Mark Driscoll isn’t a feminist?!
January 14, 2006
Apparently Mark Driscoll, from Mars Hill in Seattle, is NOT a feminist. Huh. Gosh, he really had me going for a bit there too.
We do not believe in feminism because we believe that men should
responsibly lead homes and churches with sacrificial love like Jesus
Christ.
For more on what Mark and the Resurgence Missional Theology Conference believes and doesn’t believe, go here.
Update: So, once again one of my Mars Hill posts makes it to the MEMBERS ONLY forum. I only wish I knew what was happening in there. Anyone from Mars Hill wanna help us out and share with us what’s being talked about? This isn’t the first time one of my posts has made it in there - the first Mars Hill post a long time ago was quite a hot one.
I guess the only thing I have to say is if we can get Andy Stanley to comment, anyone think Mark Driscoll will step up to the plate and comment on pomomusings?
…
Yah, I didn’t think so either.
Technorati Tags: Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill, Feminism, Sexism
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 14th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
i’m not sure how believing in the family roles set out in the Bible makes you (or doesn’t make you) a feminist. isn’t the heart of feminism all about women’s rights in terms of politics and economics?
January 14th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Mark Driscoll is ridiculous. Ditto on Dru’s comment above.
January 14th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Driscoll’s stance on women has always saddened me. Then again, I been lambast enough times for my “unorthodox” views on the matter.
Peace,
Jamie
January 14th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Maybe I read Dru’s comments out of context, but I think he was being critical of Driscoll for not understanding how using the term “feminism” doesn’t really aid his argument. Consequently, I don’t think it was a “ridiculous” comment at all.
And for the record, there is quite a distance between calling someone as a person ridiculous and calling his or her ideas ridiculous.
January 14th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
RNDaniel,
It was not Dru’s comment i found ridiculous. I do believe Driscoll is ridiculous, his beliefs about women in ministry and feminism are ridiculous, and his ideas are ridiculous. They are interrelated.
January 14th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Punk-
Sorry I misread what you were saying about Dru’s comment; that was a mistake on my part.
I still think the mark of demure and manageable debate is to stray from ad hominem attacks and disparaging remarks about someone.
January 14th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
What I especially think is ironic is this statement on the Resurgence site: “We are not polemicists who believe that it is our task to combat every false teaching. . .” What’s hilarious about this statement is that it follows 8 other statements that begin with “We do not believe…” (each of which are affrontive to the opposing position). Sounds rather polemical to me.
Maybe we’re supposed to read this statement with emphasis on “every” instead of “polemicists”: “We are not [the type of] polemicists who combat EVERY false teaching, just our selected few.”
From the statement, maybe Resurgence should be known as “disbelievers” instead of “believers” since their “dis” statements outnumber their actual beliefs.
January 14th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
I’ve been to Mars Hill a bunch and I’d have to generally agree with Adam’s hint of sarcasm. Thus it doesn’t really come as any big surprise that this Resurgence Missional Conference is out against feminism.
So, since Resurgence isn’t a band of “polemicists” but claim to be”willing to dialogue with and befriend those who disagree with us as the lines around theology are not the boundaries of our friendships” (from their website) I’d be interested in hearing Mark’s views on this topic…
January 16th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
>”Mark Driscoll is ridiculous.”
A lovely example of “tolerance”. What happenned to that vaunted ability to “understand” oppossing views you Libs are so proud of? Obviously you’re very selective about whom you choose to “understand.”
I wonder if you’d jump down a muslim imam’s throat for making the same comments as Driscoll’s. Actually, I don’t wonder.
You would either turn a blind eye and pretend not to have heard, or you’d defend his alternative view based on some fuzzy wuzzy multi-culti we-are-the-world argument, or at worst you’d politely say you don’t agree with him– just before flying into a rant against some christian fundie for jay-walking.
It’s not so flattering when it’s your own reflection in the mirror, is it.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
John, you make a great point. As I have said before, the emergent conversation is no conversation at all. It’s looking to be more of the same just from a different angle.
