“I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women.” [4]

Here’s the second conversation that began as a result of Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist. My commentary, once again, will be in {these} brackets. Whatever they’re called. I used to know, I believe, but I’ve forgotten. The other party will be referred to as Two.

Two: Can I ask why you made this group?

Me: I made it to counterbalance all the other Driscoll groups available; at the time I made this, the others were all extremely supportive of Driscoll and his teachings. I don’t have it out for Driscoll himself, but I do want to call attention to some of his more questional/unbiblical/offensive views and teachings.

Two: I simply want to know what of his unquestionable/unbiblical/offensive views and teachings are. I respect your opinions and would just like to know what they are. {I didn’t think it was that hard to deduce. ;P }

Me: I would direct you back to the group description. Yes, these are “isolated” quotes, but as you can see, a lot of them closely resemble each other. It’s a recurring theme, and I feel it accurately sums up his theology on women. He preaches that women and men are not and shouldn’t be treated as equals; that men are inherently strong and women are inherently weak; that men who aren’t into beating people up for fun aren’t “real” men, they’re sissies, which is akin to saying they’re stupid and laughable because they’re “like women,” or as he likes to say, “chick-ified.” He frequently reduces women to sexual objects and has compared the women’s rights movement to voting for cute baby bunnies to lead the church. All of which is extremely offensive to me, and I don’t believe it accurately portrays Scripture, either.

Two: Ok. I have read these quotes on the group page. Many of these quotes I would like to see them within their context. Also, I also am wondering {side note: I’m leaving this exactly as written, so that double-also isn’t my fault} if you actually heard them in a lecture/sermon, read them, or if you possibly read them out of context. I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women. He does not think that men and women should not be treated as equals, but I think he is simply saying that the roles of the man and woman are entirely different. {He says both.} Because their roles are so different you cannot treat women as though they are men, just as you cannot and should not treat men as though they are women. {So how, exactly, should one treat a man vs. a woman? I would like specifics. Even if their roles were different, and I don’t believe they are, I fail to see how different treatment of the sexes would be justified because of this.} They have different roles, but are simultaneously equals. That is what Mark Driscoll actually tries to express every time he preaches. {Every time he preaches he reinforces ridiculous gender roles? I have no doubt of that whatsoever.} This separation of roles between genders but equality at the same time. {…What?} I hope you understand what I am saying and I apologize if I am being confusing. {I think he just won the game How Condescending Can I Get?} Also, you mentioned that you don’t believe he accurately portrays Scripture in what I think you would call his anti-feminine ideals. {Personally I would just call them anti-woman. “Feminine” is getting into that whole gender-role thing that I don’t buy into, remember? Haha, oh yeah!} I am wondering what YOUR theology of 1 Peter 3 is where Peter talks about women as the weaker vessel in verse 7 if Driscoll’s is wrong. I do not mean to come off disrespectful in any way, but I am simply attempting to understand where you are coming from. Where you said to me that men who aren’t into beating people up for fun aren’t “real” men, they’re sissies, which is akin to..I would like to point out that none of those quotes seem to be quotes by him {Yes. He actually has called less macho men “sissies,” “girls,” “limp-wristed,” “chick-ified,” and more} and when you say, “which is akin to..” you are applying your own ideas to someone else’s words to prove them wrong. This is a philosophical and interpretive fallacy. {It would be, if I were putting words in his mouth, but I’m not. It’s his own words that damn him.} You cannot prove your point to me by saying it is “akin to this” or “akin to that”…to me that is simply your input, not what he has said. Also, I would like to know where Driscoll would say you aren’t a real man unless you beat people up. That seems to be his past life before he was a converted Christian and he continuously says how he was living in a life of sin and violation against Jesus. {At this point, I like to recall this pleasant little image: “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.’”} When you say that he reduces women down to sexual objects, I would like to object to this claim. If you have heard his peasant princess teaching series along with his marriage and men series you would understand that he is simply and utterly disgusted with men that mistreat their wives as sexual objects, views them in unnatural ways, or anything else that is totally degrading to women. {And yet, he blames the wives of men who cheat. And yet, he equates “getting a wife” with “getting a job” or “buying a house”…just acquiring another possession. And yet, he seems to feel the main purpose of “getting a wife” at all is so you can “ask her to get naked” instead of watching pornography. Want me to go on?} He would never say that man and woman are not for each other’s pleasure but again, he would view them as equals with separate roles. He would never reduce them down to sexual objects. He also holds women as the most precious, important, most valuable things in God’s creation, and turning them into sexual objects is contrary to what he teaches. {What planet exactly are you from, my friend?}
Thanks.
Two.

