Why Is Mark Driscoll Such A Jerk?
Books, Featured — By Dan Gibson on September 22, 2009 at 12:21 am
If you weren’t already aware, Mark Driscoll is the pastor of one of the fastest growing, most exciting, kick-ass churches in America (Mars Hill in Seattle, not to be confused with Rob Bell’s Mars Hill outside Grand Rapids, because you should never, ever confuse the two), he’ll tell you soon enough. Mark Driscoll is an important man and his church is huge with a hundred services. Driscoll seems to put out a book every year. This year, he turned a sermon series where he answered audience questions, submitted via the internet, and selected by a popular vote, into 260-or-so bound pages. The idea is a smart one…clearly, a large number of people wanted answers to questions surrounding sex, grace, the particulars of Driscoll’s theology, and his take on the emergent church, so why not preach on these subjects a week at a time, expand on the spoken versions a bit, and have a book to put out? Easy breezy. In a terribly savvy move, nearly every blog that has mentioned Pastor Driscoll in a positive light ever received a free copy of Religion Saves in exchange for a review. Remarkably, if Google results are to be believed, the book is awesome in nearly every way.
His church is one of the fasting growing in the United States. Did I mention that earlier?
For awhile even, Religion Saves is a decent read. I have to admit I grabbed a copy at ICRS mostly because I thought the cover was cool, despite my general indifference to Driscoll in general, but when he’s trying to actually explain something (seemingly) sincerely, he does a good job. You can disagree with Driscoll’s thoughts on birth control, abortion, etc., but there’s something to appreciate about his desire to explain his views using the Bible and history. Driscoll is in the position where he can spit out a spray of opinions and sell a stack of books, so I appreciate when he seems to care to reason with people.
Maybe that’s more a sign of my severely diminished expectations than a statement of quality. Take it for what you will. Still, as a note to Pastor Driscoll, if this happens to show up in your Google Alerts (and I’m relatively certain you’re that kind of dude, not there’s anything wrong with that), I have no idea how a parent could willingly include a section recapping the details of Andrea Yates’ crimes. It was unnecessary and grotesque, and only served to remind people of a horrible event no one needed to be reminded of. Not cool.
It doesn’t take long, however, for the Driscoll people love to hate to come out. The question providing the premise for chapter two is basically “Why do you make fun of people?” To make a long chapter short, Driscoll’s answer is he’s allowed because he’s awesome and his loutish behavior is a force for sanctification somehow. Seriously. Mark is nice enough to include he also mocks the size of his own head on occasion, but otherwise, he’s in the business of being obnoxious largely because he’s good at it. Of course, I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea.
And that, in essence, is the problem with Mark Driscoll. If you know Mark Driscoll’s work at all, you’ve probably already figured out where you stand along the prick/pastor line. If you agree with his theology and his views on the world, your statements about Driscoll will likely follow this form (or a variation thereof): “Sure, he’s a [noun], but [positive quality used for balance].” If you find his theology and his views on the world abhorrent, then you probably dislike the guy and use his outlandish behavior as part of your reasoning. Religion Saves provides ammunition for both sides of that divide. When Driscoll discusses grace, he is reasoned and opinionated in a way that’s largely what you’d expect from a pastor. On the other hand, the chapter on the regulative principle begins with a disclaimer that most of the people who care about that particular theological nuance are nerds who should get lives and wives. The chapter on the emerging church mixes legitimate concerns over the beliefs of leaders like Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt with sporadic reminders of how Mars Hill is awesome and growing and great for Seattle and the Kingdom.
September seems to have been the month of jerkish behavior. Between Joe Wilson, Serena Williams and Kanye West, there’s room to think about how much unreasonable behavior we should tolerate from those in the public eye, and after looking at a few websites that collect out-of-context highlights of Mark Driscoll’s jackassery1, I wonder whether Mark might be painting himself into a corner with his personality. Surely someone else is picking up his books or listening into his sermons and giving up after coming across a cheap shot at computer geeks, vegans, or kids who go to public school.
