Mark Driscoll/November 2006 Controversy/Doc's Take
From Neoredemptive
I was shocked and amazed that this took on the life that it did. But I suppose I shouldn't have been. It's become evident that there's a cadre out there that's more interested in trashing Mark Driscoll than they are in honesty. After Mark made this post, several bloggers started accusing him of blaming Ted Haggard's sin upon his wife, Gayle. That such a conclusion can only be reached by disregarding basic rules of English comprehension wasn't enough; Mark then came out with an unambiguously-worded clarification. But by then this "scandal" had built up enough steam to no longer require even a pretense of truth to propel it; there was sufficient pent-up frustration, resentment, bitterness, and self-righteousness to carry it under its own power.
I hate to even think this, but it's probably no coincidence that this happened while theologically conservative evangelicalism was still licking its wounds from Haggard's fall; it makes it easier to get media attention, easier to make claims to the "moral high ground" (morally vacuous though the claim may be), and easier to prey upon the disillusionment and struggles of those still in the evangelical fold.
It's hip to call Driscoll a Misogynist (capital-M), which is the new "homophobe"; it's a hateful branding that has more to do with tarnishing someone's reputation than it does with fairly describing their motives or the actual content of their beliefs. To whatever measure Mark is a misogynist, I say he's actually a misanthropist, because his misandry is at least as clear as his misogyny (to those who listen to him without feminist blinders, anyway). Adam is responsible for Eve's sin. You're not a man unless you have a job and can afford your own place (and don't go looking for a woman unless you're a man). Men can be pastors - meaning they will stand before Jesus and be judged for all of the foul-ups of every misguided, self-worshiping wingnut that joins their congregation. There is no coddling of men that I can find in his teaching. Men are wicked and sinful and need to repent and give their lives to Jesus - just as women do.
The reason I like Mark is because he's one of a very few Christian leaders in the public eye with a proven track record of not saying what he thinks I want to hear. That kind of voice is extremely rare in seeker-driven pluralistic postmodern America, and I for one prefer to be regularly offended by that voice saying things I disagree with to being pandered to with vacuous, spineless, Jesus-less, human-centered (man or woman), idolatrous spirituality.
Is it a good thing to desire or instigate conflict for conflict's sake? No. Is it any better to shy away from proclaiming the whole, full, unmediated content of the gospel (in all of its intrinsic combativeness), especially in the midst of a culture as thoroughly secularized, humanized, and idolatrous as our own? No freakin' way. Does Driscoll offend women with his preaching and blogging? If he didn't, he would clearly be a female chauvinist pig, because his preaching is at least as offensive to men, it's just not politically expedient enough for bloggers, "grassroots coalitions", and other one-trick ponies to stand up and say so.
Most of us have gotten "listening to God" turned completely upside-down. When we hear someone speak in God's name and say something that bothers, disturbs, challenges, or offends us, our response is immediately to seek out sin in the speaker, and in doing so, to conveninetly cast aside the question of whether they may in fact be right, and even if they're wrong, if that offense may actually be the Holy Spirit prodding us to repent of our plank-sized sins (which, last I checked, was still a prerequisite to attacking someone with tweezers). Do we respond out of humble teachability before God and men, or do we respond out of our hurt pride and self-righteous indignation?
Let me also go a little over the top to make one more point. I'm not surprised that women pastors are deeply offended by Mark's proclamation of complementarian doctrine. Neither am I surprised that drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, and sodomites are likewise deeply offended by other doctrines he proclaims. He is telling them that their choices and behaviors are neither endorsed nor defended nor upheld by the God of Scripture. My point is not to draw a moral equivalence between a female pastorate and adultery, but to point out that those whose lives look like that which Scripture forbids do not like having that contradiction pointed out to them, and will argue, rationalize, re-exegete, deconstruct, object, plead hurt feelings, and call names until they are blue in the face rather than suck it up and change their lives to conform to Scripture. My point in saying this is not that Mark is right about gender roles (althoguh my opinion is that he's a lot more right than wrong, especially compared with the "cream of the crop" egalitarian writers I've been reading lately), but that we have a nasty habit of looking to scripture to validate our self-image and endorse the choices we make for ourselves rather than expecting it to confront, humble, and convict us of our folly, short-sightedness, and willful self-centeredness. We should not be surprised to be offended regularly by what scripture has to say; indeed, when it fails to offend, that is a sign of something having gone awry in us.
