Thursday, May 3

A little NNCC controversy...

Mark Nelson at 10:23 AM 15comments

15 Comments

at 11:59 AM  Anonymous said...

What is most unfortunate is that if he did say something worthwhile, we didn't hear it because of all the inflammatory jargon. It was completely unnecessary. He just didn't show tact. I can understand his 'call to arms' approach, but some of the things he said were just ridiculous. I wasn't even upset as a woman, but more as a Christian on the whole.
Karen, IA PCCH '00-'03

 

at 2:13 PM  truevyne said...

Just watched the video instead of reading links, so I could give my honest first impression. His three main point may have been sound and valid. However, I disagreed with his badgering and berating pastors with children in trouble, his disrespect of 20 year old young men, as if no God fearing one were available on the face of the earth, and the distorted way he presented Jesus from a world view. It's as if he's going for hip instead of truth.

 

at 4:37 PM  Anonymous said...

Mark, I know you'll agree 100% with this statement:

I am so over the whole concept of the Christian celebrity pastor.

I mean, if two pastors here in town had a disagreement this minor (in the grand scheme of it all) they'd probably hit Panera, have some coffee, talk it out, hug, and go home. But if it's DRISCOLL and HYBELS well, well, well... now the bees are buzzing and we all have to talk about it.

We've all become (and I'm just as bad so I'm not pointing a finger here) the gossipy small group from the church we all grew up in. "Did you hear what so and so said to so and so?" I've read about this controversy now on like, 20 blogs and I still don't really get what the big deal is.

I mean, Driscoll has some good things to say if you can get past the smugness, the arrogance, and the womanizing. He also needs to be punched in the face. Hybels tried to call him out on it... he probably shouldn't have in that setting. Still, it's not like they got into a shouting match backstage or anything like that.

Although, that is something I would really like to see. :)

 

at 4:38 PM  Anonymous said...

and did he really say that he has sex with his wife at least once a day???

Really???

Really Mark Driscoll?

Really??????

 

at 8:18 PM  Anonymous said...

Well, maybe we could get more young men to church if we preached on increasing sexual frequency. Mark, you can do that next sunday right. Tel Monica to start looking for more nursery volunteers.

 

at 12:58 PM  Anonymous said...

what's the big deal? driscoll being driscoll. i'm a woman and i didn't hear anything suggesting women don't have gifts. apparently, he thinks we each have a great gift to give (daily)!

i am more surprised to hear that hybels responded. i'm sure it was more of an aside or disclaimer before he started. does anyone have audio of his remarks?

has the willow creek association ever launched a new site with a female lead planter? has stadia? has new thing netwrok? would they? should they? we know for sure that acts 29 network would not, at least you never have ot wonder what driscoll is thinking!!!

 

at 11:07 PM  Anonymous said...

The women's video by tall skinny Kiwi is pretty good. We talk about the women's issue in high school guy's sunday school class some times. One guy said that he thought the issue was not that big of deal, and that he would not split a church over it. I did not say it at the time, but I thought, of course it is not a big deal to you, you haven't been told your whole life that you are not allowed to do certain things in the church. This particular instance was definitely blown way out of proportion and I agree Hybels and Driscoll should get some coffee at Panera to smooth things over.

 

at 4:03 PM  Nicole said...

*Deep Breath*

Men are important, just as women are, and there is an underrepresentation of men in the congregations of the Church as it is in the U.S. However, they sure aren't underrepresented in the leadership. Why aren't 60% of our church leaders women, if that's truly the demographic makeup?

My 20 something husband listened, and he was more offended than I was. He's much deeper than wanting sex once a day and wondering how to "instruct" the women in his life. Of course, we're not complementarians either.

It seems that it all goes back to our core beliefs on gender and leadership. I have made my peace with that, and I have decided that based on exegesis, theology, and my personal relationship with Christ that I will not be a part of a church that does not value me, as a woman, and my gifts and the calling God has placed on my life, so I don't see myself signing up to be a part of anything with Driscoll anytime soon.