I spent a fair amount of time defending Kanye West after he interrupted Taylor Swift, so maybe I should cut Driscoll some slack. Possibly because I had “The Good Life (featuring T-Pain)” on repeat from September through November of 2007, I feel like Kanye’s outlandish behavior is a bit more acceptable than Driscoll’s everyday over-the-topness. While Kanye should have kept his opinions to himself, when he makes a fool of himself by making the point or something he cares about is being slighted, no one looks bad but Kanye himself. Still, I feel like Kanye’s just expressing himself in a manner allowed to him by his fame. If Kanye wasn’t up on stage yelling about the greatness of the “Single Ladies” video (for the record, he was right), he’d be yelling that same information at the television. It’s just part of the wildly expressive nature of his personality. While it could be argued Driscoll is causing some damage to the reputation of Christianity with the content of his language, it seems more unlikely he’s actually the guy he’d like you to believe. “Mark Driscoll” just seems like a construct created to play to an audience that was previously underserved by the church – the guy who doesn’t realize Fight Club wasn’t a guy movie for the new millennium, somehow missing the homoerotic undertones. Driscoll’s biggest crime with his need to be the put-down king of pastors is largely that, with his wacky t-shirt of the week and so on, he’s just not funny. The insults and mockery, in his case, reek of a high school jockish elitism wallpapering over wild insecurity and unease at an uncertain power structure. For Mark Driscoll, his behavior plays to guys with families who feel they lost their manliness somewhere after having their second kid. If it takes kicking some sand in the face of imaginary 90-pound weaklings to regain some swagger, so be it.
Maybe the fame and success Driscoll is experiencing (and he really is, apparently…Mars Hill is growing faster than America’s budget deficit) is worth it. Maybe we’re all being emasculated by the modern church, with its sissy pastors and kingdom-for-the-meek mopery. If nothing else, Mark Driscoll has provided a pastoral service for me. Reading his cheap shots toward anyone who isn’t like him (big head and all) in Religion Saves, I’m going to make an effort to avoid his brand of humor in the future, because reading it in print form exposes just how pathetic and sad it really is. Thanks, Mark for showing me there might be a better way. I hope we might be able to walk away from that sort of humor together someday soon.
—
- To his credit, fake Driscoll quotes from a Wittenburg Door article are often attributed as being real, although when you effectively become a parody of yourself, that might be a problem ↩
65 Comments
Thanks for this review, Dan. I find myself dismayed when I see young, promising church leaders buying into his brand of braggadocio. The certainty of Calvinsim blended with bullying is a dangerous combination.
Dan,
The title and cover art on Driscoll’s new book make me want to cry; of course, Driscoll would be enraged at my tears and tell me to “man up for Jesus.” Both are the epitome of fouling the nest of faith and as you clearly point out, indicate a high school, if not jr. high, mentality.
As to the swagger, it does nothing to stir my man pot; it just makes me tired. “Fastest growing” and “most exciting” are not necessarily phrases to describe a pastor and a church; it’s possible they describe a leader who can draw a crowd. Not knowing the difference between the two is dangerous…
Good writing. Keep at it.
Woah, woah, woah. Hold up there. Fight Club had homoerotic undertones? They were the same dude! Wouldn’t that be like, masterbatory undertones? I’m confused.
Also, I was with you up to the point where you defended Kanye. I don’t get why people said he was right. All Beyonce did was shake her ass in a leotard. I mean, she shakes her ass really, really well, but how does that compare to the greatest videos ever, like Thriller and that Whitesnake one with the chick on the hood?
I gotta say I’m with Emily. I’ve seen Fight Club about 900 bagillion times, and I’ve never picked up on any homoerotic undertones. Because they fight shirtless? Because they all share a house? But wait, they had bunk beds…
Because “Bob’s tits hung enormous the way you think of gods as big”? But wait, that wouldn’t be homoerotic, would it? And Bob had his testicles removed…so that has to put a damper on any homoeroticism, right?
Oh, I get it…it’s because they use their basement to make pink soap.
Makes perfect sense now.
It certainly isn’t as overtly homoerotic as, say, “Top Gun”, but I’d concur the undertones are there.
Especially when you consider “Fight Club”‘s author, Chuck Palahniuk, really IS gay, and was still in the closet at the time.
Chuck Pahlanuk is gay?! What is this, “things Emily didn’t know” day? Goodness. I’ve read all of Chuck Pahlanuk’s books and always half loved him and half hated him because he was so overtly sexual and I guess I was wrong, hypersexualized when it came to women. My bad.
oh and yeah, the only thing more gay than Top Gun is Lord of the Rings.