Me: I’ve heard several of his sermons, read his blog, etc. It’s not possible for me to provide a transcript of everything he says, but yes, taken in context, I believe these quotes are still an accurate representation of Driscoll’s teachings. For instance, he teaches that a woman’s place is at home; that is very much advocating different treatment of men and women. If you have separate ways of treating men and women, then by definition you aren’t treating them as equals. I suppose where we differ, for starters, is our understandings of gender roles in the first place. I believe men and women are equal in role as well as in personhood.
My theology of 1 Peter 3, if you would like to call it that, is closer to the way The Message by Eugene Peterson puts it: “As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of God’s grace, you’re equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers don’t run aground.” It has to do more with the disenfranchisement of women, and in no way does Peter signify that that is a good thing or even okay; he sets a clear new standard of equality that was unheard of at the time. If Christ was the second Adam, obliterating the curse, there went all the so-called justification of male domination.
When I used the phrase “akin to” I in no way meant to put words in Driscoll’s mouth, but I don’t think it’s unfair to compare his words to each other and connect the dots. He does claim that men who like yoga or tea, for example, are “sissies” or “chick-ified,” which is in fact a derogatory way of insulting men he sees as being too “feminine” to be real men, and by extension, that’s very demeaning and insulting to women as well.
If you want examples of Driscoll’s opinion that violence and macho-ness make people (but only men) worthy of leadership, here’s his description of how his first church met his criteria: “Firstly, the pastor was a man who had been in the military and knew how to kill people in self-defence. Second, he taught through the Bible verse by verse so that I could learn to trust the Scripture and to love Jesus without feeling like we had a thinly-veiled homosexual relationship.” His description of how his second church met his criteria: “First, the pastore (who looked like Mr. T) had been an NFL linebacker and knew how to kill people in self-defence. Second, he taught through the Bible verse by verse in a real way, one that enabled me to have a relationship with Jesus that did not feel like he was my lifelong prom date.”  He has commented multiple times on how the problem with church today is how “feminine” it is. He attaches a gender to everything, no matter how ridiculous, and if he feels someone or something doesn’t measure up to the appropriate level of manliness, they’re not man enough to pastor. {I canNOT believe I forgot to cite this direct quote: “I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”} It seems like the worst insult he can find for a man is the word “effeminate” or one similar, and he employs them often, whenever he wants to quickly dismiss someone. That says a lot about not only his view on men who differ from himself, but also his view on women and whatever he thinks it means to be a woman.
I’ve not heard that series, but I have heard his series on Ruth, in which he did reduce Ruth to a sexual object for Boaz’s pleasure. I also take issue with his apparent need for women to be weak (think: damsel in distress. in need of protection). Perhaps he thinks a woman’s weakness magnifies a man’s strength? I don’t know. I’m not Driscoll and I’m not trying to speak for him, but his views, even clarified as much as possible, hold no appeal for me.
Oh, and I certainly understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. I basically grew up in it. ;]

If/when I receive more messages, I’ll post ‘em up too, haha.

