nytimes on driscoll

The New York Times recently published an article about Mark Driscoll entitled “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?” I reproduce the entire article here for your convenience.

Mark Driscoll’s sermons are mostly too racy to post on GodTube, the evangelical Christian “family friendly” video-posting Web site. With titles like “Biblical Oral Sex” and “Pleasuring Your Spouse,” his clips do not stand a chance against the site’s content filters. No matter: YouTube is where Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, would rather be. Unsuspecting sinners who type in popular keywords may suddenly find themselves face to face with a husky-voiced preacher in a black skateboarder’s jacket and skull T-shirt. An “Under 17 Requires Adult Permission” warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: “Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?”

Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: “I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ ” The audience bursts out laughing. Next Pastor Mark is warning them about lust and exalting the confines of marriage, one hand jammed in his jeans pocket while the other waves his Bible. Even the skeptical viewer must admit that whatever Driscoll’s opinion of certain recreational activities, he has the coolest style and foulest mouth of any preacher you’ve ever seen.

Mark Driscoll is American evangelicalism’s bête noire. In little more than a decade, his ministry has grown from a living-room Bible study to a megachurch that draws about 7,600 visitors to seven campuses around Seattle each Sunday, and his books, blogs and podcasts have made him one of the most admired — and reviled — figures among evangelicals nationwide. Conservatives call Driscoll “the cussing pastor” and wish that he’d trade in his fashionably distressed jeans and taste for indie rock for a suit and tie and placid choral arrangements. Liberals wince at his hellfire theology and insistence that women submit to their husbands. But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.

At a time when the once-vaunted unity of the religious right has eroded and the mainstream media is proclaiming an “evangelical crackup,” Driscoll represents a movement to revamp the style and substance of evangelicalism. With his taste for vintage baseball caps and omnipresence on Facebook and iTunes, Driscoll, who is 38, is on the cutting edge of American pop culture. Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time. Yet a significant number of young people in Seattle — and nationwide — say this is exactly what they want to hear. Calvinism has somehow become cool, and just as startling, this generally bookish creed has fused with a macho ethos. At Mars Hill, members say their favorite movie isn’t “Amazing Grace” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” — it’s “Fight Club.”

Mars Hill Church is the furthest thing from a Puritan meetinghouse. This is Seattle, and Mars Hill epitomizes the city that spawned it. Headquartered in a converted marine supply store, the church is a boxy gray building near the diesel-infused din of the Ballard Bridge. In the lobby one Sunday not long ago, college kids in jeans — some sporting nose rings or kitchen-sink dye jobs — lounged on ottomans and thumbed text messages to their friends. The front desk, black and slick, looked as if it ought to offer lattes rather than Bibles and membership pamphlets. Buzz-cut and tattooed security guards mumbled into their headpieces and directed the crowd toward the auditorium, where the worship band was warming up for an hour of hymns with Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run.”

On that Sunday, Driscoll preached for an hour and 10 minutes — nearly three times longer than most pastors. As hip as he looks, his message brooks no compromise with Seattle’s permissive culture. New members can keep their taste in music, their retro T-shirts and their intimidating facial hair, but they had better abandon their feminism, premarital sex and any “modern” interpretations of the Bible. Driscoll is adamantly not the “weepy worship dude” he associates with liberal and mainstream evangelical churches, “singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.”

The oldest of five, son of a union drywaller, Driscoll was raised Roman Catholic in a rough neighborhood on the outskirts of Seattle. In high school, he met a pretty blond pastor’s daughter named — providentially — Grace. She gave him his first Bible. He read voraciously and was born again at 19. “God talked to me,” Driscoll says. “He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, to plant churches and train men.” He married Grace (with whom he now has five children) and, at 25, founded Mars Hill.