I feel his talk cheapened men, cheapened women, and cheapened the radical message of the Gospel. Any talk that we give, as Christians, should incite people to contemplate further Christ and the Gospel. I felt so put off by his views, his devaluing of persons, and oversimplification that I could not hear if there was any of the message of Christ in his talk.

Thank you, Bill Hybels, for speaking up for the 'least of these' in conservative evangelicalism...women. It's really hard to fellowship with Christians who feel that I should not be listened to solely because of my gender.

Those are my scattered thoughts. I think my passion on the topic makes me lose rational thinking.

 

at 1:59 PM  The Anonymous Human said...

well, I probably shouldn't respond to keep myself out of trouble, but, I just can't help myself sometimes.

First of all, I would like to know what context this video was created for. I am assuming (and we all know where that leads) that this was created for a training seminar or boot camp or whatever they call it for the Acts 29 network. So these would be people already familiar with Driscoll's teachings on the core family unit and the different but equal roles the man and woman live out in the gospel. Please, before you leave a comment slamming Marc's view on women, read up a little.

So, context what it is, now, try and argue with what he's saying? He DID NOT SAY he has sex with his wife once a day. He said that's what men in their twenties are interested in. I'm a man in my twenties and if somebody told me a secret to get my wife to have sex with me once a day, you better believe I would listen. Also, he said men should lead the church. Is that wrong? Read the bible. Read the whole bible. God made man first and woman from man. Man is the glory of God and women is the glory of man. (I Corinthians 11) The man is to be the head of the family unit. (Ephesians 5:23) The problem is, in our culture, using these words immediately causes us to think we aren't equal. That because the man is to be the head that he is somehow "better" or "above" the woman. This isn't true. The bible says in the church the man is NOT independant of woman just as the woman is NOT independant of man. We can't have one without the other.

It's the same with God. While Jesus was on this earth he submitted to his father in everything (remember the whole garden thing? Not MY will but YOUR will). Yet he also says "I and my father are ONE." So, is there a heirarchial system to the Godhead? YES. But they all are EQUAL. See, having authority or leadership responsibilities does not make you any better than those you have authority over. This might be a hard concept to grasp, but it's true. So, if you read the bible, in Christ we are equal, but it is the man who is to have the leadership role both in the family and in the church.

That can piss you off all you want, but you aren't mad at me, you're mad at what the bible says. But, what's the big deal anyways? This doesn't mean a woman can't use any of her gifts or have ANY leadership role in the church. It just means the elders and pastors should be men. And women should be a part of a family core where the wife submits to the husband and the husband gives up his life for his family.

I'm not saying Driscoll isn't arrogant. He is. But I do think we needn't argue over what we think and feel should be, but over what the bible says. So, if I've used the bible out of context, I am willing to listen.

 

at 3:27 PM  Anonymous said...

It's been my experience that women more readily accept their roles in the church than do men who are not in leadership. Remember, not ALL men are leaders in the church, but those who display the character and giftedness and who have the opportunity to lead. Some of the most rancorous fights in churches are led by men who are not leaders and who should not be leaders who have difficulty accepting God's will for them and their families.

 

at 11:18 AM  The Anonymous Human said...

I wish there was a way to edit your comments after you post them. You can't, but you can always comment again, so I'll try to dig myself out of the arrogant and angry tone I left yesterday.

I agree with anonymous above. I think that's a problem with the church as a whole, not just men or women. God is the giver of these gifts. So everything we have is from him and should be used to glorify him. Too often we point to leadership as the goal of our christianity. Instead, it should be fully using the gifs he has given us. As Paul points out, there are many gifts, but only one spirit. So lets join hands in that spirit and glorify God with whatever he's given us to use.

Sorry I'm such an ass sometimes. I get worked up only to realize there's nothing to get worked up about.

 

at 10:30 PM  Nicole said...

Anonymous Human, I appreciate you revisiting your words. I took a day or more to respond because your words did sound condescending, and I didn’t want to respond in a way that I wouldn’t if you were sitting next to me.