[EDIT::As I told this fellow, I haven't heard the Peasant Princess series, but I have now read a bit about it, and it sure sounds like it proves his point that Driscoll supports equality! Just kidding! Here's a summary of the summary I read, which also includes commentary on his Spiritual Warfare series, oh joy: Women are dangerous and prone to gossip. Men never have a problem with gossip. The only problem men usually have is when they're not getting laid often enough. Which is the women's fault. Friendships between women are dangerous. (He even uses the word "Satanic.") Men must protect their women from friendship with other women, which, as we all know, is just a front for female manipulation. "Women's ministries" are permitted, but only just. "You have to be very careful," he says. "It's like juggling knives." Women who want to be in leadership and/or lead women's groups are "the wrong kind of women." They are "gossip mamas and drama queens." Of course, as we all know, the only women fit to lead anyone are the sweet, submissive, quiet women--in other words, the ones who've been brainwashed into believing women can't lead. So the ones who want to lead aren't fit, and the ones who are fit won't lead. See? The easiest way in the entire world to completely disenfranchise women, blocking every single one of us from leadership!]

Part 1: Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, or How to Start Theological Debates With People You Don’t Even Know.

Part 2: The fastest way to attract male attention is to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group.

Part 3: Criticizing Mark Driscoll’s views on women draws its own criticism.

Criticizing Mark Driscoll’s views on women draws its own criticism. [3]

Observe the following remark left by a naysayer in Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist:

“Are you alone with your fanclub here does your club meet in the local payphone booth?” -Paul Lindsay

I’m not even going to go into critical analysis of the interesting grammar Paul favors. Whatever.

Part 1: Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, or How to Start Theological Debates With People You Don’t Even Know.

Part 2: The fastest way to attract male attention is to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group.

Part 4: “I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women.”

The fastest way to attract male attention is to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group. [2]

Of course, if you care enough to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group in the first place, the males you’ll attract are the males you wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. Ironic, isn’t it? It’s a good thing that I’m not in the market for a fellow (in other words, I like being single) because this is not the way to attract a male who’s actually compatible with you. Observe:

So I started a Facebook group entitled “Mark Driscoll is a misogynist.” All it is is a list of offensive statements Driscoll has made, the vast majority of them being demeaning, dehumanizing, or otherwise anti-woman. Immediately I started getting messages questioning my purpose in creating this group, my own theological views, all that fun stuff. I’ve even received one juvenile piece of “hate” mail! Haha, so popular. Interestingly, everyone who’s contacted me with their concerns thus far has been male. Of course! Anyway, here, in its entirety, is my conversation with contacter number one, which began the day after I published my group. Complete with all the commentary I wanted to make but didn’t, in {these} brackets.

One: Just saw this group you created and had to look up misogynist to be honest. Are you sure he is? Did you ask him? That’s a pretty tough judgment to make of someone. Just saying, you may wanna’ ask him if you really want to get somewhere meaningful with this suspicion you’re having. {A, you’re a man, which means you’re automatically on the top of the sexist food chain. B, even more importantly, you don’t know what the word misogynist means without a dictionary. So what makes you think you’re a qualified judge of sexism?! “Misogynist” is a label few people are willing to own up to. Like “racist.” Many people are, few are willing to admit it. And “wanna” doesn’t have an apostrophe.}

Me: …Did you read the quotes? At all? They’re taken directly from Mark Driscoll’s mouth.

One: Yeah, I did read them. I’ve heard him say stuff like that, but then clarify, and usually after clarification, I can better understand what he means. The danger with all quotes is that they are small soundbites that can always be taken out of context, and for the ones that aren’t, such as the one about men being elders, I’m sorry to tell you, but that’s exactly the way the Bible puts it. I don’t believe that he dislikes women at all. In fact, his congregation is filled with women as well as men.
I’m assuming you’re Christian, or else you wouldn’t feel so passionately about this in the first place. So, here’s the point, and I really mean this respectfully and with love: like the Bible says, if someone has offended you, you are supposed to take it directly to that person, not put them on trial before the rest of the world. God is in control, so ultimately if you trust God and follow God’s Word, then everything will work out much better for the entire Body of Christ. Is that fair?
If so, I urge you please, ask Mark Driscoll himself, or even his wife, as I’m sure that she would be able to address his comments from a woman’s point of view. I only say that because if she’s not offended, maybe she can explain why for you. {1. So if someone uses “feminine” language to insult someone, and then turns around and “clarifies”, his sexist speech suddenly isn’t sexist anymore? 2. Put back in context, his statements are absolutely no better. I feel that they’re a pretty accurate representation of his feelings about women. 3. Oh yeah? The “men-only” elders thing? Watch him contradict himself in a couple minutes.. 4. He clearly laments the ratio of women to men in the church. Why should I assume he feels any differently toward the women in his own church than toward the women in the global Church?}