God called Driscoll to preach to men — particularly young men — to save them from an American Protestantism that has emasculated Christ and driven men from church pews with praise music that sounds more like boy-band ballads crooned to Jesus than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” What bothers Driscoll — and the growing number of evangelical pastors who agree with him — is not the trope of Jesus-as-lover. After all, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ. What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

This reaction to the “feminization” of the church is not new. “The Lord save us,” declared the evangelist Billy Sunday in 1916, “from off-handed, flabby-cheeked . . . effeminate, ossified, three-carat Christianity.” In 1990 a group of pastors founded the Promise Keepers ministry dedicated to “igniting and uniting men” who were failing their families and abandoning the church. In recent years, mainstream megachurches — the mammoth pacesetters of American evangelicalism that package Christianity for mass consumption — have been criticized for replacing hard-edged Gospel with feminized pablum. According to Ed Stetzer, the director of LifeWay Research, a Southern Baptist religious polling organization, Mars Hill is “a reaction to the atheological, consumer-driven nature of the modern evangelical machine.”

The “modern evangelical machine” is a product of the 1970s and ’80s, when a new generation of business-savvy pastors developed strategies to reach unbelievers turned off by traditional worship and evangelization. Their approach was “seeker sensitive”: upon learning that many people didn’t go in for stained glass and steeples, these pastors made their churches look like shopping malls. Complex theology intimidated the curious, and talk of damnation alienated potential converts — so they played down doctrine in favor of upbeat, practical teachings on the Christian life.

These megachurches, like Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston and Bill Hybels’s Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, have come to symbolize American evangelicalism. By any quantitative measure they are wildly successful, and their values and methods have diffused into the evangelical bloodstream. Yet some megachurches have begun to admit what critics maintained all along: numbers are not everything. In the fall of 2007, leaders of Willow Creek sent shockwaves through the evangelical world when they announced the results of a study in which churchgoers reported feeling stagnant in their faith and frustrated with slick, program-driven pastors. “As an evangelical, I would say this tells us something,” Stetzer says. “The center is not holding.”

Mars Hill has not entirely dispensed with megachurch marketing tactics. Its success in one of the most liberal and least-churched cities in America depends on being sensitive to the body-pierced and latte-drinking seekers of Seattle. Ultimately, however, Driscoll’s theology means that his congregants’ salvation is not in his hands. It’s not in their own hands, either — this is the heart of Calvinism.

Human beings are totally corrupted by original sin and predestined for heaven or hell, no matter their earthly conduct. We all deserve eternal damnation, but God, in his inscrutable mercy, has granted the grace of salvation to an elect few. While John Calvin’s 16th-century doctrines have deep roots in Christian tradition, they strike many modern evangelicals as nonsensical and even un-Christian. If predestination is true, they argue, then there is no point in missions to the unsaved or in leading a godly life. And some babies who die in infancy — if God placed them among the reprobate — go straight to hell with the rest of the damned, to “glorify his name by their own destruction,” as Calvin wrote. Since the early 19th century, most evangelicals have preferred a theology that stresses the believer’s free decision to accept God’s grace. To be born again is a choice God wants you to make; if you so choose, Jesus will be your personal friend.

Yet Driscoll is not an isolated eccentric. Over the past two decades, preachers in places as far-flung as Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., in denominations ranging from Baptist to Pentecostal, are pushing “this new, aggressive, mission-minded Calvinism that really believes Calvinism is a transcript of the Gospel,” according to Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Baylor University. They have harnessed the Internet to recruit new believers, especially young people. Any curious seeker can find his way into a world of sermon podcasts and treatises by the Protestant Reformers and English Puritans, whose abstruse writings, though far from best-selling, are enjoying something of a renaissance. New converts stay in touch via blogs and Facebook groups with names like “John Calvin Is My Homeboy” and “Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You.”

New Calvinists are still relatively few in number, but that doesn’t bother them: being a persecuted minority proves you are among the elect. They are not “the next big thing” but a protest movement, defying an evangelical mainstream that, they believe, has gone soft on sin and has watered down the Gospel into a glorified self-help program. In part, Calvinism appeals because — like Mars Hill’s music and Driscoll’s frank sermons — the message is raw and disconcerting: seeker insensitive.

