Does this bother anybody else? I didn't count, but I'm curious as to how many times Mark says the word "man." The context of this is a large church planting conference in which Mark has spoken at before this time around instead of being there, he worked on putting together this video. Afterwards, Bill Hybels of Willow Creek made a comment pointing out the incredible impact of women pastors and as a result got a standing ovation. The conference decided not to pass out copies of the video. I'm curious what you all think of this? You can read more about this at Mark's blog
Saturday, April 28, 2007
A Good Soldier?
Don't get me wrong I do really like Mark, I just don't understand why he consistent speaks in the manner that he does. The third part of this is about the importance of the message...and yet once again Mark has done a poor job of communicating and has offended many. Bummer. It makes me think of bullhorn guy if you know what I mean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
To me, it's a sad comment (no pun intended) that the church in the U.S has been inceasingly influenced/affected by our society to the point that we censor (and often scold) men of God who don't conform to society's notion of "political correctness". Voluntarily submitting to this "PC" distraction is only detrimental to the church. We have, after all, clear instructions as to how we should honor each other and submit to each other regardless of the externals that are the "characteristics of focus" of society at the moment (does free vs slave, or rich vs poor ring any bells?). The reaction to this video, unfortunately, minimized the value and power of the contribution it has/may have had, and turns us from recipients of the benefit of the content to mere pronoun police.
hey greg, thanks for the comment. i find it interesting that you find that the issue is that of political correctness. what bothers me is not Marks theology on women although I don't hold his view, it more has to do with poor communication. he knew his audience he knew that there were many women pastors in this group. he wasn't asked for his theology on women in ministry. he was asked about planting churchs. he purposefully used the word man/men so many times. it was overt. kind of like Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech. how many times did he say the word dream or the phrase "I have a dream?" it is a type of language. dreams are not as offensive although MLK's was very different than what many wanted at the time of his speech. a good communicator thinks about what they are saying before they do and thinks about who they are speaking to. i am bothered that one of the most influencial pastors in WA let alone our country doesn't do this. i think he could have made his message just as clear and without offense to many, especially women. ex. "60% of all Christians today are women...I'm glad that the ladies love Jesus, but if you want to win a war you have to send men" this quote had for me [a man] a hint of sarcasm and attitude that I found frustrating and unnecessary...and to say once you have the men you have to train them so that they can understand how to get married and know how to have sex with there wife at least once a day...
I don't get it. I just don't understand why of all the things he could say to this audience of pastors both men and women that he would say this.
i understand that there are issues of political correctness in this as not only does he speak in my opinion in ways that are offensive to women he uses the term "gay" and in making clear who Jesus is not which I'm pretty sure his audience knew this. he also used the term "retarded" which as a person who works with people and has a wife in the field of education this is also poor language.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i expect more out of mark as i would expect my congregation/friends/family/etc. would expect. and i think God has high expectations for those who are in these positions and unfortunately i think mark onced again missed it.
ok sorry greg and anyone else for the long post, but i felt it important to go deeper into my thoughts from this post!
i'd love to hear from greg or anyone else with regards to this! as always thanks for stopping by!
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Mark. Instead, I want to point out that our society has become so "all-accepting" that we've lost sight of standing up for what we believe to be true in the eyes of God. So, here comes a pastor you disagree with (that's completely fair and not necessary to debate), and yet he's criticized for stating what he believes. Can't we politely accept what he has to say, just as we can accept what you have written here? I think it's important for people to stand up for what they see to be correct. It's okay for us to disagree. However, we've come to a place where no one wants to offend anyone - we're scared and we tip-toe around it all. Congrats to this Mark guy for doing something that so many of us fail to do. Jesus didn't always play it safe when communicating with the masses. He spoke the Truth. In a sense, I think Mark is simply trying to do the same. Keep in mind too...he's human and he's bound to mess it up every now and then. Unfortunately, that's something we're all certain to do.
thanks "interesting"
i think what you are saying is as your name "interesting" I am not critisizing mark for what he believes I know and love many who hold the same beliefs as he does. i do believe the way you communicate is important and context is important and who you are talking to is important. Was mark given the task so speaking to women's role in the church? i don't believe so and I also believe that knowing he is speaking to a group of young and veteran [ex. Bill Hybels] pastors and not to people unaware of what God's Word teaches is also important. There are as many incredible theologians who believe the same as him and just as many who don't. I don't have a problem with this fact. But given his context, his audience, his topic, his deliberate choice of language, and that fact that he wasn't even there to speak to it is an issue to me. If this was a debate about men and women in the church by all means preach it and bring it. You are right that mark is not perfect nor am I by any means, but this is not the first time for him. Again I mean the first time of communicating in ways that are offensive in fact he's apologized for them which I applaud. i know many who love him and attend his church who i respect even people on his staff that i love. again my problem is not mark the man, or even mark and his theology, or political correctness, it is more the issue of mark in this situation and his choice of words and language given the context and audience and his overall role as a believe in Christ to love well.
i love this conversation thanks for your comments!
