Men in the Church

[Broken Arrow]

Last December on a thread called “Spectator Christianity”, I got into a brief conversation with Waysider over some opinions voiced by pastor named Mark Driscoll. Driscoll’s comments center on involving men in the Church specifically young men in their 20’s and he says, “…the Church needs more dudes”.

Waysider took issue with this saying that Driscoll was espousing a “macho man” type of image. I felt that we were getting off topic and that our discussion should be on a different thread to which Waysider agreed.

That was back in December and it is now April. I never started another thread or said another word about this topic since. I just couldn’t think of anything to say really. The truth is, I have mixed feelings on Driscoll’s statements. Here is the link:

I believe that men, at least in Western culture have lost their hearts and that the church fosters this. From a very young age little boys are taught that “big boys don’t cry”, or “don’t be a sissy”, or “keep a stiff upper lip”, or “never let ‘em see you sweat”, “Keep a poker face and never ‘em see your cards”. I think every boy has been derided at some time in his life about being a “cry baby”. The result is that men are for the most part not present, either emotionally and sometimes not even physically.

In order to survive in Western culture, in order to “fit in” and not be isolated in most circles, a man has to shut down the emotional part of himself…his heart. Everyone who deadens a part of himself does so at great expense. Men rarely talk about anything of any substance with each other or with anyone else. Two men meeting each other for the first time will ask the other, “So, where do you work? What do you do for a living?” As if our self-worth and who we are is tied up in what we produce for society. How very shallow, really. Christian men are even worse because we think we have to put on our “happy Christian face” all the time. To us, it’s all about how we look. We think it’s necessary to look like we have it together or somebody might get wise to the fact that we really don’t and that would be just terrible. People might start asking questions and eventually find out we’re confused, scared, and worried about the future. Perhaps there is a medical diagnosis we’re afraid of hearing. Maybe we’re concerned about a job loss, or losing the ability to earn an income. Maybe one of my teenage children is making bad decisions. We could make a list. These are real concerns that real people face everyday. Let someone else in to help share my burden? No way, they’ll think I’m weak and I’ll feel ashamed!

Some say men don’t like emotions or emotional things. That’s only partly true. The whole truth is, most men are afraid of emotions because they can’t control them. Many men are also afraid of their wife’s and children’s emotions for the same reason. Emotions can betray us. They can let others know that all is not well in our little worlds. Being exposed as weak and vulnerable (which happens to be the truth) we fear shame.

To bury emotion, often men turn to addictive substances such as alcohol, or drugs, or pornography or other forms of sexual deviation.

The problem is, one cannot truly bury emotion. It’s like trying to drag a big ball full of air to the bottom of a deep swimming pool. That ball is eventually going to make its way to the surface. When that happens, it’s usually at the most inconvenient time and we often hurt people we care about. If a man is wise, he will seek out others with whom to be vulnerable. Someone who he can say for example, “I’m scared to death. I am completely disconnected from my 14-year-old daughter and we only grow further and further apart”.

I believe along with Driscoll that men, for the most part, are not free to be who they are in the Church or in society for that matter. Other points I agree with Driscoll on notwithstanding, I am concerned that his view of masculinity is too one dimensional. Driscoll says, “The Church needs more dudes”. What does he mean by “dude”? One can’t tell because “dude” is non-specific. So I’m left to my own interpretation and to me, he is referring to a specific type of man. A man that is “macho” (also slang), a producer, competitive, mechanically inclined, athletic with a good job. Not someone who might actually have a problem or a defect or a weakness. That’s what comes across to me. Is this what he meant? I don’t know, but I think so. Another point he is talking about the Church “needing”. So now we’re out to recruit specific individuals based on generalities? Instead of reaching out to the “least” and the “lost”, and “those in need”, now we’re looking for “dudes”. Why? Because we need them. We need their ideas, their money, their influence, etc. We need them in order for us to look good. Isn’t that sort of a selfish focus? What about what they need? What about what society needs?

Finally, who is Mark Driscoll that he can judge other male pastors as feminine? That, to me smacks of arrogance.

So, yeah, I agree there is a problem with men that the church needs to address, but I think Driscoll misses the mark in his assessment.

Edited April 19, 2010 by erkjohn

[Watered Garden]

Erkjohn, this is very well written indeed!