But, I do think this is something worth being passionate about, dare I say, it’s worth being emotional about. You present one view of interpretation of scripture, one that is not held exclusively by the Church Universal. I think that there is a preponderance of evidence within the Bible in support for women and men both in all types of ministry. I won’t rewrite it, but feel that someone else has already said most of my thinking on the subject here http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2006/09/biblical-support-for-women-in-ministry.html
But this is an important topic, because if we go with your scriptural interpretation (and while scripture may be inerrant, interpretation sure isn’t), that excludes over ½ of the population from potentially ministering in roles where God has called them. Implicit in that is an active suppression of one entire gender from particular roles in the Church…which without absolute unshakeable concrete evidence in scripture, I’m not willing to go out on a limb for. I have to say that personal experience matters here, too. My own personal experience comes to mind, but even more so, I think of the many, many women whom I have met that are currently serving or training to serve in the role of theologian, pastor, teacher, and the like. I know these women to have prayerfully considered their calling within a community of Christian faith, and that community has affirmed the calling of each woman. Also, although I attend a conservative evangelical graduate school, you’d be hard pressed to find a theology faculty member who would agree with you or your interpretation of women’s roles through scripture.
An important question to ask is “If women are forbidden from certain roles, where are men forbidden?” If we’re equal but different in such drastic ways, what are you not qualified for as a man? It’s an important question that must be answered if your interpretation of gender roles within the church is valid.
Also, I’m just not sure how we define pastoring these days. With my dual training in theology and psychology I get the privilege to sit daily with men, women, parents, teens, and children with their suffering, heartache, and difficulties of life. That puts me in a role that is much closer to historical pastoral care than any of our Western notions of the pastor/teacher in most churches today. I give counsel, advice, support, empathy. I directly impact how people act in the world, how they come to view God, how they come to view faith. Am I to be forbidden from that role? Simply teaching every Sunday isn’t shepherding or pasturing, that’s teaching. In the therapy room, I teach and counsel and comfort and confront. Where do we draw these invisible lines? Can women pastor overseas but not here? Can they be missionaries but not in the US? Can they be counselors but never give spiritual counsel? Can they only teach women or men to a certain age? It’s just too rigid to say women can do this but not that because giftings of individuals are different…some women are called to lead, as are some men...and some men are called to work in the nursery…and some men may be called to fill the communion cups…and some women might be called to build houses. The men and women I know are just too complex to be placed in proscribed role based on one disputed interpretation of scripture.
I also challenge you on your dismissal of feelings and/or emotions as unimportant and not to be considered. Emotions need to be expressed, and are just as and no more Fallen than our logic and reasoning. Our intellectual side is just as twisted and obscured ‘through a glass darkly’ as our emotions. Both, however, are central to who we are created to be in the image of God. Just because the Bible says something doesn’t mean that we do not have an emotional reaction to it. The true test of faith is being able to express your full range of emotions toward God…anger, fear, hope, love, joy, sadness, etc., and having faith that God holds you as his beloved in the face of all of that. The scriptures are a passionate story of love, lament, dark nights, suffering, anger, justice, and all emotions. Understanding, expressing, and listening to emotions is a key part of relationship…and God called us most of all to relationship with God and with others. I don’t quite know how to learn to love someone…even God…without exploring my deepest passions and emotions on the matter, and without listening to and validating their experience. I am not saying experience and emotion trumps anything, but that emotions are equally valid as other forms of thinking, being and doing. In fact, I would say a large number of my Christian clients got to my office by chronically not expressing their emotions and by their Christian brothers and sisters not listening to them.
In fact, I might be moved to argue that women should be in leadership because of their typically (but not always) well developed sense of the emotional experiences of others, as a shepherding pastor should be. For leadership is pointless if it steamrolls and seriously injures people along the way by not being sensitive to their needs.
Finally (sorry, I know I’m long winded on this one...apologies, Mark!) we have to consider that just because something like women in ministry turns our paradigm for ministry upside down, we shouldn’t reject it offhand. That’s what the religious establishment did to Jesus, because he didn’t fit their mold or expectations.

 

at 10:00 AM  Rob said...

