Scary Sexist Homophobic Christian Preacher

Ok, better minds than mine also think that the Mark Driscoll variety of “manly faith” is dangerous to Christianity:

Scary Sexist Homophobic Christian Preacher of the Day

Published June 27th, 2007

From the blog of Peter Rollins I learned about this horrorshow video on church planting and the discipleship of men, featuring a west-coast pastor named Mark Driscoll:

Okay, am I missing something here? I can agree with Driscoll’s idea that young men need Christ’s message more than any other segment of society. But his is a pandering and gynophobic strategy to evangelize the guys. By implicitly endorsing many of our culture’s homophobic and patriarchal assumptions of what it means to be “a man” seems to me at the very least to be a travesty of the Gospel, if not evidence of how the church’s worst enemies are found within. Driscoll seems to be advocating a cheap repentance where all that is required of a man is an acquiescence to purity-holiness in terms of sexual behavior, followed by giving up the computer games and potato chips and then getting a real job — and getting married and having lots of kids, of course. Rather than acknowledge that the Gospel invites us to the amazingly exciting and challenging task of thoroughly reinventing what it means to be a man (or a woman) in the light of grace, Driscoll settles for taking cheap shots at the herbal tea and aromatherapy crowd. If this is what it means to be a Christian, no wonder church attendance is declining. As Meister Eckhart said, “Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep the truth and let God go.” In other words, if I have to choose between truth and the crap that Driscoll is mongering in the name of Christ, it’ll be the easiest decision of my day.

If you want to take issue with it, comment at the source. I’m only here to observe and to inform on this one.

About mysteryofiniquity

M.A. in English and curator of a houseful of books. Pop Culture addict. Mythology purveyor.
This entry was posted in Agnosticism, Around the Blogosphere, beliefs, Blogging, Detox From Church, Fundamentalists, Losing Faith, masculism, mega-church, misogyny, pastors, patriarchy, pop culture, Protestant, religion, Sexism, Skepticism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Scary Sexist Homophobic Christian Preacher

  1. Brad says:

    *sigh* fine, ruin my fun. I did take issue with this on the source site, but will settle for stating that this video has been woefully misunderstood and taken out of context.

    Sorry, MOI, Mark’s kinda my boy on this one.

  2. Brad,
    There you go with context again. I’m sorry, but I saw the clip. What he said, he said. No context about it. Misogyny in any context is wrong. I don’t care if the bible says it, the pope says it, or even if the President of the United States says it. It’s misogyny, or more appropriately in Mark Driscoll’s universe, gynophobia. Period. Now you can say it’s not misogyny, but that’s always a cop-out from those already sitting in the privileged seat, as all men are. Christianity is the chief purveyor of misogyny, followed closely by Islam. Driscoll’s relegating women to the slavish position of keeping her Christian man “happy” at least once a day is no different from Church “Father” Tertullian calling women “the devil’s gateway” or John Chrysostom, that lovable guy, who said: “It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?” So Christian men come by misogyny honestly at least, it’s their tradition!

    And what is misogyny? From Wikipedia:

    “Misogyny is hatred or strong prejudice against women. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος (misos, “hatred”) + γυνη (gunê, “woman”). Although misogyny is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, for the latter refers more generally to the hatred of humanity. A concept related to misogyny is gynophobia, the fear of women, but not necessarily hatred of them. The opposite of misogyny is philogyny, the love of women. Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred, strong prejudice against men), misogyny is termed by most feminist theories as a political ideology like racism and antisemitism that justifies and maintains the subordination of women to men.”

    So if Driscoll’s your boy, that’s what scares me the most about you, Brad! On this we will also have to agree to disagree.