I appreciate the response, and I'm glad that "Interesting" joined us. I'm not aware of Mark's "theology on women", and I don't take this video clip to be (necessarily) an indicator of his ToW. To me, it sounded more like a challenge to men to step up to the plate. If I'm in an audience and the speaker repeatedly states what he thinks men should be doing, I'm going to have a greater sense that the speaker is prodding me to action. Perhaps, I'll be less likely to sit back and let the other person step up (whew! I almost said, "other guy"!). Of course, I tend to hear something like this in the context of what I am/am not doing myself, and then experience appropriate motivation or (in)appropriate guilt... ;>)
thanks for the follow up greg. and i think you illustrate part of my point. if mark was just speaking to you or a room of men then by all means i would see how it hits you this way. in that case it does sound like a challenging message for men to step up, and even some of his language although i don't think i'd ever use it might make some sense if he's in a room full of men, but he wasn't and not only were there women present, but women who have been pastors for years, and he wasn't asked to speak about women at all - or men specifically for that matter. and as you said the feeling of what you are or are not doing is right on for me too. do we have to speak this way to get people excited about being pastors? thanks again for your great thoughts and dialog greg!
i am speechless which is not a place i often find myself. i started to watch the video and then read your comments and thought there must be an overexaggeration on the use of the word "man" and the words re: marriage, sex, etc. then i saw it for myself and well...like i said...speechless. while i certainly appreciate someone standing up for what they believe, i am stunned to find mark in this place yet again and agree that it is a matter of communication and not political correctness or censorship. he speaks of Jesus being humble but i saw no humility in this address. i am all for men "stepping up the the plate" but as a woman i felt disregarded and have no desire for my husband, son or especially daughter to be "taught" by this man.
thanks for your strong words k. it is good to hear from a female on this. and i imagine there were others in the room - women pastors who felt the same way. speechless or ignored or left out or disregarded
What I liked most about the video was that it was shot in a grave yard. I know; it was meant to symbolize the fallen warriors of church planting but instead was the perfect backdrop for a dying mindset and the increasingly strident hysteria that’s required to keep it alive. Violent warrior metaphors (dude, Driscoll actually has a photo of someone cocking a handgun in front of a tombstone with a cross on his blog – unbelievable – Maybe Mars Hill should send some warriors into the Virginia Tech community to plant churches)? Sneering, sarcastic contempt for society's marginalized "goofballs"? 1st century Pauline view of women? How would Jesus have reacted to heretics and weirdos who came to him? If He told anyone to “park it”, it probably would have been the dogmatic religious mega church leaders of his time (who were cocksure they had all the answers), swinging their ancient dogmas around like a dead cat; it wouldn’t have been the lady showing up at church with a tambourine.
Rich, I disagree that this was an example of "poor communication". On the contrary, Driscoll is a very skilled communicator and did a brilliant job of expressing his point of view...cogently and with precise intention. Read his blog; he’s miffed about his good “guys” flying all the way to Florida and not being able to distribute the DVD, not thoughtfully wondering why so many spirits were checked by his message. No question he wanted to make a point and come across as the manly warrior he would want others (men) to be. Point taken, got it. Thanks anyway, but I’m with Lucy. I have absolutely no desire myself, nor would I want my son or daughter to think this is the face of Christ we who call ourselves Christians should be showing to the rest of the world.
Bill
Thanks for your words Bill. I think you are correct in that his communication was not poor in that he knew exactly what he was saying and thought out the idea of accentuating the word man amoung other choices in his communication. So maybe instead of saying it was poor communication a better way of putting for me would be to say that it was a poor choice in my opinion to communicate in such a way, given the topic, context, and audience. And I agree he's not upset with his choice of words, but with not being able to hand out the videos. But I think this is what bothers me again. He doesn't recognize how his words hit people. But then again maybe he does and this makes me more frustrated. In any case having such an influencial voice as he does and not being responsible is a problem for me. Anyways, thanks again Bill for your words!
What seems apparent is that Driscoll's communications have the effect of people reacting to them. There does appear to be a certain strategy behind them, cynically done or not. Unfortunately, this tends to undercut anything good he may be doing. It just seems self-defeating as well as self-promoting.
Take this video, for instance. It isn't merely the emphasis on men in this context that's jarring, but also the way he mentions women. Not once does he portray women in a flattering light. Even when he talks about serving and loving women here, it is indistinguishable from how the video mentions children. If he was wanting to give a good lasting impression of complementarianism, he certainly didn't achieve that either. Something is definitely missing, that's for sure.
Thanks Jadon,
i agree and appreciate your thoughts. i also enjoyed reading your blog.
Post a Comment