January 16th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Rich - if you believe that - why do you have the “Friend of Emergent” button on your blog? That makes no sense.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:11 am
So my view that the conversation could be cleaned up makes me a non-friend? If that is true, my point is well made. I am a friend. I agree with many things that Emergent stands for. Not all mind you, but that shouldn’t matter, right? Do you agree with all of it? Have you always viewed the conversation as a real, and open conversation? If not are you no longer a friend?
I was a little too strong with my words in the previous comment. But we all do those things when making a point from time to time. But what do I know? I’m just a hick from TN who grew up in a trailer park and went to a state school.
January 17th, 2006 at 7:39 am
John,
You are right. That is what I was trying to get at above when I said that attacking someone’s existence as “ridiculous” (literally, “laughable”) is clearly not the way to develop conversation that is lasting.
And I should have said this above–No, E. Punk, attacking someone as ridiculous is not the same thing as attacking that person’s ideas as ridiculous. In the former instance, you’re calling into question the entirety of someone’s existence as worthy of dismissal. In the latter, you’re disagreeing with someone on ideological grounds.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Okay okay, it must be said. I don’t like the dismissal of feminism outright. I do go to Mars Hill Church in seattle and I think that I would agree with the spirit of what Mark tries to communicate, but not always with the words he uses to do it. Just like Adam, Mark loves to stir things up, so he’ll say something shocking to get attention, then explain it. This is why people on the east coast love to rant about how horrible the church is. Adam, if we used some of your quotes with no context, many could label you as a heretic, or even as a conservative, if we found the right quote… The explanation is always less shocking than the first statement though. My understanding of this comment, knowing the consistent message of the church, is that Mark and Mars Hill doesn’t support the idea prominent in feminism that women should be treated exactly like men and that we should ignore the differences between men and women. Do NOT read that women should be treated worse, or have less privelege, than men… but men and women are DIFFERENT and we can’t ignore that fact. To do that is to do a disservice to both genders and society as a whole. It does beg the question of how to live with those differences in a healthy way… a tension that we Christians should embrace. It is similar to many of the tensions that we live out in our faith everyday.
Mark is very open about his call to ministry. It was to marry his wife, plant a church, and train men to be responsible leaders who love their wives, love their community, and foremost serve God’s church by proclaiming the Gospel for God’s Glory. Responsible men make a difference. A higher standard for men has been needed in our culture for decades, and it is actually happening at mars hill church. Thank God.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Hey Adam and all,
I decided to stop lurking and comment. I think part of the problem everyone is having with this topic is that I don’t think I’ve read two comments that are describing the same kind of feminism. Yes, there are some feminists that fit this conservative evangelical stereotype that many seem to be fixated on fighting against. But honestly, I think that feminism, while having many definitions, comes down to the core belief that women have just as much worth as men and therefore should have equal standing and opportunity in life. Honestly, we’re tired of being pissed on, beat up, turned away, taken advantage of, and enslaved. Yes, these things happen even here in America. If you don’t believe me, have coffee with almost any woman (try a “Pastor’s wife” or maybe some wife of PTS seminary students (gasp) I’m sure they’ll have some real gems of stories to share).
As a Christian women, I have to boldy say, I don’t need someone to “take care of me” to “lead me” to “marry me” etc. What I DO need is a PARTNER, someone who will work with me in the world, in the home, in school. Admittedly, that road is very difficult and stressful but I think to reflects more of what God intended in relationships and marriages/domestic partnerships.
Ok, my rant is done…for now :-) Thanks Adam for a good discussion topic!
January 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
MD looks like he is eating well.
January 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Steve, shouldn’t you be working instead of posting comments on my blog? ;)
Yah, I was waiting to hear your thoughts on Driscoll. Steve, I agree that sometimes Mark probably does say things to stir the pot, and I think I know someone who likes to do that as well sometimes, actually, he has this blog…called…pomomusings.
However, no matter how much better the explanation is, Driscoll and I will always disagree on many issues, the least of these is probably women in ministry.
You are right - men & women are different. But I don’t think that means that they should be differently - men and women - both human creations of God, should be treated the same, should be given the same rights, should be given the same chances to serve God and be involved in ministry - exactly the same as are given to men.