  3. PB and J says:

    MOI

    i am gonna have to go with you on this one. i havent seen the video, but i totally concur that misogyny coming from anywhere is wrong. i have to admit, however, that this has only been a realization through the Holy Spirit changing my life. i used to be on board with the whole mark discoll perspective. i am so joyful that Christ changed my heart.

    now, do i think mark is misogynistic? yes, but i dont think he intends to be.

    i think there are a lotta reasons that fundamentalist christian men and women tend to be misogynistic. most of them come from paul’s statements in 1 corinthians and timothy. but i have since learned some substantial things that make these Scriptures change. you see, i realized from a wise christian pastor that these passages of paul’s arent, in fact, misogynistic, but are misunderstood.

    as he and i discussed/argued, i realized that his position was much MUCH more in line with Scripture. just because men (and women) have made women second class citizens throughout history (and in the Bible) doesnt mean that this is what God desires. in fact, i am strongly on the other side of the fence and believe it is horrible that there are those who wish to make slaves of women.

    to you brad, i would encourage you to pay attn to those words. i know they are strong. i intend them to be. let me say it again. IT IS HORRIBLE THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO WISH TO MAKE SLAVES OF WOMEN.

    sadly, those people often come from within the church.

    anyway, i encourage both of yall to check out NT Wright and others about New Perspectives on Paul. because i think there is a lot that the evangelical community misunderstands about Paul. reread paul. see if you can look at him like you have never read his stuff. see if he really says what everyone says he says. cuz i think it becomes clear that God is for equality and paul is too.

    shalom
    peter

  4. Brad says:

    Where is the mysogyny?!?! Where? Quoting the bible is NOT mysogyny. Period. Mysogyny is simulating sex on stage with a 15 year old in Trinidad (Rapper Akon). Mysogyny is using the sex appeal of women to sell every product on the market.

    Mysogyny is NOT: calling men to action, repentance, and transformation.

    Mysogyny is: NOT calling men to action, repentance, and transformation.

    (notice the distinction)

    MOI, I’ve appreaciated most of what you said, and always how you have said it. But where are the feminists on the above issues? Why choose to criticise a guy who is simply trying to address the needs of the MOST NEGLECTED demographics in the church: men? As Mark stated, 60% of church members are women. That’s great, praise God, Hallelujah! In all seriousness, I am very grateful for that. But it saddens me greatly to see my good guy friends throw their lives away because they submit to a society and culture that tells them that glory lies in sleeping with many women, playing video games, owning a bunch of “stuff,” and placing their identity in their conquests.

    I belived those lies for a long time.

    Driscoll is not a mysogynist, nor am I. I LOVE my wife. I would die for her. I want to love and serve her the rest of my life. We both submit to each other. In Ephesians 5(which I’m sure you are VERY well aware of), women are called to submit to their husbands, but men are called to DIE FOR their wives. How is that not submission?

    The patriarchal system, for which the church has been most infamous for, is broken. No doubt. But that does not mean that patriarchy is bad if including mutual submission, love, and respect. Christ died for, and submitted himself before God and the people He loved.

    “Now you can say it’s not misogyny, but that’s always a cop-out from those already sitting in the privileged seat, as all men are.”
    -And I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it. I seriously tire of being told that because I am a male, I am inherently wrong, stupid, abusive, or unsympathetic to women. I want to puke everytime I hear “well, of course you would say that, you’re a man and are priviledged.” I hardly define that as “equality.” Please do not fight marginalization with marginalization. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    And yes, we may have to agree to disagree, but believe me MOI, you have every reason to rejoice and not be scared. I value and respect women. I love my wife, and DO NOT treat her as a subordinate. Out of love, she submits to me, and I to her. That’s the bible.

  5. Brad,

    “I seriously tire of being told that because I am a male, I am inherently wrong, stupid, abusive, or unsympathetic to women.”

    My, my don’t get so emotional about it. I never said those things about you. I said the church is misogynist and it is.

    You write:

    “That’s the bible.”

    EXACTLY my point.

  6. Excellent points, Peter.

  7. Heather says:

    **In Ephesians 5(which I’m sure you are VERY well aware of), women are called to submit to their husbands, but men are called to DIE FOR their wives. How is that not submission? ** Because the Ephesians verse is set up for a hierarchy. A woman must submit to a man, just as a man must submit to Christ. The verse is set up so that the man has the power, and gets the last word. If the wife and husband disagree, the husband will get the last word. You can die for someone, even out of love, without ever submitting to someone.