It’s homoeroticism mixed with narcissism, but Jack has a romantic love for Tyler, especially in their (admittedly imaginary) domestic relationship. After all, when Tyler takes to whatever Jared Leto’s character was named, Jack says in the narration, “Tyler dumped me. I am Jack’s broken heart.” It’s not the most homoerotic movie out there, but it does crack me up when jocko types get really into the parts about actually fighting and gloss over the rest.
Dan,
At the risk of being labeled one of those “jocko types” who crack you up, I still think the argument for homoeroticism is weak.
I don’t think Edward Norton’s character is named Jack (“Jack” was the name in the magazines about the body parts: “I am Jack’s colon…”, “I am Jack’s medula oblongata,” etc. If you remember, late in the movie Norton makes Marla say his name and she calls him Tyler Durden. So I think Norton is actually Tyler Durden, but that confuses things since we know Pitt by the same name)… but whatever his name is, I don’t think we should assume it’s homosexual tension between him and Tyler (Pitt).
First of all, Tyler Durden “looks the way he wants to look, acts the way he wants to act, and does you know what the way he wants to do you know what.” So I think his attachment (delusional as it is) to Tyler Durden is marked more by feelings of inadequacy, a desire for acceptance, and need for a sense of belonging. I think Fight Club is ultimately about men trying to find their identity as men. (And not necessarily an identity as homosexual men, either.)
Second, jealousy doesn’t only result from attraction. Norton’s character feels like he is a part of something; he feels like he and Tyler started it all together…and suddenly, he feels like he is being elbowed out. And he feels like Tyler has started viewing Leto as his right-hand man (no homoerotic pun intended).
If jealousy between two male friends is a sign of homoeroticism, then look at any two guys in pop culture history and you could probably find “evidence” to support homoeroticism in their story lines, too. Joey and Chandler. Jerry and George. The monkey in Aladdin. The two guys from Will and Grace…
As for the “Tyler dumped me” line, it’s actually: “I’m all alone. My father dumped me; Tyler dumped me. I am Jack’s broken heart.” To me, that speaks to his desire to be accepted, and a desire to belong. Based on your argument, if he has a “romantic love” for Tyler Durden, then I suppose he also had a romantic love for his father.
If you want to argue for homoeroticism, that’s fine. And if I thought that analysis were accurate, it wouldn’t make me like the movie any less…but I just don’t buy it. Even if Palahniuk is gay.
@Tyler: You got me on being a little sloppy on my supporting evidence. I haven’t seen the movie in a few years, so my memory is a little off clearly.
Regardless, the movie is certainly up for interpretation, but I do want to point out that I’m not the only person who reads the movie that way (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fight+club%22+homoerotic)
Guess I’m once again in the minority here. I don’t agree with Driscoll on every point (just like I don’t agree with any single believer, including my wife and my pastor, on every single theological point). But I don’t have a problem with the way he comes across. What I see when I listen to him (I download his sermons, along with McKinley and Housholder, for my commute), I hear a guy in a city which has a very strong liberal theological bent, just trying to remind people that biblical standards are important and not to be picked at, cafeteria-style.
I see a guy who truly cares for the folks attending and listening to him, people he knows are shacking up and engaging in other activities that will only cause them more pain and heartbreak in their life. He comes across strong because the tides of “who cares what the bible says” are very strong where he is. Context is everything.
I am kind of surprised, given his past statements that McLaren and Bell are false teachers, that I haven’t seen more anti-Driscoll stuff here before.
Disclaimers: I don’t care about how much his church is growing. It’s irrelevant to me. Also, I don’t necessarily agree with him about Bell, but I have concerns about things I have heard McLaren say.
“I am kind of surprised, given his past statements that McLaren and Bell are false teachers, that I haven’t seen more anti-Driscoll stuff here before.”
That’s because you, like many conservative Christians, assume all young Christians believe the same thing theologically. Driscoll addresses that in the book. I don’t speak for everyone here, but many of us lean pretty heavily on Calvinist upbringings.
I’m an older conservative, grew up on a preacher that referenced the Puritans quite a bit. I have a strong Reformed vein of thought in me that I am grateful for (I just can’t sign on to the T.U.L.I.P.).
And I think that Driscoll is a bully. Bullying is an interpersonal stance and not an intellectual position. This, I think, is his downfall.