Most people who attend Mars Hill do not see themselves as theological radicals. Mark Driscoll is just “Pastor Mark,” not the New Calvinist warrior demonized on evangelical and liberal blogs. Yet while some initially come for mundane reasons — their friends attend; they like the music — the Calvinist theology is often the glue that keeps them in their seats. They call the preaching “authentic” and “true to life.” Traditional evangelical theology falls apart in the face of real tragedy, says the 20-year-old Brett Harris, who runs an evangelical teen blog with his twin brother, Alex. Reducing God to a projection of our own wishes trivializes divine sovereignty and fails to explain how both good and evil have a place in the divine plan. “There are plenty of comfortable people who can say, ‘God’s on my side,’ ” Harris says. “But they couldn’t turn around and say, ‘God gave me cancer.’ ”

Though they believe that God has already mapped out their lives, Calvinists have always been activists. Ye shall know the elect by their fruits, not by their passive acceptance of fate. When it comes to wrestling with life’s challenges, however, they reject the “positive thinking” ethos that Norman Vincent Peale made famous in the 1950s. That philosophy still dominates the Christian self-help market in books like “Your Best Life Now” by Joel Osteen, which promises readers that everything from a Hawaiian vacation house to a beauty-pageant crown is within their grasp if only they “develop a can-do attitude.” Marianne Esterly, a women’s counselor at Mars Hill, says she tries to help women resist the desperation that can come with forgetting that man’s chief end is to glorify God, not to obsess over earthly problems. “They worship the trauma, or the anorexia, and that’s not what they’re designed to worship,” she says. “Christian self-help doesn’t work. We can’t do anything. It’s all the work of Christ.”

Calvinism is a theology predicated on paradox: God has predestined every human being’s actions, yet we are still to blame for our sins; we are totally depraved, yet held to the impossible standard of divine law. These teachings do not jibe with Enlightenment ideas about human capacity, yet they have appealed to a wide range of modern intellectuals, especially those who stressed the dangers of human hubris in the wake of World War I.

Driscoll found his way into this tradition largely on his own. He recently earned a master’s degree through an independent-study program he arranged at a seminary in Portland, Ore. Years ago, paperback reprints of old Puritan treatises in the corner of a local bookstore piqued his interest in Reformation theology. He came to admire Martin Luther, the vulgar, beer-swilling theological rebel who sparked the Reformation. “I found him to be something of a mentor,” Driscoll says. “I didn’t have all the baggage he did. But you can see him with a quill in one hand and a drink in the other. He married a brewer and renegade nun. His story is kind of indie rock.”

Driscoll disdains the prohibitions of traditional evangelical Christianity. Taboos on alcohol, smoking, swearing and violent movies have done much to shape American Protestant culture — a culture that he has called the domain of “chicks and some chickified dudes with limp wrists.” Moreover, the Bible tells him that to seek salvation by self-righteous clean living is to behave like a Pharisee. Unlike fundamentalists who isolate themselves, creating “a separate culture where you live in a Christian cul-de-sac,” as one spiky-haired member named Andrew Pack puts it, Mars Hillians pride themselves on friendships with non-Christians. They tend to be cultural activists who play in rock bands and care about the arts, living out a long Reformed tradition that asserts Christ’s mandate over every corner of creation.

Like many New Calvinists, Driscoll advocates traditional gender roles, called “complementarianism” in theological parlance. Men and women are “equal spiritually, and it’s a difference of functionality, not intrinsic worth,” says Danielle Blazer, a 34-year-old Mars Hill member. Women may work outside the home, but they must submit to their husbands, and they are forbidden from taking on preaching roles in the church.

“It’s only since women have been in church leadership that this backlash has come,” says the Seattle pastor Katie Ladd, a liberal Methodist who holds that declaring Jesus a “masculine dude” subverts the transformative message of the Gospel. But New Calvinists argue that traditional gender roles are true to the Bible, especially the letters of Paul. Moreover, embedded in the notion of Adam as the “federal head” of the human race is the idea of man as head of the home.

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Most members, however, didn’t join Mars Hill in order to ask questions. Damon Conklin, who is 41 and runs a tattoo parlor, says he joined Mars Hill because Driscoll made his life make sense — and didn’t ask him to pretend to be someone he wasn’t. “I decided to stop smoking crack and drinking every day,” Conklin says. “I had to find some kind of God in order to do that.” He hated the churches he visited: “I would show up looking as mean as possible, with my Afro blown out, wearing a wife-beater, and then I’d say, ‘Why don’t they like me?’ Then I went to Mars Hill, and I believed Mark.”