    Moi is right in the fact that religion does contribute to a hatred of women. The verses she pulled from church fathers are just a sample of everything available. EVen today, the society is set up to tell women that there are things they cannot do, simply because of their sex. Twenty years ago, churches would tell women that Eve was the second to be created and the first to sin, and so women are less than men. So, yes, quoting the Bible can be misogyny.

    ** I want to puke everytime I hear “well, of course you would say that, you’re a man and are priviledged.” I hardly define that as “equality.” ** I think this is more along the lines defined as telling someone how to feel. I’m not saying that you’re doing this, but Moi has an emotional reaction to what Mark Driscoll said (Moi: I don’t meant that in a hysterical, girly way, but that you had justified anger towards what was said, which is an emotion). Usually, in this circumstances, women are told that they are taking things out of context, or getting too worked up about harmless fun, or letting their sinful nature reign. The simple fact of the matter is that men cannot fully understand what it’s like to be a woman, just as someone who is white cannot fully understand an ethnic minority. Women and ethnic minorities are treated different in so many ways, ways that those who have the privledged position are oblivious to. And yet the same people tell those exposed to this behavior how to feel. Does this mean that you can’t be sympathetic, or that you’re automatically abusive? Of course not. But there are going to be layers that you will miss, just as there would be layers I would miss since I’m not Asian or another minority.

  8. Brad says:

    *sigh* I am not being emotional. Men in our culture, thanks to a feminist movement that (while wholy and completely needed, necessary, and righteous to begin with) has taken to mission the denigration of men in recent times.

    And the Bible encourages MUTUAL submission between husband and wife out of love. It is NOT mysogyny. And it is NOT what Mark Driscoll is talking about. I do not understand where you are even getting that from.

    I wish someone would write about the very serious matters of an entire CULTURE being mysogynistic (as opposed to turning a blind eye because it makes money) instead of throwing stones at someone who is legitimately and genuinley trying to transform the world for good.

    Peter,

    I have read Wright’s commentary on Romans, am familiar with his new Federal Vision, and have thoroughly enjoyed his “Romans in a Week” audio series. He has provided unparalleled historical context to the background of Paul’s perspective. He does however, take a considerable amount of liberty in applying that one aspect to the larger whole. I don’t know how to describe it here without getting into major details, suffice to say that he takes it a little to far in my opinion.

    That’s all, I’m done commenting on this thread. I replied at the source with my thoughts, and if he is willing to listen to Driscoll with an open mind, I will continue it there. It saddens me that people who all want to see positive change cannot keep from shooting each other. Noone wins when that happens.

  9. Thank you, Heather!

    I don’t think men can EVEN BEGIN to understand how women are treated, overtly or subtly, not only in society as a whole, but in church. This reaction is the reason why church, as it sits today, is NOT a good place for women.

    Most of the men who DO understand are taking steps to change it, understanding that when half the human race is demoralized, we are ALL demoralized. When I hear “the bible says” I know someone’s got their head buried too far and they ‘ain’t’ listenin.”

  10. Brad,
    More of the same is NOT positive change and how long do we have to listen to the same old patriarchal tripe before change happens? We women are still waiting… so don’t be getting all righteous mad if I choose to take the steps I deem necessary to bring it to everyone’s attention.

  11. Brad says:

    I am grateful for steps in changing any iniquity, what I argue is that your efforts would be far more effective and efficient in a different direction, and you are shooting at your own team.

    Again, I could list my disagreements and argue against much of what you say, but you may be right that we may have to agree to disagree.

    And I hope that my agreement with Driscoll’s “call to arms” can be seen as having the same passion as you have, with the same good intentions and desire for positive change.

  12. Grace says:

    I appreciate your consciousness on this matter, Mystery.

    Until fundamentalists and literalists are willing to at least consider the possibility that most of the new testament was written (and rewritten) by men with very specific political and social agendas (not to mention some serious relationship issues), trying to talk reason with them is like swimming upstream.

    Me? I don’t bother anymore…I’m enjoying the Flow too much! LOL ;)

  13. Brad,

    Oh, what direction might that be?