I gotta say, I’m just not seeing the bullying. And I’ve heard probably a hundred or so of his sermons.
I have heard him say things I wish he wouldn’t. But I can say that about a lot of people.
James, how would you then describe bullying? As the parent of a seven year old, when someone with a form of power is mocking my son for what he enjoys, what he believes or where he’s from…that’s bullying.
Would you argue that he isn’t doing those things? If so, I’d be happy to quote from the book where he makes those type of comments in print.
@James: This might surprise you, but my problem isn’t really with Driscoll’s theology. I agree with him more than you might imagine, and while I respect guys like Bell and McLaren, my Calvinist past (and partial present) probably means Driscoll and I would probably own quite a few of the same books, etc. I think I mentioned this in the article, but I liked the sections of the book where he stuck to the facts. I wouldn’t dare say Driscoll doesn’t have the right to be critical. After all, I’m in the same business.
What I don’t understand is why he needs to convey that information via a distorted hyper-macho persona. I get it, Seattle is a city where people by and large don’t associate themselves with Christianity (I live in one, too), but I’m not sure how that excuses the sort of social class elitism he engages in.
Here’s a passage from the “humor” section, and if you can tell me how this is behavior Jesus would have engaged in, I’d love to hear it: “Don’t keep picking on the same group of people [sic]. It is important to expand your comic horizons and mock lots of groups of people for their self-righteousness. If you keep picking on the same group, eventually people will call you hateful, but if you pick on lots of groups, they will thankfully downgrade you to cruel or, if you are really blessed, maybe just to mean. For the newbies, it is often easiest to start with vegans, homeschoolers, rednecks, NASCAR fans, and any Christian who thinks Left Behind is really going to happen.”
@Emily: What makes the “Single Ladies” video great is how quickly it became a cultural touchpoint, considering the tens of thousands of copycat and parody videos on YouTube. For me, a video doesn’t need to be elaborately staged to be become a pop icon. Consider Sinead O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U”, for example. Kanye was a little off in the overall cultural significance of the Video Music Awards (after all, they gave video of the year to Aerosmith’s “Cryin’” over the Beastie Boys’ “Sabotage” in 1994), but I appreciate that he’s willing to put himself out there for art.
gotcha. I guess in light of the amazing parody Justin Timberlake did on SNL of “Single Ladies”, then yeah it does have cultural significance and all that.
Dan,
Let me preface this by saying that I enjoyed your review. I felt the need to say that because 1) it’s true and 2) I’ve already written too much about your Fight Club reference and now I’m about to embark on a Kanye-tangent.
I think your analysis of Kanye’s “outlandish behavior” is a bit naive. I too like Kanye’s music (including “The Good Life featuring T-Pain”), but I don’t understand how you can dismiss Kanye’s behavior as “putting himself out there for art.” If he wants to tweet or blog about Beyonce’s video, or even share his opinion in a post-ceremony interview, that would be one thing. But he went up on stage and took the mic out of Taylor’s hands during her acceptance speech! You’re wrong, he wasn’t just making himself look bad…he was also humiliating Taylor Swift. (And Beyonce too, I’m pretty sure.)
Even if Taylor’s video wasn’t as good as Beyonce’s, it’s not her fault the voters gave her the award. Interrupting Taylor in front of thousands was not only selfish, but it was also cruel and thoughtless. One of the most blatantly disrespectful acts I’ve ever seen.
That’s not “putting himself out there for art.” And it’s certainly not “expressing himself in a manner allowed to him by his fame.”
Unless you’re just hoping to evoke responses or create a stir, I don’t believe that you think Kanye’s actions are really “allowed to him by his fame.”
No amount of fame or passion gives someone the right to belittle and disrespect another artist like that.
I don’t think Kanye’s actions were appropriate at the end of the day, but I don’t think it was nearly worth the manufactured outrage that followed. To paraphrase what Joel McHale said on “The Soup”, it’s one millionaire interrupting another millionaire on a fake award show. I’m sure it’ll be ok. In fact, I suspect Taylor Swift enjoyed a sales spike from the sympathy factor. I like you Tyler, but if that was actually “[o]ne of the most blatantly disrespectful acts [you've] ever seen”, you must have lived a far more sheltered life than I suspect you actually have.
