frankly with their wives about their temptations. Without this there really can be no walking in the light and sin always grows in darkness." Contrary to the first suggestion, this one actually implies the wife is an equal, and not merely a sexual toy.

But then he falls back into the trap of stupidity, and says "Churches should consider returning to heterosexual male assistants who are like Timothy and Titus to serve alongside pastors." First, this has nothing to do with Haggard. He didn't sleep with a female assistant, he slept with a male prostitute. Second, at the risk of being completely sacrilegious, who says Timothy and Titus weren't gay. Last time I checked the N.T. didn't list the sexuality of all the people mentioned.

So, can anyone tell me who Mark Driscoll is?

At 11/07/2006 11:08 PM, Blogger Joey said...

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle, not to be confussed with the Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids. He is, however, often compared to Rob Bell in his ability to teach. He's like a Rob Bell for the fundies, kind of. He also has a history, although he is known as a good teacher, of saying remarkably dumb things now and again. His view of women seems slightly inconsistent with his view of women (thats not a mistake, I meant to say it that way). He also called Doug Paggit "Tonto" and said something along the lines of "that's gay" when referring to Paggit and McLaren's view of how Christians should handle the homosexuality issue.

At 11/07/2006 11:13 PM, Blogger Joey said...

A few direct Mark Driscoll quotes to help you familiarize yourself with him. He's such a lover.

from wikipedia

* God hates you... You have been told that God is loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good sky fairy who runs a day care in the sky and has a bucket of suckers for everyone because we're all good people. That is a lie... God looks down and says 'I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you,' and we say that is deserved, right and just, and then God says 'Because of Jesus I will love you and forgive you.' This is a miracle. [6]

* The Emerging Church movement is a bunch of disgruntled liberal evangelicals who gather together to complain about the megachurches of their parents.[7]

* A pacifist has a lot of difficulty reconciling pacifism with scripture.[8]

* For the record, I do believe men and women were both made equal as God’s image-bearers and, though different, maintain equality. [9]

* I am a theological misfit and have learned to be okay with that. We are missional, which offends fundamentalists. We hold to the fundamentals, which offends liberals. We are theologically charismatic, but not shake and bake holy rollers, which puts us in the middle of a big debate to be shot by both sides. We are reformed, but not old school, and don't baptize babies, don't hold to the regulative principle, and won't die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics. [10]

* ..the truths of Christianity are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times, and places. But the methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated, and therefore constantly translated (1 Cor. 9:22-23)...if doctrine is constant and practice is constantly changing, the result is living orthodoxy. [11]

* Its hard to worship a man you can beat up [12]

* But people don't like hell!! They're not supposed to!

At 11/09/2006 12:45 AM, Blogger Jake Sikora said...

Driscoll has proven two things in this comment.

1. He is an idiot. It doesn't matter how hot Gayle is or is not. Pastor Ted was not looking for a hot lady, he was looking for a hot man. There is nothing that she could have done shy of bulking up, being covered in dark body hair, and growing a penis that would have kept Ted from this situation.

2. Driscoll is definately not gay. He may be an idiot, obsessed with sex, and terribly unprofessional but he is definately not gay. Again, he thinks that all any man wants is a hot piece of lady, thus a fit, attractive woman will keep a guy from wanting sex from someone else, even if what they want is sex from a MAN.

At 11/11/2006 2:15 AM, Blogger Liza said...

hahahaha jake.

At 11/12/2006 1:01 AM, Blogger JulieAnn said...

Man, it's good that Driscoll has both a male and a female assistant. Otherwise, who'd know what could/would happen...

At 11/19/2006 12:55 AM, Blogger Kristi said...

Wow, I just found out about this whole Mark Driscoll debacle the other day and posted on my blog about it. I was just Googling for some more Driscoll quotes when I stumbled on this blog, and lo and behold it's a bastion of HC grads. Hi, everybody!

- Kristi

At 11/20/2006 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, the Mark Driscoll quote is really offensive. But, you know Jake, I'm not sure that Mark isn't gay. We all know those guys who are so full of machismo but they're packing for something peculiar. I think we call it overcompensation like when I emphatically (over and over again) told a girl I used to date that I never, ever, without any question, pooped my pants in 7th grade. Sorry, Mark but me thinks the pastor doth protest too much!