Only one thing that I’d challenge you on. “Responsible men make a difference.” Sure. But so do responsible women, and responsible children…responsible *anyone* can make a difference. Let’s not leave it up to the men.
Jess, thanks for swinging by and commenting. As I was reading your comment, I kept wanting to say “Preach it!” - so…thanks for taking the time to stop by and leave a comment.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
This is kind of a long comment, so I apologize. I realize that we disagree on women in ministry. I personally believe that the position of elder is reserved for men and can be supported by Scripture, although it isn’t a salvation issue and should never be one that divides friends. I’m copying an email I recently wrote to a dear friend of mine who decided he could no longer attend Mars Hill because he didn’t like Pastor Mark. Here it is, for what it’s worth:
Mark told me that you were really starting to dislike Pastor Mark and that’s totally fine. A majority of people who leave the church do so because they don’t like his style. Many find him abrasive, some believe he’s arrogant and sexist, etc. Knowing him personally, I can tell you that he isn’t those things but is in fact a man with an enormous heart who genuinely loves the Lord and the people of Seattle. He’s found a style that seems to be working to get people through the door and he’s going with it. When I first started going to Mars Hill, Mark wasn’t much for comedy, but was huge on heavy theological discussions that most people couldn’t follow. He’s changed his approach and found a lot of success at it, so it’s what works for him right now. That said, you don’t have to like him. I feel a natural inclination to defend him because he’s my pastor and I respect him, but I also love and respect you and find no harm in us disagreeing on this. I do want to say a few things about the sexist thing though, because I get slightly annoyed when people are quick to label Pastor Mark a sexist.
I think our society is hyper-sensitive to sexism and because of that, it’s almost a crime to say anything negative (and usually true) about women. Here’s the thing, culturally it is totally fine to mock, tease, point out the flaws of men. If you turn the tables and do so to a woman, you’re a sexist. We have become so fearful of offending anyone except white males that we almost elevate others to a higher status. I believe that post-70s feminism has been primarily harmful to women. It is no longer about the rights women deserve (voting rights, equal pay, etc) but merely an overarching doctrine that women are better than men and deserve to be treated as such. Feminism has become so divided and multi-faceted that there is no true women’s movement any longer. You can have two women who equally believe they are espousing feminism but are on complete opposite sides of an issue, say, pornography for exaple. Some feminists believe pornography is harmful to women because it demeans them & reduces them to sex objects, while others believe it is pro-woman because it is allowing a woman sexual freedom and the right to use her body as she chooses. Who is the feminist? According to today’s pluralistic view of feminism, they both are. But how can something be that loosely defined so as to allow for polar-opposite views and still be referred to as a “movement”, which suggests unity? I’m all for affording people individual thoughts and ideas, but seriously, you wouldn’t say that both a person who believes in Christ and a person who doesn’t are Christian. For me, it’s the same with feminism and it severely weakens their cause.
I believe that men and women are spiritually equal, both having been created in the image and likeness of God, yet there are real differences between the two. The Bible (1 Peter) calls the women the “weaker vessel” but also the “co-heir” to the throne. Equal but different. All of that to say, when Pastor Mark takes issue with women I don’t mind. I have had to undo a lot of my cultural indoctrination to get to the place where I can take rebuke from him. I used to get angry and say ‘how dare he speak of women that way!’, but I realized I had elevated the female gender to a status above rebuke which is wrong. Pastor Mark has said many times that hard words produce soft people and soft words produce hard people. I would much rather hear hard words and have my heart softened because of it than become hard-hearted and unteachable.
That’s just my 2 cents, but I wanted to say something because I really do believe Pastor Mark has a good heart and loves this city. Now you may continue your discussion with Marky. Just thought I’d throw the female perspective in there.
Love,
Marin
January 19th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Thank you, Marin, for your comments, although I must admit that they greatly saddened me, I think because you are selling yourself short. I won’t go into great detail, but it seems that there are a couple of major points that are missing from your comment.