Driscoll’s theology “changed how I view women,” Conklin says. He quit going to strip clubs and now refuses to tattoo others with his old specialty, pinup girls (though he still wears two on one arm, souvenirs from earlier, godless days). Mars Hill counts four of the city’s top tattoo artists among its members (and many of their clientele — that afternoon, Conklin was expecting a fellow church member who wanted a portrait of Christ enthroned across his back). While other churches left people like Conklin feeling alienated, Mars Hill has made them its missionaries. “Some people say, ‘You’re pretty cool and you’re a Christian, so I guess I can’t hate all of them anymore,’ ” he says. “I understand where they’re coming from.”

Mars Hill — with its conservative social teachings embedded in guitar solos and drum riffs, its megachurch presence in the heart of bohemian skepticism — thrives on paradox. Critics on the left and right alike predict that this delicate balance of opposites cannot last. Some are skeptical of a church so bent on staying perpetually “hip”: members have only recently begun to marry and have children, but surely those children will grow up, grow too cool for their cool church and rebel. Others say that Driscoll’s ego and taste for controversy will be Mars Hill’s Achilles’ heel. Lately he has made a concerted effort to tone down his language, and he insists that he has delegated much authority, but the heart of his message has not changed. Driscoll is still the one who gazes down upon Mars Hill’s seven congregations most Sundays, his sermons broadcast from the main campus to jumbo-size projection screens around the city. At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view. Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

I’d love to hear what you think about the article: do you think they were too harsh on Driscoll or do you think they represent him fairly? I thought the last sentence of the article was pretty perceptive, as I have experienced that on more than one occasion.

22 Responses to “nytimes on driscoll”

  1. Earl Barnett Says:

    I think the piece was surprisingly fair. I expected them to hammer the gender roles, but they showed the positive side rather than just calling Driscoll a bigot.

    However, I think the last paragraph was a little tongue in cheek as well. I think the author was implying something about Driscoll when discussing how the projection screen blocked the audiences view of the cross.

    If nothing else, it definitely shows that conservative Christianity has the ability to positively change lives.

  2. M Says:

    Ha. I’m part of those Facebook groups.

    Some of their take on Calvinism and just the nature of Christianity in general sounds like they just read wikipedia.

    It saddens me… no actually it give me a Driscollish angst to see how much Christianity that believes in gender roles, man’s sin and God’s sovereignty is a bizarre “brand” to most people. We should just call it Christianity.

    The moralistic, therapeutic deism of evangelicalism and the pharisaism of fundamentalism should be the weird versions of Christianity. Not the new calvinism.

  3. poopemerges Says:

    I thought it was accurate portrayal considering the fact the the writer was clearly not a believer… Some of it was over the top and sensational…but pretty accurate.

    D

  4. art Says:

    Meade: I agree with you, especially the last comment. I found it humorous that they attribute the ‘new Calvinism’ with making Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy. I don’t think Pat needs the ‘new anything’ to make him seem that way.

    I was surprised, as Earl said, that the author gave the ‘other side’ of the story: those who were positively affected by Mark’s ministry.

    I thought, like poop, that is was a relatively fair article. I think that those who like Mark will be a little put off by the negative and those that don’t like Mark will be put off by the positive. When you make everyone a little uncomfortable, no matter what side they are on, then you are probably doing something right.

  5. Chris Martin Says:

    Not to name drop or anything, but I know the girl who wrote the article (she was at l’Abri with me working on her article in Christianity Today and her dissertation for her Ph.D. in American Religious History from Yale) and she’s incredibly smart and very fair-minded. It’s funny to see the differences in reaction to the article on this blog as compared to Justin Taylor’s blog. The reaction there was (no surprise) a little angrier.

  6. Jonathan Bonomo Says:

    Not sure how accurate the picture of Driscoll is (never been to his church, only heard him preach twice), but the picture of Calvin is decidedly inaccurate.

  7. Susan Michaelson Says:

    Like the other commenters, I find the article quite balanced, and surprisingly so.

