|
Nov
20
|
How’s that for a title?! In March of 2006, I gave a talk at our annual men’s retreat titled Chopping Off Heads and Crying On Shoulders: What the Bible Says About Men and Masculinity. I’ve been thinking much about some of the points I made in that talk in light of the (most) recent turmoil surrounding Mark Driscoll.
For those who do not know, Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Though considered one of the most unchurched areas of the United States, the church has found tremendous success reaching out and drawing in. What then is the uproar, you ask? I’ll try to summarize, but for a fuller recap of recent events, this piece by Andrew Jones is a great place to start.
In short, Driscoll’s comments in regard to the Ted Haggard situation (this post seems to have started it all) have been incorporated into some of Driscoll’s larger views and have resulted in a planned protest of the church, scheduled for December 3. Some of the more potent comments in his original post include this:
At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors� wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband�s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
Though the comments are surely irresponsible, they are part of larger issues. Driscoll has often been cited for irreverance and for speaking too quickly, a charge which surely applies to us all. However, as one’s public profile increases, so does the care they must take before speaking. But what seems to have caused the most controversy is that Driscoll is being charged with sexism, the word misogynist has appeared and all the wile, Driscoll is calling for men to be more “masculine,” which to him, means watching Ultimate Fighting and somehow incorporating sports. As Andrew Jones laments, perhaps Driscoll has “watched Fight Club once too often.”
I appreciate that Driscoll is willing to speak out on gender issues, particularly Christian masculinity, but the more he speaks on the topic, the more I have to wonder whether he is truly reflecting the biblical worldview. My friend Rhett Smith recently posted a quote from a woman who recently attended Driscoll’s church and had this to say:
I liked what I learned of Mark Driscoll as I sat in the 2nd row of this Warehouse Hip church, Mars Hill. I flinched though, wishing he would express a broader definition of masculinity and not create such a narrow space for men to live in.
I find myself reacting in a protection of men who do not like sports, who don’t have an interest in Ultimate Fighting and who may not ever desire to watch an episode of Jack Ass. As a girl raised by a man who is an Eagle Scout, Scuba Diver, Backpacker, ER Technician, Elder in the church, Youth group volunteer, Off pitch hymn singer, Science enthusiast, lover of all things nature…I have a significant understanding that masculinity is not defined as narrowly as some would like.
This, for me, becomes the core issue: Driscoll’s comments, as insensitive as they may have been, are not isolated and are part of a larger definition of masculinity which I find anything but biblical. I agree with his assertions that we must regain a sense of biblical masculinity. The very fact that Leon Podles felt the need to write The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity and the recent 9Marks Ministries features several books on missing men in church signals a great problem. Many have sought to counter this problem with a renewed call for mascunity within the Church.
The problem is that much of this call to masculinity imports its ideas more from the world than from Scripture. I have no interest in organized sports, which, by many modern assessments, decreases my masculinity ratio dramatically. However, that does not mean that I am not masculine and we must not only renew biblical masculinity, we must properly define it.
We’re told on numerous occasions of David weeping (1 Samuel 20:41, 30:4, etc.) and the shortest verse in the Bible reminds us that our Savior Himself wept (John 11:35). We’re told that Jesus had a sincere care for both women and children. Certainly no one would accuse either David or Jesus of not being masculine. What the Bible presents is a willingness to listen and compassion coupled with the bravery to speak out, to protect and to stand firm for God’s kingdom.
Too many of the modern views of masculinity reflect merely on specifics, whether it be sports or beverages or media intake rather than these broad principles. Biblical men must be leaders and we must be willing to protect while leading sacrificially, all the while listening. Crying has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity and we must recapture the biblcial picture of the whole man rather than allowing our culture to define (and lower) the standards.
It’s possible that I’ve not heard the whole of Driscoll’s counsel on these topics, but it seems that I’m not the only one concerned. Again, as a pastor, I truly appreciate that he is willing to speak out on these topics. However, I wonder if his views on biblical masculinity are actually masculine enough? Promoting sports and fighting is actually a cheapening of the man’s call to protect. The biblical calling to men goes well beyond watching movies in which someone takes a stand, it requires that we do it ourselves.