MTV allowed a guy who has already interrupted one or two of their award shows to attend while clearly drunk and carrying a bottle of Hennessey from which he was drinking directly. They knew something was going to happen and that it would probably be great tv, so that’s what I mean by his actions “being allowed by his fame”. Like it or not, an action for which I would have been tased was for Kanye the fodder for late night jokes and probably another SNL skit someday (http://www.hulu.com/watch/10349/saturday-night-live-106-and-park-with-kanye-west). He’s wildly insecure and lacks a filter. It’s partially what people like about him, but it’s not like he’s pulling a Serena Williams and screaming at common folk trying to make a day’s pay. While I’m not condoning his behavior, I appreciate his passion (in fact, I hope he’ll consider attending the Dove Awards next year), and at least he slighted someone in his peer group who has money and fame to comfort her.
However, the difference with Driscoll is that he’s probably also wildly insecure and lacking a filter, but he’s taking it out on people he sees as inferior (nerds, etc). In fact, Driscoll believes he’s doing these people a favor by emphasizing their shortcomings so they can come to Jesus for repair. He’s not putting “the fun back into fundamental”, he’s putting football team styled bullying into the gospel. That’s a far more serious crime in my book.
Dan,
At least part of my argument was based on a misunderstanding. After your latest comment, I understand what you mean by his “actions being allowed by his fame.” You’re right, if a nobody (like us) tried to rush the stage and steal a mic, we’d get hurt. Initially, I mistakenly interpreted that as you saying his fame makes his actions acceptable. But since you said, at the end of the day, you don’t think his actions were appropriate, then that changes things.
As for whether or not his actions were “one of the most blatantly disrespectful things I’ve ever seen,” I should admit that I have never watched the VMA’s. I’ve seen highlights and that’s it. So maybe I should assume that the setting is less distinguished than other awards ceremonies. And I think the setting makes a difference. Someone insulting someone on the metra (no matter how hurtful or cruel they are) is less blatantly disrespectful than someone upstaging someone during an acceptance speech.
Is it the single most disrespectful thing I’ve ever seen? No. But given the formal setting (assuming the VMA’s are formal at all), I think it ranks up there. The fact that Taylor Swift is probably a millionaire doesn’t somehow make it more acceptable. No, I don’t think Taylor Swift will cry herself to sleep for the rest of her life, and maybe she will make more money because of it, but the eventual consequences (good or bad) don’t make the actual act any less egregious.
I didn’t mean to imply that you had a problem with his theology. I mentioned it to explain why he feels he has to take a hard line. In his situation, the sensitive Bell-like way of doing things won’t work so well.
Personally, I’m touchy-feely sensitive and not so much into swagger when I teach. But I have no problem with Driscoll being who he is.
As for the part you quoted, it came across to me as tongue in cheek.
The only problem with reading that section as tongue-in-cheek is that he tells people not to tell jokes about God or the disabled in the same list. Also, in the same chapter he does actually make fun of vegans and homeschoolers (at very least), so it’s a little hard to tell when he’s kidding.
“Do not judge lest ye be judged” comes to mind when I read the quote about who to make fun of. I know there are many interpretations of this passage and I have gone through many levels with it and will probably continue to do so. At my current point of thought, Jesus is telling us that the more we judge others the more we strengthen the propensity to be hard on ourselves. How can we openly and humbly accept the infinite love and joy of God’s presence when we constantly tell ourselves that we aren’t worthy of it? One of my teacher’s once told me that every person has a “white wolf and a black wolf, both struggling for control”. She then said that if we genuinely want to help people we should “feed the white wolf” by giving our attention to what is wonderful about the person. This sets up a pattern in the mind of not only seeing and supporting the good in those around us, but also in ourselves. I have heard the Dalai Lama say that the secret to escaping suffering is to enhance the positive qualities in ourselves and dimish the negative in every moment. I think this advice could be applied to the author of this post, the author of this review, and the author of this book.
Dan, I appreciate that you presented an intelligent and reasoned review by supporting your opinions with facts. I appreciate Mark Driscoll for providing us all with a powerful stimulus to take an honest look at ourselves and how to live a Christian life.
@James – “how much his church is growing” is a very real issue though…if it weren’t growing, I’m going to roll the dice and say he wouldn’t have book deals and and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. For whatever reason(s), his abrasive style has and continues to draw people (at least in Seattle) and what I hear Dan asking is “really?”