    I’ve never held a strong opinion about Driscoll; I know of him primarily through secondary sources. His cultural engagement is clearly doing something good in his city. That’s a plus. His interest in reacquainting evangelicalism with a masculine flavor is also helpful. That said, it is possible to do what he wants to do without taking a fundy approach to women in leadership. It’s tiresome. I taught through Judges 4-5 yesterday. I have to wonder whether he’s ever read it!

    I also think his heavy-handed dictatorship management style is going to bite him hard at some point. “My way or the highway” is not a practical long term strategy for success. But perhaps it’s just a thirty-something maturity problem that will work itself out over time.

  8. danielst3 Says:

    It’s funny to see what secular people think of Driscoll. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone be so right and so wrong at the same time.

  9. nick altman Says:

    Susan,

    I agree about the management style to an extent. I think practices like shunning are simply out of sync with the scriptural guidelines as to church discipline. I would say, however, that the vast majority of churches err on the other side of things and allow their congregants to so srun their church that its like having 150 different authoritarian pastors, 12 to a pew.

    Seeing the outworkings of this sort of problem in numerous settings has convinced me that a more hiarchicial structure would work better than either prebyterian or congregational polities. I do, however, freely admit there can be abuses and problems with this style as well.

    To this a stronger hand is welcome, IMO – but that doesnt mean you can alientate people because they just didn’t come into line with you. Of course, we don’t know the specifics of the story above. It could be that driscoll went out of his way to restore these men who disagreed with him and was simply unable.

    I visited a Lutheran church when I first came to philly. What I didn’t know is that it was a Nigerian Lutheran congregation, and my wife and I were the only two white faces in a see of black africans, almost all of them first generation immigrants. A simple google search of white/african relations in Nigeria explains to anyone the cold and distant reception we recieved when we walked in. Not only this but many of the songs were in some sort of african dialect. We felt ostracized. A curious thing happened, however. When the time for passing the peace came, the pastor asked us to stand up and introduce ourselves. THen while we were shaking hands with literally no one, the pastor walked over and introduced himself, and asked me to do the gospel reading (a big deal in a Lutheran church). He later had my wife and I come forward and be prayed over, because I had told him I was an incoming seminary student. At first I was puzzled by his involvement of me in a service, but I realized that what he was doing was combating the hard feelings his congregation had torwards white people by putting me front and center in his church. This is teh kind of authoritarian leadership I wuld welcome that is unafraid of actually confronting sinfulness (think orthopraxis, not quibbles over fine points of theology) in the congregation.

    Pax Christi…Nick

  10. Rick Says:

    Although I feel that many of the comments on Calvinism were a bit suspect, this one seems spot on:

    Calvinism is a theology predicated on paradox: God has predestined every human being’s actions, yet we are still to blame for our sins; we are totally depraved, yet held to the impossible standard of divine law.

    I could say more on Driscoll, but as regards the article I thought it was solid, well-written, and at least should help the mainstream see that there are those in the church who are theologically conservative, yet totally opposed to much of what is going on in modern American-evangelicalism.

  11. Jonathan Bonomo Says:

    Rick,

    [warning: historical nitpicking in what follows]

    I agree that that particular sentence was an accurate portrayal of Calvinism. But the insinuation that there is historical justification for the claim that the Reformed tradition is somehow more prone to authoritarianism than other Christian traditions is ludicrous. There are examples of violence, tyanny. and authoritarianism in the history of every single Christian tradition. Even the supposedly peaceful Anabaptists had there day of extreme violence in Munster. And the Medieval/Reformation/post-Reformation Roman Catholic Church, the violent history of empirial Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the Gnesio Lutherans, English Christianity in the 16-17th centuries? Fagettaboutit!

  12. art Says:

    Best use of ‘fagettaboutit’ in the history of this blog.

    I agree with Rick, like I said in the original post, that the last sentence does convey something that I have found to be true of the ‘mean’ Calvinists. Perhaps it is the logic involved in Calvinism and the centuries of arguments that embolden and ‘puff up’ its adherents.

    I also agree with Jonathan that Calvinism in general and the Reformed tradition in particular are not the only places where authoritarianism and pride can be found. I’m sure that Rick would agree as well (if not, I’m sorry for speaking for you!).