I have lots of typing to do but if you look starting about p. 12 on the doctrinal forum on the thread "Is Calvinism a Cult?" which is back there a ways on the forum, there is a lot more about Driscoll. I copied this from a post Waysider kindly looked up for me: I think it's from a NY Times article of 2009.

Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, took a dramatic stand against girly men at a Pastor’s Conference in Houston last week.

The conference, called “re:tool and re:load,” previously billed as “jesus 2.0,” featured speakers from around the country with the stated focus of “Making the Gospel and Missionlogy Relevant to Post Modern Culture.” Speaking at the last session of the conference, Driscoll focused his three-and-a-half-hour talk on the need for pastors to be more alpha.

“The problem with our churches today is that the lead pastor is some sissy boy who wears cardigan sweaters, has The Carpenters dialed in on his iPod, gets his hair cut at a salon instead of a barber shop, hasn’t been to an Ultimate Fighting match, works out on an elliptical machine instead of going to isolated regions of Russia like in Rocky IV in order to harvest lumber with his teeth, and generally swishes around like Jack from Three’s Company whenever Mr. Roper was around.”

“At last year’s Converging Conference, Driscoll talked about standing up when you .... and I got really excited. We started a men’s-only Bible Accountability Group. It was a combination of scripture study and Muy Thai Stick Fighting. It was great for a few weeks, until my worship pastor lost an eye. I had to make a tough call then and there: no more Muy Thai Stick Fighting at Kiona Community without protective face gear. I still think it might have been a spiritual compromise.”

In Houston, Driscoll was intent on making absolutely clear that he is in favor of masculinity. At the 2 hour, 15 minute mark, he invited five pastors from the audience to take the stage, put his hands behind his back, stuck out his chin, and said, “Hit me with your best shot. Go on. I won’t hit you back. I want to show everyone what this is all about.” When none of the five took a swing, Driscoll had them escorted from the building and proceeded to hit himself five times.

“This is what being a pastor is about, guys. If you can’t handle it, go back to teaching yoga or playing My Little Pony with the other girls.”

The rest of the session followed the same general tone, with Driscoll ridiculing insulated coffee cups, haiku and dental floss as feminine while extolling athletic cups, tobacco spit and broken load-bearing bones as being “essential for a pastor.”

As you may recall we attended an Acts 29 church plant for a couple of years. The young pastor there was fixated on Driscoll. It was scary; deja vue all over again, reminded me of the young branch leader we knew once who had the exact attitude about LCM.

I do strongly believe that men should lead; I'm sure you realize I've had no problem with leadership in my own home. But, I think Mr. Driscoll has a very narrow view of masculinity and a lot of opinions on stuff that's none of his business. How is dental floss feminine? Are bad breath and rotten teeth excellent characteristics of a "dude?"

IMO he misses the point. Lead but lead with love. The kind of alpha male he idealizes might also be inclined to take a swing at a wife he felt was not sufficiently submissive; someone with that kind of attitude would scare the hell out of me. And anyone who called a woman "chick" would probably lose that woman's respect.

And you are so right about the emotional baggage so many men carry. It is difficult for men to express themselves when they can't show any emotion like hurt, sorrow, fear, uncertainty. I've seen Mr. Garden tear up a few times and he is a better man than Driscoll will ever be.

Anyway, this might help the discussion. I'm a female (NOT A "chick") and maybe this discussion would be better if men participated in it, but I've had some secondary experience with Driscoll via the church plant we attended, and I can say with all honesty that Mr. Garden, a real man, did not like it one bit, either.

WG

Edited April 19, 2010 by Watered Garden

[geisha779]

I call women chica, chick, babe, cutie, sweetie, sometimes I even will use the term *hottie* in description. I respect women.....I am one.....and straight too! LOL It is just my personality....heck, I even call Pastor's wives "babe"....and they "babe" me right back.

I hope you don't judge my whole church because I can have a big personality at times.

Mark Driscoll is catching a great deal of deserved heat for his immature and ugly attitude....especially from Phil Jonson. ....maybe it will help.....let's hope so.....maybe not.

I agree with SOME of the basis of what he is saying here, especially coming from TWI....but, the way he presents it in his sermons IS offensive. The way he speaks of men and women and role IS offensive!

Remember Jesus loved Lazarus? Behold He loved the man......now Jesus loved Mary and Martha....Peter do you love, love, love, me.....John rested is head...or reclined with Jesus on His bossom.

There is definitely a nuance of intimacy Driscoll is missing and he is passing on some bad Mojo to people.