The question behind Dan’s question seems to be (and I’ll use the collective ‘we’) – “why do we seem to like this enough to listen or purchase a book, whether in Seattle or Tulsa?” As usual, I believe it says something more about we the people than Mark the man…
Mark does for Christians what stand up comedians and violent video games do for everyone else. He allows people to indulge in this sort of vicarious cruelty that makes them feel powerful. He says things people wish they could say without consequences. It’s an effective but really shitty way to draw people in.
But I like his necklaces.
vicarious cruelty? Really?
The key sentence in this review, for me at least, was this: “The insults and mockery, in his case, reek of a high school jockish elitism wallpapering over wild insecurity and unease at an uncertain power structure.” That is precisely the impression that I got when listening to his podcasts a few years ago. He sounded sweaty and over-the-top and full of the braggadocio that people with severe issues with themselves resort to.
I just moved up to Seattle, and am looking for a church to go to. Everyone I talk to jumps right to Mars Hill because they are the biggest church presence here in the city. But I won’t go there for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being the fact that Driscoll is its figurehead. Especially after reading this blog post (which you can only find quotes of on other people’s blogs or through archive.org because the original source took it down, mysteriously): http://web.archive.org/web/20061116040025/http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits
Bob,
I just moved to Seattle myself and have found myself in the same conundrum. Ive spent the past few weeks attending Bethany Community Church and really love it. The pastor is probably a little “limp wristed” for Driscoll’s taste. But he’s a very intelligent man who manages to keep his pulse on culture while humbly (that’s the key for me) preaching some really convicting stuff. As a result, Bethany is growing almost as fast as Mars Hill. You should give it a visit : http://churchbcc.org
Jordan, I don’t make any assumptions about what all young Christians think. I had seen several positive things here about Bell and McClaren in the past, which is why I said I was surprised I hadn’t seen Driscoll and “jerk” in the same sentence prior to today.
John, I said that church size was irrelevant to me because I meant that I am not a follower of guys with big followings. I stumbled across him years ago, didn’t know how big his church is, and was blessed by what I heard. I only found out later that his church is growing so large so fast.
As far as other items mentioned, I simply say that I am taking the good and throwing out the bad, because the good in his teaching is very good, and very insightful, and it outweighs the bad, at least for me. I do the same with the sermons and books of MacArthur, McKinley, and yes, Donald Miller.
You’re right, James. I shouldn’t have blurted that out (via comment) the way I did.
By the way, you can keep replies in a comment thread by clicking the red “Reply” link. It’s up to you, but I think it keeps the comments a little more orderly.
This is an interesting conversation to me, and one that I may not be qualified to participate in, seeing that I haven’t read any of Driscoll’s books. (However I have visited Mars Hill and have watched sermons online).
I’m very hesitant to say “Well, I like ______ that he says, but _________ is totally off” because I grew up in a house with a lot of strange theology. Strange teachers were often defended with that argument. ie. “Well, he says that only 3/4 time classical music is ok, but he also says that God created the world”.
So, with that, even though he can be offensive and brash, I like Driscoll. I don’t like bullies; men that yell scare me, but there’s something in Driscoll’s faith and message that is very appealing to me.
I think he can be cocky and loud but until he says something heretical, I’ll keep listening.
Inevitably, what we often call theology actually comes down to aesthetics. Driscoll is the Andrew Dice Clay of evangelical Christianity. Clay made tons of money and had lots of influence once too, but that doesn’t make him any less the village idiot.
What’s interesting to me is that I have had this same conversation, slightly altered, regarding several other teachers/authors who have impacted me positively: John Eldredge, John Piper, Driscoll, Lucado, MacArthur, Don Miller, Francis Chan, and several more who don’t come to mind immediately.
Of course, there are some who, in my mind, aren’t worth listening to, as their bad outweighs the good, or their entire focus is not in line with mine. Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and TBN in general head this list, for me.
Thing is, you’re not likely to find someone you agree with completely. You have to decide to use that part which is usable, and toss out the part that’s not.
I just posted that from a different computer, where I am JamesW rather than James. To avoid confusion, both James and JamesW are the same guy.
Attention grabbing headlines labeling individuals “jerks” and mocking them for their “kick-ass” church? Doesn’t sound like the BWC I know. If the author has serious issues with Driscoll, he should of articulated them a bit more humbly. Is BWC hoping to ignite a feud? I read the New York Post for irresponsible tabloid headlines.