    I hate to say it, but this “deflection” of yours is a common tactic against women speaking truth to power. For centuries women have heard similar injunctions when they dare to speak out, we’ve heard a version of this repeatedly: “Well, you know little lady, you could probably get a lot more done if you were less mouthy and tried to weedle your man from the bedroom, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)” (eye rolling)

    Please Brad give me a little more respect than that. I wasn’t born yesterday and I’ve given you ample room here to have your say. But, I will absolutely NOT condone deflection, attempts as intimidation, silencing, or any other “bone” tossed by men to distract me from my purpose.

  14. Grace,

    I know I should let it pass but…..for Pete’s sake (sorry Peter :-) ) how big of a hammer does one have to have? Ok, I’m ok now. Ommmmmmmm.

    Thank you so much for the encouragement. I think I will take your advice now. :-)

  15. Brad says:

    Oh my goodness, MOI… that was not a deflection. You want direction? Here’s an example:

    “For centuries women have heard similar injunctions when they dare to speak out, we’ve heard a version of this repeatedly: “Well, you know little lady, you could probably get a lot more done if you were less mouthy and tried to weedle your man from the bedroom, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)”

    And since I am obviously responsible for the crimes of men across the centuries simply because I have the appropriate plumbing, I suppose taking issue with this comment would be deflection as well.

    I am not trying to stifle, deflect, disrespect, or “toss bones” here. I was simply stating that, particularly in our culture and the church, young men are in DESPERATE need of some shepherding too. It was not at the exclusion of women, at all. I applauded and presented an encouraging opinion of Driscoll because he is trying to do something more about the situation simply talk about it, and you told me you were “scared” that I agreed with him.

    I am very saddened that this has degenerated into a defensive argument. I had thought that we could both present very different opinions and perspectives with respect and attempts at understanding each other.

  16. Hey, Peace, Brad. I’m taking Grace’s advice.

  17. Slapdash says:

    *** i realized that his position was much MUCH more in line with Scripture. just because men (and women) have made women second class citizens throughout history (and in the Bible) doesnt mean that this is what God desires. in fact, i am strongly on the other side of the fence and believe it is horrible that there are those who wish to make slaves of women. *** (PB&J)

    Okay, so here is my question. How do you know this is not what God desires? How is it that the way YOU understand Ephesians today as mutual submission is the way it was meant to be understood? This is what I don’t get about those who argue that the Church got lost, was misled, wasn’t Christlike for God knows how many thousands of years. To be totally frank about it, why is your (I mean that generally, not specific to PB&J) modern interpretation of these scriptures more correct than anyone else’s?

    There is something kind of suspect about the modern church in the US that *now* says it’s all about equality… only after the major struggle for women’s rights came about…during which time I don’t remember male Christian leadership playing much of a role there. I mean, how come the church wasn’t fighting for women’s rights in 1800 if the Scriptures are so clear that women are equal to men? Oh, that’s right. We modern Christians are more enlightened. We somehow understand God better than those bad people who abused the Scriptures for so long.

    I apologize for my strident attitude here. I get increasingly irritated when Christians (writ large) act like God has always been on the side of the oppressed, when it seems more likely that they get on the bandwagon and re-interpret the Scriptures to fit the new Truth only after others have fought for it.

  18. Slapdash,

    Excellent points about Christians backpedaling on many issues. What I don’t understand (or perhaps maybe I do) is how women are supposed be “constructive” with their arguments, but only in a way that doesn’t affect the privileged in the church (i.e. men). We can be constructive all we want when it comes to children, other women, domestic matters, etc. but dare to challenge the sacrosanct male domains of preaching, teaching, healing or challenging the public on justice for the oppressed and we are setting ourselves up for a big SLAP-DOWN.

    And you’re right, change has always come from enlightened women and men strong enough to challenge the established governments, churches, and hierarchies and only LATER do the rest of Christians get on the bandwagon.

  19. Noogatiger says:

    People, People, People;

    The Bible is misogynistic. It was written by misogynists
    Women were property. Men could have many wives. They could sell their daughters when and if they wanted. Women were slaves, which could be bought and sold and they could have sexual relations with them whenever they wanted. Pauls commands to women in the church were misogynistic.