Dricoll's response to Johnson. For anyone interested in how he defends himself.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[soul searcher]

@ erkjohn: Great post! Lotta truth in there.

@ geisha: How about mamacita? :)

[geisha779]

@ erkjohn: Great post! Lotta truth in there.

@ geisha: How about mamacita? :)

That too! Ever watch Lost? Sawyer is my nickname Hero. :) and hot. Definitely

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> Edited April 19, 2010 by geisha779

[Watered Garden]

I guess it's not just calling women "chicks" so much as it is the way he uses it. Geisha if you called me "chick" or "babe" or "chica" I probably wouldn't get the impression it was a demeaning nickname. With Driscoll, it seems to be, especially when he refers to men who exercise on elliptical trainers as "chickified" or"sissy boys." I would like to see him do 45 minutes on an elliptical; believe me, it isn't all that effeminate. And I hope, in spite of the fear he may have of appearing feminine, that he flosses (and brushes) regularly; chicks don't like to suck the green stuff off the dude's teeth, dude! :P

I don't want to digress any more about Mark Driscoll, though, as much as I would like to see what others think of Men and the Church as Erkjohn started this thread, but I just had to say something about the floss (again).

Edited April 19, 2010 by Watered Garden

[Broken Arrow]

Mark Driscoll is catching a great deal of deserved heat for his immature and ugly attitude....especially from Phil Jonson. ....maybe it will help.....let's hope so.....maybe not.

I agree with SOME of the basis of what he is saying here, especially coming from TWI....but, the way he presents it in his sermons IS offensive. The way he speaks of men and women and role IS offensive!

Remember Jesus loved Lazarus? Behold He loved the man......now Jesus loved Mary and Martha....Peter do you love, love, love, me.....John rested is head...or reclined with Jesus on His bossom.

There is definitely a nuance of intimacy Driscoll is missing and he is passing on some bad Mojo to people.

Dricoll's response to Johnson. For anyone interested in how he defends himself.

Geisha,

Thank you for including this, I found it helpful. I'm like you, I agree with SOME of what he says so I don't think one should discount everything he says. He brings some good points to the table. I'm just concerned that he doesn't realize that God has made us all different...and on purpose, too!

[Cynic]

Erkjohn, this is very well written indeed!

I have lots of typing to do but if you look starting about p. 12 on the doctrinal forum on the thread "Is Calvinism a Cult?" which is back there a ways on the forum, there is a lot more about Driscoll. I copied this from a post Waysider kindly looked up for me: I think it's from a NY Times article of 2009.

Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, took a dramatic stand against girly men at a Pastor’s Conference in Houston last week.

The conference, called “re:tool and re:load,” previously billed as “jesus 2.0,” featured speakers from around the country with the stated focus of “Making the Gospel and Missionlogy Relevant to Post Modern Culture.” Speaking at the last session of the conference, Driscoll focused his three-and-a-half-hour talk on the need for pastors to be more alpha.

“The problem with our churches today is that the lead pastor is some sissy boy who wears cardigan sweaters, has The Carpenters dialed in on his iPod, gets his hair cut at a salon instead of a barber shop, hasn’t been to an Ultimate Fighting match, works out on an elliptical machine instead of going to isolated regions of Russia like in Rocky IV in order to harvest lumber with his teeth, and generally swishes around like Jack from Three’s Company whenever Mr. Roper was around.”

“At last year’s Converging Conference, Driscoll talked about standing up when you .... and I got really excited. We started a men’s-only Bible Accountability Group. It was a combination of scripture study and Muy Thai Stick Fighting. It was great for a few weeks, until my worship pastor lost an eye. I had to make a tough call then and there: no more Muy Thai Stick Fighting at Kiona Community without protective face gear. I still think it might have been a spiritual compromise.”

In Houston, Driscoll was intent on making absolutely clear that he is in favor of masculinity. At the 2 hour, 15 minute mark, he invited five pastors from the audience to take the stage, put his hands behind his back, stuck out his chin, and said, “Hit me with your best shot. Go on. I won’t hit you back. I want to show everyone what this is all about.” When none of the five took a swing, Driscoll had them escorted from the building and proceeded to hit himself five times.

“This is what being a pastor is about, guys. If you can’t handle it, go back to teaching yoga or playing My Little Pony with the other girls.”

The rest of the session followed the same general tone, with Driscoll ridiculing insulated coffee cups, haiku and dental floss as feminine while extolling athletic cups, tobacco spit and broken load-bearing bones as being “essential for a pastor.”