Me: I doubt this is something we’re going to agree on; I disagree that his clarification somehow makes his feelings toward women less offensive, and I also disagree that “that’s exactly the way the Bible puts it” in reference to forbidding female leadership. There are numerous examples of female church leaders both in the Bible itself and in early church history; there is evidence that women long ago have held roles such as elder, deacon, priest, apostle, and bishop.
I am a Christ-follower; I am more interested in learning about and following Jesus than I am in adhering to a religion I feel has been twisted almost beyond recognition. Mark Driscoll has not personally offended me–he has never called me on the phone or anything and verbally attacked me; but I do feel it is important to assert that not everyone in the Church speaks the truth, and no one should be followed blindly. It is not my intention to put Driscoll or anyone else on trial. I recognize that unfortunately misogyny is often deeply-seated in the Church. I am only interested in asserting that I vehemently disagree with these concepts and that it is, in fact, okay to disagree with corruption within the Church. I disagree that the best way to deal with sin or corruption is to passively leave it alone. I do trust God, and I am following Christ’s teachings, I believe, to the best of my current ability. Neither of which is a good reason to turn a blind eye to what I believe is both corrupt and morally wrong.
I am neither complementarian, as the Driscolls claim to be, or patriarchal, as they appear to actually be; I am, instead, egalitarian. I have heard explanations from both Driscolls and remain unimpressed. This isn’t a case of my blocking out something I don’t want to hear, it’s genuine theological disagreement, and that’s not going to change.

One: I agree that we probably won’t agree. I understand that there was even an all female church in Acts. I’m not here to argue that. {Where’d the “no females in leadership” argument go? Hmm.} To be honest, as a male, the point you’re making is incredibly more personal to you than it is to me. {I hadn’t noticed!} I’m merely saying this: you, me, and Mark Driscoll are all 3 trying to follow Christ, so let’s look at Christ’s example for our answer:
Jesus valued women dearly, as he did all people. Jesus despised the Pharisees for their hypocricy [sic]. But Jesus did something as an example to us and even instructed that we do the same, which I’ll explain in a moment. {It’s like he’s playing a game, How Condescending Can I Get?} But first, let me say this. as followers of Christ, we can’t feel compelled to defend one portion of the Bible and ignore the other simply because we don’t want to “change.” {Who said I was? Nobody.} We must follow His word or else we are not following Him. So this is what He taught us.
When he had a problem with the Pharisees, he spoke directly to them. And He later told us to do the same with each other. So listen, I agree that women and men each have a vital part to play in the Church, God’s already spoken on that. But I don’t think that the people who see another Christian bashing a fellow Christian is going to lead anyone to Christ, and I pray that between you and God, you will see the same. So please, if you have a problem with Mark Driscoll, either email him about it, or just leave it alone and don’t listen to what he has to say. Christianity doesn’t need any more confusion. We’re still trying to get back on our feet from the last century…or since the Middle Ages for that matter. {There’s so much wrong with this paragraph, I don’t even know where to begin. It makes my brain hurt.}
In the end, neither one of us is right. {Haha.} It’s not about that. It’s about God, I leave you with that. Pray for me as I pray for you, that whoever among us isn’t on God’s page will be.

Me: I appreciate your concern. I have emailed Driscoll, as have others, with no response. This is not a “private” offense–he has never personally told me to stay in the kitchen–but it’s a very public one. It affects all the families in his church, and many others besides. I believe the passage you mention is referring to when someone wrongs you or does something to hurt you…NOT the same as corruption and false teaching within the Church. It is not my intention to “bash” Driscoll or anyone else (I’m aware that a large number of Christians share Driscoll’s views on gender)–I only wish to call attention to some of his more damaging teachings.
We’re not going to lead anyone to Christ by being secretive and in denial about the problems in the Church, either. There’s enough of that going on already, and it doesn’t work. People are tired of organizations they feel, often rightly, are more concerned with their image than their integrity. If we want people to take us seriously, we should be active in our honesty and quick to address internal problems.