It's too bad to see all this blow up the way it has. I agree with Mark, this has to make Jesus sick. It seems that people monitor every word that comes out of Driscoll's mouth, just waiting for a chance to attack. I don't always agree with the language Mark uses, but his sermons have changed my life. The Holy Spirit has used him to ignite a passion for the Word of God in my life. He is working his butt off for the kingdom and calling a generation of men to step up and lead, something the church has done a terrible job of doing in the past 20 years (in my opinion).

 

at 2:24 PM  The Anonymous Human said...

Nicole,

Once again, if I could rephrase most of what I said in my first email, I would. Obviously, I don't have a problem expressing my emotions, but that is something that probably gets me into trouble. I imagine if I hadn't started off our relationship with such an arrogant and immature tone, we'd probably be great friends. I agree with you more often then you probably think, I'm sure just the way I worded things is what was sinful. I'm sorry and I hope if I offended you you'll forgive me and appreciate the grace you showed me in giving me a couple days.

I struggle with this for many reasons. Obviously, I hold what the Bible says in a very high regard. I'm more err on the side of dogma then err on the side of grace kind of guy. That gets me into trouble a lot, but it allows me to sleep at night, so I am who I am. Because of this though, I often come accross arrogant and holier than thou. I don't feel I'm that way, but if I make other's feel that I am that way, it's wrong. Working on it.

I will say, I disagree with you and hopefully can say why without offending you (because as hard as I try, I'm still an ass at the core of me) and we can hold hands and praise God through everything.

I read the link you posted and found it very interesting. Once again, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he is translating. But I can live with that. I guess we can only be held accountable to what is entrusted to us.

Some have chosen to call most of I Corinthians 11 a cultural note. I understand that, but disagree. I believe Paul's refences of eternal truths make it more than cultural. He states (and correctly I might add) that men were created first and women came from man. They were created to be a partner for men. He says for this reason the heirarchy in the church was created. Once again, this hierarchy doesn't create inequality. Just think Jesus and God (I Corinthians 11:3).

You asked "Where are men forbidden?" Well, I'm not sure why this is an important question, but I guess my answer would be we are forbidden to be weenies. We are forbidden from letting our families fall apart because we won't step to the plate. We are forbidden to let the wife run the household. We are forbidden to not be the spiritual leader in the family. This may sound like a cop out answer, but I've seen it too many times to know this isn't just as much an important detail as is a female pastor.

As to how we define pastoring, well, I'd have to say I agree with you completely on that one. I'm not sure. Like your reference wrote in his blog, there were obviously very important women in the cultivation of the early church in many leadership roles. Much like Peter with Cornelius, I would have to say who am I to hold back what the Holy Spirit is doing. If the Holy Spirit gives you a word for the church, speak it, less you be held accountable for not. It wouldn't be my goal (just the opposite in fact) from limiting anyone from anything God has called them to do. I will say, just because a community has affirmed or not affirmed something doesn't make it right or wrong. I would guess that's the beauty of the non-denominational church. We each get to decide what is right for us in light of the scriptures.

I think (much like some people with Driscoll) you are attributing to me an attitude towards women (especially women in the scriptures) that I simply don't have. I never wrote that women don't have a role in ministry. Being a married man I know that simply isn't true. I even said in the fifth paragraph that it is the woman's responsibility to use the gifts God has given her. Obviously that would mean ministry.

I guess where I side more with Driscoll is what am I to do with this scripture? What am I to do when it says the Husband is to be the head of the wife? And the woman ought to have authority over her head in the church? This is what the bible says and I don't believe it's cultural only. So the best I can do is work out my faith with fear and trembling in light of what scripture says.

When I said we needn't argue over what we think and feel, I didn't mean our emotions in general. I mean we may want the church to do this or be like this, but we must make sure we are coming back to the authority of scripture. Like I said, I'm always open to my interpretaion being wrong. I've been wrong many times and I'm sure it won't stop here.

So, to everyone I offended, I'm sorry I offended you. I can't help but study the scripture and believe what I believe for that is what I'll be held to an account for. But I will try to be less and less an arrogant little boy.

Try being the operative word there.

 

at 12:26 AM  Nicole said...

AH, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do have some thoughts, but dissertation is sucking them all awaaayyyy.

 

Post a Comment