-phil from dayton
one of your bros put me onto you guys! hilarious!!!

At 1/03/2007 3:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, are you all mis-interpreting and assuming the worst about the quote, or do you really think that the idea that a married man and woman should have an active sex life is that offensive?
--a visitor

At 2/15/2009 4:27 PM, Anonymous Jack said...

All Mark was saying was that a healthy sex life between a married couple can help to keep the temptation of sexual sin, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual or even pornographic, at bay. It won’t completely put out the fire of sexual temptation (whatever kind it may be) but it will help to tame that fire down to a smoldering desire rather than a blazing inferno. For this reason woman should make sure that they are providing a sex appeal for their husbands.
In the same way a husband needs to make sure that he is giving his wife the love and romance she needs in order to keep her temptation of going after another man (or woman) to find that love and romance at bay. For God made woman emotional and men sexual and when the two spouses submit in order to meet each others needs they can have a strong healthy marriage. But if one of them, such as the wife, is not giving the man what he needs, she is failing in her responsibility as a wife. So she is allowing that fire to build up in her husband. Which even though her husband may not want to sin against her, his flesh will be crying for any kind of relief it can get. Some men are strong enough to keep their flesh at bay, but after a period of time some allow the flesh to overcome them.
My wife and I dated for 3 years before getting married and both of us were virgins going into our marriage. The fire I had burning in me all the way up to my marriage sucked, but I knew God’s righteous standard and I was not going to touch a woman until my wedding night. From the first day we met until now I have given my wife the love and romance she needs and from the day we got married she has given me the sexual satisfaction and relief I need, because a marriage is all about serving. Me serving my wife and my wife serving me. “Stop depriving one another (sex), except by agreement for a time… and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control.” 1 Cor. 7:5
For Husbands: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Eph. 5:25

At 5/04/2009 12:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although Liza’s first quote gave me a good laugh—and she does have a good, solid point, I agree most with Jack’s mature, logical response with some serious reservations.
When you stated that “But if one of them, such as the wife, is not giving the man what he needs, she is failing in her responsibility as a wife. So she is allowing that fire to build up in her husband.” While I understand and agree with what you’re saying here about the wife’s responsibility to maintain her physical appearance for her husband, and believe very well that this is most likely what Driscoll was saying himself, what about the man’s failings in this case? I don’t really know anything about this story except for what I’ve read on this site, but from what I know, he failed his wife two-fold; not only did he commit adultery and deceive his wife that way, he also did not openly discuss with his wife those fleshly desires rising up in him beforehand. I know these points have already been mentioned earlier, but to take it a step further, my question is, why are we so focused on what she (his wife) did wrong??? Who was it that committed adultery again? Historically, women have always, and may always, be held to a higher sexual standard than men. If a man cheats or simply has sex outside of marriage, it is more “forgivable” because, as you said, “men are sexual” beings. However, if a man is a real man, he’s going to step up and take responsibility for his own actions without blaming his wife for his sin. Not that she is completely blameless in the situation, but nonetheless, a marriage is so much more than a sex life. And frankly, if a man can’t be honest and upfront with the person who’s not only supposed to be his lover but his best friend (or, at least and hopefully, a friend), then he should not even think of blaming her for his transgressions. People get in ruts and may not realize they are in one without someone telling them first. Or maybe he’d been failing her in “romancing” her, as you said earlier. How are we to know all the little points of their marriage? I’m still young (24) and am told all the time how “innocent” I am, so maybe I’m just an “emotional woman/girl who doesn’t really know anything,” but what I’ve personally been learning (and hating) about responsibility is that even if I feel I wasn’t completely wrong in a situation and felt that maybe someone else should also apologize to me for their part in the wrong, I cannot let that be the reason I do not fess up and ask forgiveness for what I’ve done wrong. I have to step up and be the big person. That’s what taking responsibility is. It’s not focusing on anyone’s blame except for one’s own. After all, if I have a log in my eye, how can I pull out the splinter in another’s eye, right???? Anyway, I rest my case that the focus should not so much be around how the wife was wrong, but on how the man took responsibility for his actions against her.
And on another note, we’re living in a world where even a beautiful woman’s husband still could, and some do, cheat on her anyways. This, I believe is because there’s so much emphasis on a woman’s physical appearance; we get confused about who and what we’re supposed to be and how we’re supposed to please everyone. If there isn’t a basis of friendship and trust in the relationship/marriage outside of the sex issue, then we can be a beautiful honey and it won’t matter none. Men don’t have the slightest clue, in my opinion, how often a woman feels ugly and unwanted even when we’re dressed and fit at our bests. Maybe we’re just being “emotional” as Driscoll has said before in a very disrespectful way, but if we’re only wanted and treasured for our physical appearances, then men are doing a terrible job at “romancing” us and truly loving us. I believe that Satan has a strong hold in our culture/society when it comes to beauty and physical appearance. When we’re told (by society and pop culture) we won’t be loved and accepted until we’re beautiful, then of course we seek beauty with all our hearts, but it’s an unattainable beauty…. Even though you’re sexually-driven beings, how else do you look at a woman? Are we not intelligent, beautiful creations of the same God? Are we not immeasurably valuable not because of what we look like, feel like, what we do and/or don’t do, but simply because we were created for God and His glory. For no other reason than that, we should be treasured and not scape-goated for men’s weaknesses. It’s okay that men have weaknesses; women do too. It’s not a matter of “being emotional”, it’s simply being honest with yourselves and others, so the weaknesses can instead become strengths. We always get looked down on for being the “weaker” gender; I think this is often because, not to generalize, we are often softer, making it easier to express and be open about our weaknesses (although we can be stubborn too in admitting these weaknesses). It, in no way, means that men are not weaker than women in some areas of life.

At 5/16/2009 6:24 PM, Anonymous Jack said...

I understand what your saying and I agree with most of it. Just remember Mark doesn't bring up men and their responsibilities here because that's not what he's talking about. He is calling out one side of an issue and trust me I've listened to many of Marks sermons and teachings for years now and he spends more time calling out men and husbands than he does wives. Go to the Mars Hill website and listen to his sermon on Husbands from 1 Peter 3:7. Yes I need to look at my wife as more than just a form of sexual satisfaction and trust me I do! She is a wonderful blessing from God to me and as we both get older and wrinklier I will love her even more.
You seemed to lose sight of the fact that I was referring only to the sexual side of things within a marriage and the wives responsibility in that one area. I didn't go into more details as to how else we are to look at woman because that's not the topic at hand. What Mark said was blunt, which instantly catches people off guard, and it was also true. Most of the people who have commented don't know what Mark teaches and believes. I've listened to him for years and I know that he is not an anti woman pig. If anything I would say he's borderline anti-men most of the time. Teaching things that we as men need to hear.
And as to what Mark said about pastors wives "...letting themselves go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either." 1) Mark is not saying the wife is responsible. She just isn't helping her husband. He's responsible. 2) Its not a matter of her getting fat and be sexually unappealing. Its about her not be sexually available to her husband as the bible describes. 3) As far as accusing Mark of saying that a woman's beauty is based on her being a model, I've herd Mark say on multiple occasions that a mans picture of beauty is his wife. "If she's skinny then skinny is beautiful. If she's big then big is beautiful. It doesn't matter her physical state, whatever it is that is beautiful." That's not word for word, but I've heard him say things like that many times.
One last thing. Lets not forget that Mark is referring to pastors in general when he says this. He's not applying it to Tedd and his situation. He's using this as an opportunity to point out the fact that "pastors wives" need to remember to minister to their husbands in a sexual way and not think that because their husbands are in ministry they're above sexual need. When Mark said this he was referring to pastors in general not Tedd's specific case. And like Mark said she " is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either." If I cheat on my wife its my sin. She may have not been helping me, but their is never an excuse sin. Neither I nor Mark are accusing wives for their husbands sins. It is the husbands fault if they sin and never is it the wife's.


Post a Comment

<< Home