- Visit the Mars Hill Church website
- Read Mark Driscoll: The Skinny by Andrew Jones
- Read Driscoll’s original post
- Read Driscoll’s follow-up
- Read The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity by Leon J. Podles
Brother, You need to give some citations and examples of what you’re talking about, friend. You may be right– Driscoll may be overcorrecting a ship that has sailed the wrong way for years. Not sure I agree, but you may be right. But you can’t just call his views unbiblical without citing any. Can you?
And I’ll go on the record to say that the above quote is NOT irresponsible (from Haggard post). He is addressing pastors and husbands. The stuff Driscoll has said on sexuality in marriage is much needed and helpful. I appreciate your blog, brother.
Brent,
Solid, solid post. You stated well some of the thoughts I had in my head, but wasn’t sure how to state. I’ve known you for a long time. And I was thinking about our college days. Me, Eric, Wade, Aaron, you, etc, etc….different guys, with different gifts from music to poetry, to athletics, etc, etc…and they all seemed to me to be what made us human, not just merely masculine, etc, etc….I’m glad our masculinity is not definined so narrowely as it often is…speaking of David. He was a poet, king, warrior, shepherd, etc, etc….pretty diverse ideas of masculinity…
Hi, I appreciate the care that you take in voicing your concern over Driscoll. Just thought I’d throw a few thoughts out there.
“Driscoll is calling for men to be more �masculine,� which to him, means watching Ultimate Fighting and somehow incorporating sports.”
This seems to be the picture of how you envision Driscoll’s “masculinity” for the rest of the post, but I think it’s unfair and inaccurate, and I don’t think that he would agree with the stance you’ve placed upon him. Besides, he nearly never incorporates sports into his sermons =P
I listen weekly to Mark Driscoll’s sermon podcast, I read his books, and I think that I understand where he’s coming from well. I think that people often don’t understand his sense of humor. Ultimate fighting is one of his running jokes. It’s always in that context and it’s always tongue-in-cheek. He’s not suggesting that all Christian men need to be into sports and ultimate fighting to be masculine (I myself loathe both). He speaks of a deeper notion and love of biblical masculinity that goes deeper than that.
When I hear the meat of Driscoll’s messages, I find that he is much more concerned with empowering and encouraging Christian men towards loving their wives as Christ loves the church, protecting and actively loving their families and providing for their needs, becoming competent leaders. After the jokes are over (which again, are tongue in cheek and usually poking fun at himself), this is what he goes into great detail about. I think that Driscoll sees the trend in Christian culture of producing men who are “nice guys” but are spiritual weaklings and pushovers.
Driscoll is not against men showing emotion. In the past he’s told stories of things that made him cry. He encourages men to show emotion to their wives and families and church. I think that people read his humor, and misunderstand him to be a “suck it up, don’t cry, don’t show weakness, you’re a man” type. I think he does wish for that in a certain sense among men in the church (i.e. taking responsibility etc) but it’s not the way I think many assume he does.
For people who have concerns about Driscoll’s notion of masculinity I would suggest that they look past the jokes, see them as jokes, see it as his personality, and look to the meat of what he really has to say about biblical masculinity.
I anticipate that some people’s response to my defense of Driscoll to be something along the lines of “well, he should be more careful then, he shouldn’t joke like that.” I half agree with you… I wouldn’t say things that he says only because I’m a wuss and I’d foresee a backlash, and I wouldn’t want to start something like that. Tact isn’t Driscoll’s strong point, but I understand his heart for Jesus and the gosin the church enough to be very quick to forgive him and look past that to what he really has to say. But then again, in a way I’m half glad he says them because it’s about time someone stands up for the right of men to be “manly” in a culture where that’s coming under fire. (please note; I live in Massachusettes. ‘Nuff said.)
Anyway, I hope I’ve been coherent and positive. These thoughts of mine are tentative, and I almost feel out of line defending him so directly, but I’ve read and heard a lot of what he’s said on the subject. Love your blog, I’ve linked you from mine.