One: You’re right about addressing internal problems. But Christ said to handle them internally. That’s all. {No, it isn’t all.}

Me: I disagree. Yes, Jesus confronted the Pharisees. He also spoke directly to the people about them to warn them away from the teachings of the Pharisees and to teach them a better way.
I’m curious: If we were discussing, say, child molestation by Catholic priests, something which has garnered much media attention recently, would you be so enthusiastic to prescribe shoving it under the rug and dealing with it quietly? Or in that case would you be supportive of an attempt, for the Church, by the Church, to be honest and openly condemn the practice?

One: There is something apparently {haha, you mean inherently} wrong with child molestation, not a theological disagreement. That’s a big difference. So, I think you and I both know the answer to that question, which is probably why you asked it. And that’s just how debate works. Which we’re doing. {Huh?} So, with this last statement, I’ll leave this between you and God from now on: Jesus never taught bandwagon theology. {…Who brought that up? Nobody.} He’s a God of decency and order.

Me: There is something inherently wrong with the systematic oppression and suppression of women, as well. This is not merely a “theological disagreement,” it’s actual wrong and right. I do disagree with him theologically, but to reduce this to only a theological disagreement is to minimize its importance down to a mere matter of opinion.
With THIS last statement, I thank you, once again, for your concern and for acting on your principals, but I am sticking to mine. Since Jesus did warn the people away from the Pharisees, and since he did pitch a royal fit when he found corrupt businessmen in the temple, among other instances, I am of the opinion that Jesus is in favor of rooting out corruption where possible, and when impossible, of exposing it clearly so others don’t stumble into it accidentally–but no matter what, of being honest. It’s not a matter of anyone’s bandwagon; it’s not about seeing how indecent or disorderly I can be and how much of a ruckus I can cause. And even God has been limited by our too-small ideas of gender; the original words used in reference to the Holy Spirit, for example, are all feminine, as are many of the word pictures used to describe God.

One: What we’re talking about is a matter of opinion {no, it isn’t.}, which isn’t women’s rights in the Church because I already agree that women shouldn’t be oppressed. {But you don’t know oppression when you see it, conveniently.} We’re talking about how to handle things within the guidelines God has provided for us, right? And Jesus said to keep the wheat with the tares, because in the end He’ll handle them Himself.

Me: But somehow the way we handle child molestation is totally different than the way we should handle oppression of women? That’s where the two trains of thought tie together. You think they don’t warrant the same response, I think they do.
Hey, I’m not weeding anybody out. I am not forcing anyone to join my Facebook group or to agree with me; I am not proposing we “do something” to Driscoll. I just want to expose a dangerous undercurrent I feel is in Driscoll’s teachings, not by attacking him, but by using his own words as a reference point, and I don’t think that’s inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.

Haha, he never replied.. To be continued.

Part 1: Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, or How to Start Theological Debates With People You Don’t Even Know.

Part 3: Criticizing Mark Driscoll’s views on women draws its own criticism.

Part 4: “I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women.”

Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, or How to Start Theological Debates With People You Don’t Even Know. [1]

I’ve never been much of a Mark Driscoll fan; at first I regarded him with considerable interest, since I’d heard him referred to in my conservative ex-church as “the Cussing Pastor.” My curiosity basically ended the first time I heard a Driscoll sermon. It was a small series on the book of Ruth; I remember being offended [and this is before I officially came out as a feminist, which is no small thing to do, when you're raised in this tradition] at something he said about Ruth herself. I’d have to watch the video again to pull an exact quote, but here’s the general idea: Ruth found the way to Boaz’s heart by dressing sexy for him, supplying him with beer, and making herself sexually available to him. And it was all God’s idea! Yay, God! This puts the ‘fun’ back in ‘fundamentalism,’ doesn’t it?

So after my first brush with Driscoll, which was several years ago, I kept kind of collecting information; earlier this week, I finally did something with it. I started a Facebook group titled Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, it’s kind of a nice contrast to all the I-want-to-marry-Mark-Driscoll type groups, and at the time of its creation, it was the only contrast. I will now display, in all their glory, a ridiculous array of statements Driscoll has actually made. I think they speak pretty loudly for themselves.

“We are not liberals. We are not egalitarian.”

“All of this has led this blogger to speculate that if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men. When asked for their perspective, some bunny rabbits simply said that they have been discriminated against long enough and that people need to ‘Get over it.’”

“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.”

“I’ve gotta think these guys [David, Paul, John the Baptist] were dudes. Heterosexual, win a fight, punch you in the nose dudes. And the problem in the church today is it’s just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chick-ified church boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks. And the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks. I mean, it’s just sad. When you walk in, it’s sea foam green and fuschia and lemon yellow. The whole architecture is feminine and the preacher is kind of feminine and the music is kind of emotional and feminine and we’re looking around going, ‘How come we’re not innovative?’ It’s because all the innovative dudes are at home watching football.”

“Jesus and Paul were serious dudes. They had teeth missing. Jesus was a carpenter, Paul was in prison. These guys didn’t eat tofu dogs and bean sprouts. They didn’t play tennis. If there were trucks back in their times, they would have been doing driveway lube jobs on a Saturday afternoon. Same thing with King David. Yeah, he might have played a lyre, but he slaughtered thousands of guys.”

“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.”

“People think of Jesus as a marginalized Galilean peasant hippie in a dress, rockin’ out to the Spice Girls, driving around in the Middle East in a Cabriolet, hoping to meet nice people to do aroma therapy with while drinking herbal tea.”

“All of our righteous deeds are like a BLOODY TAMPON!!”

“You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up, man. I don’t have time to be your accountability partner, so you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself. A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. All right?”

“We also began a ‘boot camp’ for our young men, teaching them how to get a wife, have sex with that wife, get a job, budget money, buy a house, father a child, study the Bible, stop looking at porn, and brew decent beer.”

“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.”

“Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. 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.”

“If your wife is working, you are a selfish bastard. How dare you make her shoulder her half of the curse and part of yours as well?”

“No woman wants a man to treat her like another man because if we do, you cry. Men are horrible to other men. And they don’t cry. And if they do we mock them and tell everyone. That’s probably not what you want.”

“Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up, it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.”

“There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in his hair, who drank decaf and made pithy zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”

A particularly excellent analysis of this quote, by a blogger named Halden: “What is ultimately so revealing about this whole statement is not so much that it shows clearly that Mark Driscoll is insanely insecure about his own male identity–though it certainly shows that with sublime clarity. What is revealing about this quote is how it shows the bombastically western notion of masculinity that defines large swaths of evangelicalism. For Driscoll, anything less than the assertion that God himself is a gun-slinging son of a bitch makes one into a wuss who deserves nothing more than ridicule. Driscoll lives in a world of binary oppositions. You either have to be a cage fighter ready to beat the shit out of anyone who so much as glances at your girlfriend, or you are a pot-smoking hipster pinko who does nothing but surf the net on a Mac all day and drink organic microbrews.”

And the official position held by his church, Mars Hill: “We do not believe in feminism because we believe that men should responsibly lead homes and churches with sacrificial love like Jesus Christ.”

Other insanely big-headed, small-minded statements by Driscoll put his general mindset on display.

“You have been told that God is a loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good sky fairy who runs a day care in the sky and has a bucket of suckers for everyone because we’re all good people. That is a lie…God looks down and says, ‘I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you.’”

“God hates you…God can’t even look at us because he is so disgusted…”

“Jesus is a God who hates.”

“A pacifist has a lot of difficulty reconciling pacifism with scripture.”

“I also love to make fun of vegans, but vegans take it very seriously!”

“After church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity…go to a country where there hasn’t been the spread of Christianity and they’re having human for dinner.”

“As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote.”

Um, wow.

Where are the theological debates, you ask? Never fear. To be continued…

Part 2: The fastest way to attract male attention is to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group.

Part 3: Criticizing Mark Driscoll’s views on women draws its own criticism.

Part 4: “I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women.”