    Mark Driscoll is therefore a misogynistic butthead. His “once a day” comment was totally absurd and as misogynistic as you can get. His whole rant is about MEN, finding MEN, being MEN, as if the term “MAN” is some God given sanctimonious high office. How about finding PEOPLE. Just people. Men and women, with the moral character to do the right thing. We don’t need MEN to be MEN, we need PEOPLE to be loving kind compassionate PEOPLE. That is why he is misogynistic, and yes why MEN like you Brad, and MEN like I used to be are part of the problem.

    I plan to be a part of the solution from now on.

  20. Noogatiger says:

    OH and Brad, quoting the Bible is misogyny.
    When you quote a misogynist book, by misogynist authors, giving their misogynist ideals, what else could it be?

    The Bible is full of it.

  21. Noogatiger says:

    Oh, OK, one more thing.
    Brad said: “And the Bible encourages MUTUAL submission between husband and wife out of love. It is NOT mysogyny.”
    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
    The Bible teaches submission by the wife only. There is no command for the husband to submit to anything, (but God). He is only commanded to love his “submitted” wife.

    Misogyny, plain and simple.
    My wife should not be submitted to me, my wishes, my desires, my rule or my so-called authority. We are a team, equal in authority. I am not the boss, or the leader, or the head. We both share the load, the decision making process and share love, not submission.

  22. PB and J says:

    noogatiger

    i am sorry you feel so strongly about the Bible saying that. because FIRST i think the Bible has a lot more depth to it than that, and reading more in context brings to light a lotta stuff that shows God didnt command (nor did the writers write) misogyny. SECOND and more importantly, the Bible DOES command husbands and wives to submit to one another. it is in ephesians. check it out. i think the problem isnt the Bible’s teaching, but people’s misinterpretation of it.

    i myself used to misinterpret it because i never knew better. but i have learned a lot about what Scripture means in culture and passage context, etc. and i have learned by getting married in the last couple years that God never called for the stereotypical relationship of men and women that we see today in evangelical america.

    so i encourage you to check the Scriptures again. there’s a lot more than meets the eye.

    peter

  23. Pingback: The Gospel Coalition « Confessions of a Seminarian

  24. Noogatiger says:

    Ah yes the old, ‘you’re not read it in context” argument.
    Hmmm, never heard that before.

    Let me see,
    What is out of context when it says that God command Hosea to go get a wife of horedoms.

    What is out of context when God commanded men to marry the widow of their brother, when they already had a wife.

    What is out of context when it was said that God had prepared more wives for them.

    What is out of context when they were allowed to sell their daughters for money or animals.

    What is out of context in Isaiah when God said he would send his army of hosts and would kill everyone, even children, and ravish, (rape) the women.

    I think the “context” you read the Bible in PB an J, is the context of what you wish it said, instead of what it actually says. In fact God called for much worse stereotypical marriages in the old testament, and it is in context.

  25. PB and J says:

    noogatiger

    ok, belittle the argument if you choose, but that was only my first pt. you didnt address my second, which is that ephesians does command men and women to submit to each other.

    as far as the context thing, i agree with you. there are many substandard (and way substandard) relationships in the Scripture. but the Scriptures arent some check the box, do what everyone else did in the past thing. in fact, i think we learn very often from the mistakes we read about throughout. regardless, my pt wasnt to get in a debate, but rather to pt out that there is a call for mutual submission in Scripture.

    peter

  26. Pingback: Scary Sexist Homophobic Christian Preacher, Revisited « The Website of Unknowing

  27. starbirdcanada says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more. These homophones terrify me. One of them preachers cornered me in the church I used to attend once, and had the nerve to recommend acupuncture, Green Tea, Thai Bubble Tea and weekly visits to the Chiropractor to cure me of bi-sexuality! Needless to say, I ran from that church. That’s just scary!

  28. starbirdcanada,

    Hahahahhaa! Acupuncture. That’s a new one. I have never heard of Thai Bubble Tea either. It’s amazing the levels of ignorance out there in fundie-land. Thanks for commenting! :-)

Comments are closed.