First, underlying what you have to say is the assumption that the Bible must have been written outside of culture and is in no way influenced by culture. That is to say, the Bible is culturally neutral, and therefore when an occasional letter like 1 Peter comes to us today, we do not have to account for who wrote it, under what circumstances that person wrote it, or to whom they were writing. The same goes for how we read a passage like Genesis 3, which we’ve managed to skew into a passage that excuses male privilege and authority without paying ample attention to where the equal punishment of Adam and Eve. I must say that I don’t think that this is the way God intends us to read Scripture because holding such a literalist view of Scripture brings us dangerously close to equating the Bible with God - a form of idolatry.
Second, my reading of the overall trajectory of the entire Bible is that God created all humans in God’s own image. Therefore, to subject one to the other is biblically inaccurate at best and damaging to the people of God at worst.
Third, by placing males only in spiritual leadership, the church is missing the input of half of God’s human creation. Men and women bring different gifts to the church, and the church suffers when only men make decisions about the direction of the ministry of the church, leaving the women to handle child care or plan potlucks.
This is not how God intended it, and feminism, despite many of its warts, has been a needed corrective to the church. In denying women their due as image-bearers, the church has missed out on a wealth of female experience and interpretation that only serves to flesh out God’s will for the world today in a more holistic and beautiful manner. (If you don’t believe me, you need to hear some women preach - especially on texts describing things that men will never experience like childbirth or on texts of violence against women like the rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel.)
January 19th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
The misunderstanding you folks have is that following the Biblical example of male-only elders somehow equates to “missing the input of half of God’s human creation” and “leaving the women to handle child care or plan potlucks.”
Straw man argument.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Scott,
I guess I wouldn’t have such strong feelings about the matter if I didn’t see what you describe in jest as the reality in most Christian churches.
As a female pastoral intern in a “progressive” PCUSA church, I have been asked by the members to co-facilitate Sunday school everyweek, get the older youth more involved, plan Youth Sunday, and begin a children’s choir. While I do not mind helping with any of these activities, none of them are in my area of giftedness nor are activities that I felt fell under my internship role. Nor do I think this would happen if I was of the male persuasion.
Again, my own personal experiences aren’t the strongest argument for a systemic issue but it is my reality (and I would argue most women’s reality) that when they walk into a church’s doors, they will be expected to do child care or potlucks or both.
Before I go, I have one more example to share. My spouse and I job-shared a position as Campus Ministers before going to seminary. While I had the impression that our congregation understood that we were co-ministers, I had many members and attenders comment on how nice it was that I was helping my husband out. 9 months into the job, a core member of the church couldn’t understand why I couldn’t come to her house because I had to lead a church event. She asked me, “Where do you work?” I explained that I was an employee of the church. I still don’t think she understood. Again, this is was in a denomination that ordains women.
While I agree that condensing arguments into blog comment form falls short, my spouse’s argument is not made of straw.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I like Mark Driscoll. You should check out http://www.marshillchurch.org and go to their special teachings section. He has a debate, with a Seattle Pacific University professor, on women in the church. His view is complimentarian, not patriarchal, but he does see men as the leader of the marriage covenant.
Honestly, feminism started as a secular movement to reform womens place (which was necessary) in politics and economics. Do men and have men abused women? Yes! Is that horrible? Yes! Does it grieve God? Yes! Does it mean we are not created as equal beings, with physicality and giftings and callings which are different? Yes!
What if I got pissed off because as a man I cannot birth a child. That’s not fair. Well I could do it probably if I had some fancy surgery done. We live in a culture which tells women that child bearing and home life are worthless. We live in a church which mimicks the same. That is so very sad. Even more sad, it is men who have forced women to believe that this is the case. Men in the church have not loved their wives as Christ loved his Bride.
I don’t read Genesis as God creating men and women unequal, but it certainly was not arbitrary. Jesus had a different role to fulfill on earth. Was he lesser than the Father?
Just some thoughts…
January 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
“Third, by placing males only in spiritual leadership, the church is missing the input of half of God’s human creation. Men and women bring different gifts to the church, and the church suffers when only men make decisions about the direction of the ministry of the church, leaving the women to handle child care or plan potlucks.”