Edward,
I appreciate your candor here, and I can see your concern.
It’s my belief that one of the issues with Christian media today is an unwillingness to speak candidly about fellow Christians because we might hurt feelings, or be seen as too mean. Admonishment is lost. I think Mark Driscoll would agree.
I felt Dan’s article had a good dose of humility, since at the end Dan acknowledges how similar he is to Mark Driscoll at times, and recognizes how unhealthy being a jerk can be from outside eyes.
We’re not trying to ignite a feud with a guy who deserves a lot of respect for the ministry he’s built, but if Mark Driscoll writes books, he should be willing to hear criticism.
Here’s a question: would you have been so concerned about our attention-grabbing headlines if the target had been Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?
I’m not gonna jump on Dan for that (his headline), but a re-reading of the comments reminded me of something that happened a few days ago. Bob quotes Dan in one of the comments: “The insults and mockery, in his case, reek of a high school jockish elitism wallpapering over wild insecurity and unease at an uncertain power structure.”
Bob goes on to say he agrees with this statement, but to be honest, that sentence seems to me just as inflammatory as the “insults” that he condemns. It seems most of us have the idea that it’s OK to slam that with which we do not agree.
A few days ago, I took my wife to see Julie/Julia. Date nights are rare for us these days (3 small kids) so I didn’t care what the movie was; I was just happy to be out with her. So she chose the movie, and I was thinking, as we watched it, that it was a much better film than I expected it to be. Then, the writers had to insert an insult to Republicans that simply didn’t belong. It was just a chance to slap political conservatives. Didn’t add to the story, and in fact, was very awkwardly placed in there. But that’s how Hollywood writers are: they take every chance they can to not only express their view, but to do some hating toward those on the other side of the political fence.
We saw that a few weeks ago in the health-care article that was posted here, too. Someone accuses those who disagree as being rude, then goes on to call them paranoid, liars, and a few other things.
So in light of this, is Mark Driscoll really that different from the rest of us? Is he more or less insulting than those who refer to him as the Andrew Dice Clay of preaching?
What movie was it?
Julie & Julia
Julie Powell takes a day off of work to cook something she burned the night before. She calls in sick, but everyone knows she’s not sick, because everyone reads her blog. So the next day, boss calls her into the office to chew her out for calling in. He says (words not accurate because I’m going from memory): “Julie, if you don’t want to work, I can find someone else who is willing to work. You know, if I were a Republican, I’d have fired you!”
I think He wishes he was Tucker Max + Jesus.
Jordan,
I think you’re points well taken. Pat or Jerry are easy targets, and honestly I would not have reservations if BWC labeled them something much worse that a “jerk”. I do appreciate Dan’s willingness to write a compelling piece about Driscoll with honesty and a bit of humor. Still, I think a writer must tread more carefully when discussing the faults of an individual (whereas institutions are easier targets).
have there ever been this many comments to a post on burnside? perhaps Mars Hill has some ad wizards working magic somewhere…
I have not read this book, but I do remember the sermon series… it was squeezed between 2 really great series (on Philippians and Song of Solomon)
I remember being especially disappointed in his response to “Why do you mock…” question. He never came close to answering the question and seemed like he never stopped to ask himself why someone might ask such a thing…
I really like Mark when he’s teaching biblical theology and really dislike him when he’s merely sharing his opinion….
Not that there is anything wrong with opinion… but for someone with his enormous sphere of influence… I’d appreciate if he’d specify “here is my opinion” lest his hordes of followers go to their own churches the following sunday to repeat it as Truth.
If you look at the box above on the right side of the screen with the “recent”, “comments”, “popular”, and “tags” tabs, and you click “popular” you can see which posts have generated the most comments. The interview with Donald Miller had 115 comments (113 of them about abortion I believe?) and beats this one pretty handily. But who knows, there’s still time. I’m sure if someone brings up abortion or gay marriage we can turn this into a rip-roaring good flame war.
What Emily said. Although I would add healthcare reform.
ive never heard it said better….wow…
I think that mark driscoll is sexist, if not one of the most sexist men. I wish you had thrown that into the pot.
When I first read this I thought you said “sexiest.” Funny what a difference an “i” makes.
“e”. I can’t spell. Totally ruined my joke. Damn.