That is not "from a NY York Times article." It is from The Wittenburg Door and obviously is satire, rather than something factual. I think the Door once even "reported" that Corrie Ten Boom had gotten married to Burt Reynolds.

The Door's satirical piece on Driscoll can be read at the Door's site ( http://www.wittenburgdoor.com ). I cannot get a direct link to the piece past GSC's filter, but you can find a link to that piece on the Door's main page.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Cynic

[Cynic]

I think the Door once even "reported" that Corrie Ten Boom had gotten married to Burt Reynolds.

I am now thinking The Door's edition cover (which I never saw) purported that Corrie Ten Boom was to marry or go off (something along those lines) with Burt Reynolds. Unfortunately, the particular edition of the magazine happened to come out when Corrie died.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Cynic

[Watered Garden]

Cynic,

Thank you for correcting my reference. I was a little hazy on this being part of the Times article or from somewhere else. I'm not going to argue with you over whether it is a satire, as the subject of this thread is not the Reverend Mr. Driscoll himself but "Men in the Church." I wasn't at the conference (no women were allowed, probably not even to fix lunch) and so I don't know if Mr. Driscoll actually did this or not.

You and I have clashed before regarding Mr. Driscoll; please let's don't spoil Erkjohn's thread by doing it again. If I offend you so much you can't be civil, I will just not post on this thread again.

Watered Garden

[Cynic]

I wasn't at the conference (no women were allowed, probably not even to fix lunch) and so I don't know if Mr. Driscoll actually did this or not.

WG,

Again, the Wittenburg Door piece is satire. It is replete with fictitious conferences, fictitious statements and actions attributed to Driscoll, a fictitious pro-Driscoll blogger, a fictitious church in Kentucky, and a fictitious anti-Driscoll website (try googling the conferences, the Kentucky church, and the anti-Driscoll Wordpress blog). There was no conference mentioned in the piece from which women could have barred.

Here is a link to the subject piece (“Mark Driscoll Kicks His Own A$$”):

http://tinyurl.com/46bfn7

The level of factuality in Wittenburg Door pieces (though WD does do interviews and occasional somewhat serious exposes) can be assessed by reading:

“Virgin Mary Found on Back of Grand Theft Auto”

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/virgin-mary-gta

“Victorious Secret: Lingerie for Overcomers”

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/victorious-secret%3A-lingerie-overcomers

Edited April 20, 2010 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Driscoll apparently did participate in a "converging" or "convergent" conference held by a Baptist seminary, though I doubt women were barred from the affair.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Cynic

[waysider]

I've watched both the youtube links.

All I see is a guy giving HIS personal opinion of how HE thinks a male church member should conduct himself.

What I DON'T see is how he has used the scriptures to reach this opinion.

Wierwille was big on this stuff. Maybe that's why it rubs me the wrong way. I remember VPW saying in one of the classes (CF&S?) "Be a man!!" The emphasis was placed on conveyance of machismo. Wierwille grew up in a time and place where the concept of "manliness" (whatever that is) was emphasized. I saw men in "the ministry" start to imitate VPW in regard to "manly" interests such as guns, fishing, motorcycles and so on. I also saw men start abusing their wives and children because this image they were trying to live required that they absolutely be the one in control.

When I was just a youngster, I remember a kid's book about "What Daddies Do". Some daddies are accountants, some daddies drive bulldozers, some daddies are dentists----and so on.

Although by today's standards the book might appear lopsided, the bigger message being conveyed was that there is no single, perfect way to describe the role of a man. By Driscoll's (and VPW's) standards can a man in a wheelchair be a minister? Is he "manly" enough? What about a guy who happens to prefer the fine arts to monster truck rallies?

This kind of thinking is culturally oriented. It's subservient to contemporary trends.

In the one youtube, Driscoll takes exception to the "Bride" reference, citing manliness as a preclusion. Perhaps Driscoll needs to expand his thinking and realize that, not only is marriage not solely about sexual relations, but, that our view of what constitutes a marriage is vastly different than the views that existed 2,000 years ago.

Edited April 21, 2010 by waysider

[soul searcher]

I didn't watch either video all the way through (my BS sensor wouldn't allow it)...does he address homosexuality at all? I detected an air of homophobia in his rhetoric.

I also don't agree with his predestinationalism.

P.S. I personally enjoy a "secular" interpretation of Solomon's Songs. It's much more fun and interesting.