    I think that the final sentence is accurate in what it describes (i.e., that Calvinists do have a tendency to be prideful in their intellect and understanding of the divine council of God), but not accurate in what it insinuates (i.e., that this pride is only a staple of Calvinistic or Reformed Christianity).

  13. Jonathan Bonomo Says:

    Art,

    “Calvinists do have a tendency to be prideful in their intellect and understanding of the divine council of God.”

    No doubt.

    I’d only argue that this is more an element of modern forms of pop-calvinism promoted by folks who converted to the “pristine biblically faithful apostolic doctrine of predestination without the knowledge of which no one can really love God and serve him rightly” from other, lesser forms of Christianity (begrudgingly so-called, of course), as well as certain forms of American academic Calvinism, than it is something which is necessarily inherent in historic Reformed theology. Warts and all, the Reformed tradition has produced some of the most exemplary irenic Christians in the history of the Church. I’d highly recommend John T. McNeil’s “Unitive Protestantism” for an extended treatment of this fact.

  14. Rick Says:

    I concur. My “solid” rating doesn’t apply to the suspect remarks on Calvinism.

  15. Jonathan Bonomo Says:

    Sorry for my intrusion on what is a secondary matter to the point of this post. I’ll cease and desist now so that the discussion can get back to focusing on Mark Driscoll and his church from folks who know what they’re talking about.

    Peace.

  16. Chris Martin Says:

    Just in case anyone was wondering about the paragraph about the situation with questioning elders, here’s a link to a clip in one of his sermons where he talks about that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM7dCj7QWKs&feature=related

    And here’s the full sermon:

    http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/rebels-guide-to-joy/the-rebels-guide-to-joy-in-temptation

    Got these from Internet Monk’s website where they’re also discussing this.

  17. art Says:

    Thanks for those links Chris. I was just going to ask about that paragraph and how accurate the author of the article is in her description.

  18. Thomas Says:

    Basing my knowledge of this church and pastor solely on the article, I would have to say I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the things going on at Mars Hill. Who wants to be a part of a congregation in which the preacher has more authority than the elders? Who will discipline the preacher?

    Also, while masculinity in men is a good thing, it sounds like he may be teaching an over the top macho-ism. One wonders how he would receive some guys who were a little effiminate but not necessarily gay. With kindness and gentleness? Or perhaps a good kick in their girly butts?

    Again, I have no idea who this guy is, and I appreciate his reactions to a lot of stupid and shallow things going on in mainstream evangelicalism. So my impressions may be way off.

  19. Mike K Says:

    Found the article a fair representation of Driscoll on the whole…the problem I have with Driscoll is that his followers forever refer to his authenticity and “realness” because of the language and subject matter he discussed. I think Driscoll is far from that…IMHO I think he tries to be cool just for the sake of being cool…which is the worst type of uncoolness I can think of…

  20. danielst3 Says:

    Thomas – I think the point is not to base your knowledge on one source. In my opinion, a lot of what the author of this article wrote is probably fair, but I think the connotation of many of the words she used presented a caricature of Driscoll more than anything else. I think the average person unfamiliar with Mark would think that he was a domineering misogynist on an ego trip. I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal. I think in today’s world that anyone who is authoritative is a target. If I were you I wouldn’t worry about Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll with out finding more about it. I would suggest that you do some more looking into it all, and if you are still concerned then pray for them.

  21. Nathan Says:

    danielst3:

    I went to Mars Hill for a summer quite a few years ago, and I’m still in touch with attending members, and I wouldn’t say that “a domineering misogynist on an ego trip” is a terribly inaccurate portrayal. I don’t mean to downplay the good he’s done, but his views on gender and his status as an evangelical celebrity are two huge red flags.

    Thomas:

    For what it’s worth, I happened to be there for the father’s day sermon, which focused on what “real men” are like. I forget the details (I think I was there in 2002 or 2003), but I do remember being quite offended as a dispositionally non-aggressive man.

  22. The New York Times on Mark Driscoll Says:

    [...] Here’s Art’s blog and the article Contributor: Paul B., Education, Just for Fun, Ministry, Sermons, Theology [...]


Leave a Reply