Troy, I feel that Marin handled defending Mark pretty well on her own, but your above assumption that the literal interpretation of scripture leads to women handling only childcare (as if that is second rate) and planning fellowship (aka “potlucks”) is false. A literal interpretation leads to a healthy church. Paul writes that women can be Deacons but only men should be Elders. But this does not leave the women out of leadership. We are directed by scripture to use our gifts. A deacon can lead the growth and developement of the church if her talents are up to the task and she feels called to do so. Conversely men should be involved in child care and at Mars Hill we have many men married and unmarried helping in our children’s ministry.
If its a matter of rank, then I would look at what Paul is telling us. He is saying to raise your leadership from inside the church. When the position of Elder or Deacon is a job description, indeed, not allowing women to be Elders seems false. But when they are positions in the greater fellowship of a church, rank generally stops mattering except when it comes to the direction that the church shall take. The problem with many contemporary churches is that they do not have a level playing field between member and leadership. When leaders are servants raised up in the church by the church you sidestep much of the political problems that many churchs are encountering.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Sam,
Could you elaborate more on your following statement?
“Does it mean we are not created as equal beings, with physicality and giftings and callings which are different? Yes!”
If as a female human I am not equal to a male human, does that make me less human…or conversely does that make you less human? By using the term not equal, that seems to lead to the idea of one or the other gender being “less than.”
Also, I don’t disagree that particular men and particular women have different giftedness, but I also think that comparing male only eldership with women giving birth is like comparing apples to oranges (though I can see that if you view male headship as an organic part of what it means to be a male that is why you would argue it’s apples to apples…I just disagree).
January 20th, 2006 at 12:10 am
I see that many people are coming over to this post from the Mars Hill Members forum or bulletin board here. My only wish is that I could get into that forum and hear what people are saying about the post. Anyone from Mars Hill wanna help us out and share with us what’s being talked about? This isn’t the first time one of my posts has made it in there - the first Mars Hill post a long time ago was quite a hot one.
I guess the only thing I have to say is if we can get Andy Stanley to comment, anyone think Mark Driscoll will step up to the plate and comment on pomomusings?
…
Yah, I didn’t think so either.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:43 am
adam,
i posted the link to this discussion on the members’ site as it is something pertinent to our church body, just as you post links to other sites when your blog is referenced. the members’ site is a private place for people to post prayer requests, discuss current events, get parenting advice, etc. and part of having it is that it remains private to protect those posting. therefore it would be inappropriate for me to share what is being discussed. i can say, however, that they are treating it with a great deal of respect.
as for your comment about pastor mark “stepping up to the plate” and commenting here, why would he? first off, his wife had a baby a few days ago so he’s a bit busy and secondly, why would he post somewhere that hasn’t shown him even an ounce of respect but has instead reduced him to a cartoonish caricature of sexism complete with a thought-bubble and then called him ridiculous? is that the way to engage in friendly or worthwhile dialogue? i think we both know it isn’t and calling pastor mark out the way you did was disrespectful and unfortunate.
–marin
January 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I’m a member from Mars Hill, but actually found this post first through technorati. My friends and I we’re just lovin’ the picture up top. I printed it out and put it up on my wall. :-)
When we discuss topics on the Mars Hill members sight (i.e. feminism), we tend to stick to the topic and not to people even when the topic was raised by a specific person (i.e. this site.) I find that dialog is much more constructive when done this way.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:53 am
I have read all the above comments and I
am finding it difficult to wrap my mind
around why pastor Mark Driscoll is criticised so harshly when I know that
out of 19 deacons that minister at Mars Hill
Church, 10 of them are women. Also, how
come a man who is supposed to be so anti
woman frequently raves about his wife from
the pulpit. Not only that, but he stashes
money in a college fund for both of his
daughters. Something just does not add up
here. Maybe the scoffers need to stop by
on Sunday and see what is really going on
at Mars Hill Church.
(a member at M.H.)
January 21st, 2006 at 11:14 am
Mike, I think the reason is because the egalitarians/feminists have not taken the time to understand the complementarian position.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 am
wow
October 5th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Driscoll is right on; theologically, culturally, etc. I sense a lot of envy on this blog. You guys should do something constructive with your time instead of attacking a man God is using.