Blessings in Christ,
Mike
Interesting post although I’m not familar with Driscoll or his ministry. Whatever true masculinity should look like, we need more men in the Church stepping up and being bold. Our country is in a sad state when it comes to identity roles for men and women…people are all mixed up with the whole homosexual/bi-sexual identity crisis. But we MUST remember that our battle is not against flesh and blood. The devil would love to rob us of our identity in Christ and to have us so confused that we act like the rest of the world. He’s the culprit behind the mayhem.
Brent, great post. Thanks. I’ve been thinking the same thing for a while- that maybe Driscoll was just taking it too far. I hadn’t read the comments about Ultimate Fighting or whatever, and Mike gives a good answer to that. I think a lot of us in the ministry want men to step up and be men. I have a friend who uses the controversial quote “Women are only in the ministry because men aren’t.” While I’m not sure that’s entirely true, I think if we had more quality men doing what they should be doing, we’d have to rely a lot less on the women who are doing those jobs. (Can’t wait for someone to misunderstand that completely.) Anyway, I do think men need to step up. I also think it’s fine for some women to step up. (Often we try to place our SBC framework over the Biblical framework of church and play hermeneutical games.) All that to say, I agree that Driscoll seems to beat the whole “men be men” thing to death. And every other post on Resurgence seems to be about testosterone, masculinity, and that sort of thing. It’s getting tired, if nothing else.
Yeah, good stuff. That’s the problem, I think, with this whole Wild at Heart thing–it sounds really good, but it’s certainly not the picture I see of Jesus in the NT (although it might be similar to a picture of some other apostles/prophets).
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong w/ that sort of manly man-ness, but I like what you’ve got to say: let’s embiggen what it means to be masculine.
Great post. I’d be the girl you quoted. :) It seems to me that we’ve come to a place in the christian community where we’ve tried too hard to box in sexuality. Men=____________ and Women=__________. It’s very very limiting. It’s taken me YEARS to feel like it’s okay for me, a christian woman, to have an oppinion, one that challenges…one that maybe stirs things up a bit. It’s frustrating. Jesus keeps sweetly offering me freedom from the prision that our christian culture has created to divide us from one another. I would say this polarization between the sexes must stop in the church. It is ugly and divisive. I think Jesus doesn’t like it.
Jake wrote above about Wild at Heart. I know know there has been much discussion about Eldredge’s thoughts on gender rolls and idenity…so I am not planning to launch into that here…but I will offer this because I think it’s relevant:
I read “Captivating”…and found it interesting that much of his and Staci’s knowledge comes based on their own personal experiences. Though I spun around in a dress and sang songs waiting my mom and dad’s praise and spent hours coloring and braiding my Barbie’s hair…I also knew heterosexual feminine girls who did not and who rather played with He-men castles. As a kid, I thought it was weird…I prefered my cabbage patch dolls. However, it remains okay with me if someone else has a different desire for how they want to live out their humanity. If we take our own experiences and make them the standard, we are only creating a narrow space for others to live in. Narrow spaces are safe for people…but they are also a prison.
Brent et al,
A great topic of conversation: What makes a man? I’ve tried to address the question myself
http://gunny93.blogspot.com/2006/03/isnt-that-what-makes-man.html
But even more heartily I recommend the following piece by Terrence Moore (Wimps and Barbarians), a former Marine about extremes to which we are prone.
http://claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2003/moore.html
I mean, that thing is good. I wanna be friends with it.
I think the lesson that Mark likely learned through this whole fiasco is that he needs to be as articulate in his blog postings as he is in his preaching. I think he blogged to an audience of Pastors, that he thought where on the same page as him and as such, and didn’t fully explain his point.
As far as the masculinity goes. I listen to the Mars Hill podcasts, and watch the vodcasts from time to time, and find Mark to be a pretty emotional guy. I am certain that he weeps. At times, I have heard the pain and sorrow welling up in his voice. It was likely this same emotion that caused him to post the ill-advised post.
