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.”


Tags: , , ,

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

  1. Mark Driscoll is a Misogynist, or How to Start Theological Debates With People You Don’t Even Know. « Adventures of an Introverted Loudmouth Says:

    […] Loudmouth living in a sucky economy. « Social commentary, Hawthorne style. The fastest way to attract male attention is to make an anti-misogynist Facebook group. […]

  2. Criticizing Mark Driscoll’s views on women draws its own criticism. « Adventures of an Introverted Loudmouth Says:

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

  3. “I think you have possibly misunderstood his theology on women.” [4] « Adventures of an Introverted Loudmouth Says:

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: