The Mark Driscoll Controversy

I suspect that at least a few of you are aware of all the controversy that has been surrounding Mark Driscoll in the blogophere this past week or so. For those who are completely out of the loop, Mark is a pastor of mega-church in Seattle called Mars Hill (not associated with the Mars Hill in Michigan that Rob Bell teaches at). He is often known as "the cussing pastor" and has often been cited as a cutting edge, "emerging" church leader, despite the fact that Mark is basically a fundamentalist in his theology and has completely disowned the "emergent" label and burned bridges with his former emerging friends. I think he gets labeled this because they do "cool" worship services (i.e. rock music and multi-media) and have a lot of punks and goths and the like that go to their church.. and because he cusses a lot.

Anyway, it all started when Mark posted a response to the Ted Haggard scandal that basically blamed pastoral infidelities on pastor's wives who let themselves get fat and don't give their husbands enough sex. He also suggested that to solve the problem pastors should stop ministering to flirtatious women, and should only surround themselves with male assistants. (Apparently he missed the part where Haggard was caught with a male prostitute. One also wonders how Jesus' encounter with the sinful woman would have played out differently if he had taken Mark's advice.)

While Mark had a few good points in his post, overall, his tone of insensitivity towards women understandably went over like a lead balloon among a lot of readers. The best response and subsequent discussion of the issue can be found at the Conversation at the Edge blog hosted by Off the Map (whose Revolution Conference I was just at in Seattle this past week). People were not just upset at Mark's comments, but especially at his overall tone of condescension towards women.

This is a habitual problem with Mark. He is obviously a "complementarian" when it comes to gender roles (not just in the church but also in marriage and society), as are many other conservative Christians. However, the attitude with which he expresses his view falls far short of what one might call well-reasoned arguments. He is rude, mocking, and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him, regularly referring to them as "chickified dudes with limp wrists and minors in 'womyn’s studies'", comparing the new Episcopal USA bishop to a "fluffy baby bunny", and generally using the term "feminine" as if it were an insult. Stories of Driscoll's spiritual abuse of women in his congregation have been told all over the blogsphere (read one such story here); and my friends in Seattle tell me this is very common over at Mars Hill. Driscoll seems to have an obsession with sexual issues and gender roles, weaving at least one of those two topics into nearly every sermon he preaches (again according to first hand accounts from my Seattle friends).

This Haggard-related post by Driscoll appears to have just been the last straw for some people. In fact, some people in Seattle have decided that enough is enough, and have organized a protest of Mark set for December 3. Their goal is to undermine Mark's growing influence both in Seattle (he has a regular column as a Christian pastor in the Seattle Times) and in the Christian world (as an author, conference speaker, and church planting trainer).

Some others, while concerned about Mark's destructive rhetoric, are not entirely convinced that a protest is the most loving or effective means for bringing positive change. Rose Swetman, for instance, (who happens to be the wife of my church planting coach) has written an open letter to Driscoll and posted it at several prominent blogs around the internet. Personally, while I am sympathetic to the protestors and hope that they can have some impact on Mark's influence there in Seattle, I think I probably prefer Rose's approach. Her letter was gracious, loving, and well-reasoned.

Driscoll has in fact taken notice of the storm he kicked up. Just the other day he finally wrote a response to his critics. While he stopped short of apologizing for his rudeness (his response was more of a clarification than an apology), his tone was far more gracious. If he had written this way in the first place I think more people would have been willing to listen to him. However, as many people have pointed out, clarifying one bad post doesn't make up for an ongoing history of sexist, chauvinist, spiritually abusive behavior towards women. IMHO, Mark still has a long way to go.

What I can't fathom though is why anyone (outside of the extreme Reformed and complementarian circles that Mark tends to move in these days) is still listening to this guy. He may occasionally have a few good things to say about being "relevant" or "missional", but there are plenty of other good authors to read on these subjects as well. Why do we need to keep paying attention to such a blatant sexist? Would we hold a blatantly racist pastor in such high regard?

Frankly I hope that if enough negative attention comes Driscoll's way, eventually he'll stop getting book deals, invitations to speak, media attention, people coming to his church, etc. There are just some Christian leaders who don't deserve the power influence they have been given, and IMHO Mark is one of them. I fear for the Christian church if Mark's brand of Christianity becomes the "hip", new model to follow for years to come.

And let me say this, even if one agree with Driscoll's stances on women, I'd like to remind us all that there's a difference between being right and being kind. And while both are certainly important, (to quote something Brian McLaren said at the Revolution Conference): "Being kind may not be more important than being right, but if you aren't kind, you aren't right." (Which to me is simply a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 13:2.) If you agree with Driscoll's views, then I hope you would be among the first to stand up to him and say, "Please, for the sake of all of us, be quiet. You are representing us poorly and giving our views a bad name."