Yes, he does talk up the manly sports and hobbies and the like, but that is almost always to contrast the culture’s perception of Jesus, and the culture’s perception of Christian men. We are called to stand firm against the enemy. There is a battle to fight. Jesus didn’t avoid confrontation. When He laid down his life for us that was accomplishment of his Godly mission, not a sign of his weakness.
Pastor Mark’s message for men is never “Watch UFC and grunt a lot” It is more along the lines of “Have courage to live your faith, Provide for your family, Lead your family in knowing and living in God’s Word, Love and forgive. And most of all, Love Jesus”
He is harder on Men than any other preacher I know. I don’t know how many times I have heard him preach the proverb about how failure to provide for your family makes you worse than an unbeliever.
When he is hard on Men, nobody notices, but when he is hard on women, Christians picket his church.
I like this post.
I do think there are gender differences at a spiritual level. I am a male.
With that said, I think it is silly to turn Christianity, or following Christ, should be about optimising ourselves as men, especially when primarily, in our relationship with God, we are told to be children and brides. For myself, this was a tough pill to swallow.
I am not accusing this Mark Driscoll, of whom I know very little, of supporting this. I have only noticed it as a pitfall that tends to be a dangerous distraction. I acknowledge the battle that is evident, but when one concentrates primarily on this fight, it becomes easy to forget that the only thing we can do to fight it is love, because without love our actions are meaningless.
P.S. I do hope this discussion continues. Gender issues relating to Christianity are naturally something I need to confront and wrestle with being a Christian male (too young to be confident in using the word man) who is (fortunately) innately heterosexual and a brother to five sisters.
There seems to be some concern that I have (I hope unintentionally) misrepresented Driscoll’s actual position, which brings up an interesting point. One of the things that I’ve had to learn in leadership is people’s perception.
When you hear an isolated comment, it is possible to shrug it off. However, when you begin to hear the same comments from a variety of sources, you’d better pay attention because, whether or not it is accurate, it is the people’s perception. I think that’s what we have here.
It seems to be the common perception that Driscoll’s view of masculinity involves sports, fighting and crude jokes. I’m not saying that he actually holds this, but that is the perception and that’s what I attempted to deal with in this post.
Perhaps people aren’t listening or perhaps Driscoll is communicating poorly on this issue or perhaps both. As I’ve said repeatedly, I appreciate that Driscoll is willing to speak out on these issues and I look forward to working through “perceptions” to the actual issues at hand.
It seems that most would agree that these are real issues for the current “Christian” culture and we need genuine dialogue on these issues, but we also need active change and I look forward to moving together towards those ends.
You’ve nailed it Brent.
Driscoll’s concept of masculinity is a cliche as is his concept of femininity.I’ve been listening to Mark D ever since his debut on Street Talk. He is good for entertainment but don’t take him seriously. When it comes to bible and theology he is just another popular preacher. His handling of Song of Songs is a scream. I would love to have him explain his hermeneutic which turns erotic poetry into a legal code for christian wives. My friends on the b-hebrew forum would have Driscoll for lunch.
Brent - It is true that many are concerned about Driscoll’s view of masculinity, but just because there are many who are doesn’t mean that what people are saying is accurate. When I saw the uproar over him, I honestly tried to figure out where people were coming from. It honestly baffles me that people feel the way they do about him, and in nearly every case I find myself frustrated at people’s misunderstanding of his position.
Brent, you say that you “look forward to working through �perceptions� to the actual issues at hand.” As I said in my previous post, Driscoll goes into great detail on the subject of biblical masculinity, so rather than assuming that rumors are true, I would encourage people to listen to his sermons if they want to find out what he really says. Most of the time, I find that Driscoll-bashing constitutes taking a tongue-in-cheek joke completely out of the context of the sermon.
Driscoll is doing so much for the Gospel. He lives in one of the toughest areas of the nation culturally, and I’m sure he sees a lot of junk. He’s trying to combat that. I give him credit. The way he upholds Jesus and the Gospel so determinedly continues to impress me and I feel that we should support him instead of tearing him down.
Just one guy’s opinion =)
[...] thought that Brent had a great post Chopping Off Heads and Crying on Shoulders a while [...]