[waysider]

Exhibit A

[Broken Arrow]

I didn't watch either video all the way through (my BS sensor wouldn't allow it)...does he address homosexuality at all? I detected an air of homophobia in his rhetoric.

I also don't agree with his predestinationalism.

P.S. I personally enjoy a "secular" interpretation of Solomon's Songs. It's much more fun and interesting.

He doesn't address homosexuality in the 2 clips included in this thread, but he does in other clips on You Tube. He also discusses what you are referring to as "presdestinationalism", which is more commonly known as "Calvinism".

[soul searcher]

He also discusses what you are referring to as "presdestinationalism", which is more commonly known as "Calvinism".

Yeah that. :)

[waysider]

Driscoll on "The G-Word".

[waysider]

[Broken Arrow]

I've watched both the youtube links.

All I see is a guy giving HIS personal opinion of how HE thinks a male church member should conduct himself.

What I DON'T see is how he has used the scriptures to reach this opinion.

Wierwille was big on this stuff. Maybe that's why it rubs me the wrong way. I remember VPW saying in one of the classes (CF&S?) "Be a man!!" The emphasis was placed on conveyance of machismo.

Actually, Waysider, I think it may "rub you (and others of us) the wrong way", because it smacks of misogyny (hatred of women). Also, many men don't fit neatly into the type of mold Driscoll has formed for what a man should be; VP Wierwille notwithstanding.

Wierwille grew up in a time and place where the concept of "manliness" (whatever that is) was emphasized.

No excuse. History is full of those who transended cultural mores...that's what he claimed to do.

I saw men in "the ministry" start to imitate VPW in regard to "manly" interests such as guns, fishing, motorcycles and so on. I also saw men start abusing their wives and children because this image they were trying to live required that they absolutely be the one in control.

Pathetic, wasn't it? Some guys were already into that sort of thing (hunting and fishing etc.) which is fine. What you're referring to, sadly, are guys who were very very lost and were looking to VP to give them their identity. VP never could give someone their identity; no one can. Unfortunately VP never led anybody to where they could find it. Many of these guys are now leading offshoots.

By Driscoll's (and VPW's) standards can a man in a wheelchair be a minister? Is he "manly" enough? What about a guy who happens to prefer the fine arts to monster truck rallies?

Without question, there is a certain mold men must fit in to be taken seriously by the powers that be.

This kind of thinking is culturally oriented. It's subservient to contemporary trends.

Culturally oriented? Absolutely! Contemporary? I'm not so sure. looking back in history, there seems to always be an underlying machismo belief. Some cultures are more permissive to men showing emotion than others, but this "manly man" belief, I think, exists in all cultures and has throughout history. I'm no historian (unfortunately) or anthropologist so I could be wrong

Edited April 21, 2010 by erkjohn

[waysider]

Thank you for responding to my post, erkjohn.

Yes, instead of The Way helping men "find their own voice" (musician's term), it tried to cram us all into some sort of jello mold and force us all to sing identical cover versions of a song that may or may not have been a good key for us.

[Broken Arrow]

Thank you for responding to my post, erkjohn.

Yes, instead of The Way helping men "find their own voice" (musician's term), it tried to cram us all into some sort of jello mold and force us all to sing identical cover versions of a song that may or may not have been a good key for us.

Nice metaphor!

[geisha779]

I've watched both the youtube links.

All I see is a guy giving HIS personal opinion of how HE thinks a male church member should conduct himself.

What I DON'T see is how he has used the scriptures to reach this opinion.

Waysider,

In the video I posted, Driscoll is answering Pastor to Pastor specific questions regarding his methods....although there was a question or two about his approach....Reductio ad absurdum...reducing the Jesus of the cults down the absurd....to draw distinction......the theology is pretty much understood by all parties. He wasn't really teaching how he comes to this....but answering why he uses It.

As for answering about the "sissy" men in the church comments :) .....same thing.....they all know how he comes to that....his approach to these scriptures.

It was basically a defense of his methods....the "whys" to answer a more conservative Pastor who has been questioning him for some time.

Edited April 21, 2010 by geisha779

[Tzaia]

Thank you for responding to my post, erkjohn.

Yes, instead of The Way helping men "find their own voice" (musician's term), it tried to cram us all into some sort of jello mold and force us all to sing identical cover versions of a song that may or may not have been a good key for us.

While telling you that it was your own voice.