As far as I noticed, the sexism didn’t creep into this particular book, but maybe I wasn’t really looking hard enough. Based on what I’ve read or heard of him, I can’t disagree, but nonetheless, I was trying to stick to the book.
I did, too, Emily, and was going to post that same sentence.
Yeah, no Sexism…its called Complementary-inism(spelling?)
Widely adopted by all except the Libral/emergent church…
What a great picture of Mark Driscoll to headline the article. Your so fair in your thoughts. I can’t wait to see his article blasting you and your ministry. I’m sure the success you’ve had in your life far exceeds his. Incredible!
I agree… The man who sits and writes/blogs will never have as much of my respect as the man who actually does/accomplishes.
True…and the people who comment on the person who blogs but doesn’t accomplish is…better?
Thanks for your comment, Josiah.
I’m always a little confused by the sort of reasoning you’re using here, however. Mark Driscoll is a human being. A human being that spends an entire chapter of his most recent book criticizing the beliefs of those in the emergent community he disagrees with. Why exactly is it wrong to level some for of criticism towards his actions? Is he without sin because he has a really successful church? If Driscoll took time on his blog to criticize this site or something else I’ve done, so be it. He has as much right to his opinion as I do.
If you have a specific example of where I’m unfair in this particular article, I’d be happy to discuss it, as we’ve done in the majority of the comments here.
@Emily: That’s a pretty big statement for someone who has absolutely no idea what I do or have done outside of this article, don’t you think?
How would you justify Driscoll’s demeaning style of humor? What I am missing?
By Emily’s analysis that writing does not “do/accomplish”, C.S. Lewis has had far less impact on Christianity than Mark Driscoll, Dostoevsky was worthless, and The Bible is a gigantic waste of time.
I think a lot of the content in many people’s responses regarding Mark Driscoll are a bit off. Lately Mark has been apologetic for the ways he has come across in the past and seems to be seeking to downplay the things that cause people to call him a jerk. He’s an imperfect person like we all our… but because he is in the public eye, he is easy to judge. However, whether you like his personality or not, his doctrine is sound.
@Matthew: I’d be interested in learning more about this change of face for Driscoll. Could you point me to something online? It seems a little difficult to process for me personally, since the book we’re talking about here only came out a few months ago.
Being right seems to be an excuse that covers a multitude of sins, but I think your perspective might be different if you were the subject of his brand of humor.
What everyone quick to jump to Driscoll’s defense seem to ignore is whether his behavior is excusable or not on even a personal level. The ends never justify the means, as far as I’m concerned, so the success of his ministry or his level of fame are irrelevant to whether I’m personally right or wrong. If you can defend his actions, fine, but attacking me for bringing it up doesn’t really prove anything.
@Dan:I don’t believe anything I wrote attacked you personally. In fact, I specifically stated the content of people’s responses and not your original post. Your post was a fair assessment of the book, which I read several weeks ago. Although, I do believe the tagline was a bit snarky and stresses the same tone for which you criticize Driscoll.
I have been downloading Mark Driscoll’s sermons for about a year now, and his tone has changed. Specifically, in discussing his tone with John Piper, it has caused Driscoll to publically admit that he wishes he has handled things differently. Unforunately, the written word is a bit more difficult to convey tone than public speaking.
Matthew, I should have been a little more clear. You were pointed, but polite, although I would say that some of Driscoll’s other defenders haven’t afforded me the same courtesy. So be it.
I’ll check out one of Driscoll’s more recent sermons sometime. Still, it’s not really a nuance problem with the chapter of the book on humor, as far as I’m concerned. He is brazenly unapologetic for his behavior, although certainly when books usually have a year turn around time, things might have changed recently.
Specifically, I believe Mark Driscoll mentions past mistakes in his sermon on Idolatry in the 1 & 2 Peter series.
I must say, in addition, that Burnside Writers have been an instructive and valuable resource for me and I am really enjoying the new website.
God Bless.
Thank you for acknowledging his rather anti-women type of views, I guess I didn’t read the book, and your answer makes sense. thanx
I appreciate that your article was not as unbalanced as it sounded from the title. However, it would have been nice to hear you present some evidence of his “jackassery,” because the article largely relies on vague paraphrases, and all we have is your angry-sounding interpretations of things. I don’t mean to criticize, but after reading your article I don’t feel like I know anything more about Driscoll.
I-I don’t know what that means.