The past month I have been introduced to the “new Christian leader” of America. His name is Mark Driscoll. Mark has a wonderful church in Seattle (the SEA town) called: Mars Hill. Apparently his church was the 1sts Mars Hill, but whatever.
I deeply resonate with Mark. We both come from a very similar background and personality make up. Mark and I share a commonality of: as a teenager we really were not that well churched, football player, fraternity partier, public high school, state college, communication degree, intense, passionate, driven, sarcastic, and very charismatic. When you translate our background make up into ministry you get a very on fire, in your face, and passionate pastor. We live with the ideology of: We are going big or we are going home. Everything I do I am going to hit a home run and I am going to knock it out of the park.
Currently, Mark and Mars Hill is having some huge success. Mars Hill is rapidly growing in the biggest pagan/non church city in the US and it is reaching the mid 20 something men because Mark is challenging them in a way that greatly appeals to the ethos of the “masculine”. Mark just recently spoke at Southeastern Theological Seminary. (check out the link here) His message was intense and very controversial. As I am listening to Mark I am laughing with and at Mark because of the outrageous things this man is saying. Here is why I was laughing with and at Mark:
1. Mark is a Complementarian. Yes Mark firmly and boldly holds to the male headship model. Basically, if the man’s say it, the woman does it. It is either the man’s way or the highway. The complementarianism is very patriarchal. Woman are robots doing what they are only capable of doing based off of the stereotypical gender roles, namely folding bulletins, women’s ministry, cooking, cleaning, and hosting the potluck. I can understand why Driscoll is a complementarianism do to his background and typical male ego. Driscoll is your poster boy pastor who is tough spiritually, emotionally, and physically who has a loud voice on women roles both in marriage and in the church. Driscoll is so sold on this complementarianism idea that during the Ted Haggard scandal he stated (quote on quote):
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. 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.
2 2. Mark uses effective, but manipulative rhetoric of comedy and certainty to convince his audience of his content. Mark is a great communicator. Mark has studied communication theory and knows how to greatly win an audience over. Unfortunately when you are a great communicator you can communicate any type of content and people will believe it and buy it. For example, Mark makes a lot of slams and jokes on theologians and other theologies. Through his comedian routine he slowly inserts his ideology. This tactic make the theologian and theologies look like idiots and makes him look I intelligent. It is the basic rhetoric tactic of: putting down others, so you can put yourself up. I loved how he is making fun of emergent leaders just wanting to speak and write, and 10 minutes later he throws an ad for his new book that is coming out. Mark comes off very certain, which presents this persona of superiority. Mark is a great comedian and communicator, so he has access to easily win people over so he can convince them of his “radical reformer theology.” It is not what Mark is saying, but it is how he is saying it. Again, Mark is to certain of himself and his thoughts. It goes back to his ego and pride.
3. Mark directly calls out Bell, McLaren, and Pagitt. Not only does he do this through comedy but he does it with an extreme certainty that these “emergent” men are heretics. Seriously if you are directly targeting leaders that is immature, and very meat headish. (a meat head is what you call guys who want to fight all the time)
The funny thing I really resonate with the rhetoric, tactics, and persona Mark demonstrates. Mark is essentially importing his football mentality/masculinity into his spirituality. When I listen to him I feel like I am in the football locker room hearing the “dos and do nots ” of Christianity. Mark is like a radical reformer pastor on steroids. This man brings the heat like he is on the football field. I appreciate the passion, directness, communication tactics, and barbaric nature of Mark to communicate the Word. But the problem is Driscoll’s ego is cashing checks his body cannot cash.
Driscoll is a leader who is elevated because of his ego. As we all know, especially me, when an ego is involved with a man it can be very dangerous. However, Driscoll’s ego does not like the egalitarian position. Driscoll commented that, generally men who go to church are “spiritual wusses” or pushovers who cannot own up to actually leading not only the church, but a woman. Driscoll is calling out the weak-emotional unstable- pretty boy males in the church to finally become a man and step up and to begin to initiate leadership both in the home and in the church.
Here is the deal Mark may have big muscle, but this does not mean he can “man” handle other “emergent” Christian leaders. Driscoll we get it—you are tough. You are the bully.
I hope Pagitt, McLaren, and Bell respond in a way of love. It is like we are all back in JR high out on the playground during recess and Driscoll, who is the big bully, is making fun of all the skinny kids, namely Bell and Pagitt. Someone needs to stand up against not only Driscoll’s theology but his superiority and certainty. I will admit Driscoll is effectively and directly speaking to the male generation the church has missed for a long time. But Driscoll is importing his masculinity into spirituality. Driscoll is a meat head; always looking for physical or spiritual fight and that is not right especially in the Kingdom. Driscoll likes power and his ego. He likes to call the shots. Driscoll will be remembered for his hostility and not humility.
Keep fighting the good fight. I know a meat head when I see one, because I was one. (and maybe still one)
In His STRONG Grip,
Jeremy


25 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 6, 2007 at 1:27 am
St. Brianstine
“Seriously if you are directly targeting leaders that is immature, and very meat headish.”
So I guess Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, etc., etc., etc, were all meatheads?
Whatever.
October 6, 2007 at 4:00 am
Wonders for Oyarsa
This is rather slanderous. Please learn how to disagree with a theological position without maligning their character. Their character may be flawed, but you are not in a position to assess this fairly.
October 6, 2007 at 4:16 am
Seth
I agree with “wonders…”
Ad hominem is never the way to go. It shows that you have left reason and entered emotion. Especially seeing that you graduated from a legitimate seminary, please, clean it up.
I don’t like everything Mr. Driscoll says either, yet I have respect for the man and what he is doing for the kingdom. I have met and spoke with him on many occassions. His respect for women is incredible. He has little girls himself. He respects his wife completely.
You incredibly misrepresent the complementarian position as well. It should be seen as a “right hand/left hand” position, not one of inferiority. Each gender is equal yet they have separate roles as laid out in scripture.
Keep learning, keep growing. Much
grace.
Seth
October 6, 2007 at 5:21 am
St. Brianstine
Jer-Dog,
We’d probably be good friends I imagine. We should sit down over some dark beer sometime. I think you’d like Driscoll’s book, “The Radical Reformission.”
October 6, 2007 at 5:23 am
jeremy zach
St Brianstine or st boring
loosen up.
Driscoll basically has a nice prep rally revolting against these leaders.
I would love for Driscoll to actually confront these individuals face to face. I loved what Luther did and actually nailed his theses to the door. Brilliant.
If Driscoll wants to bully, he needs to do it right not in a safe comfortable chapel in Southeastern Seminary.
October 6, 2007 at 5:27 am
jeremy zach
wonders for oyarsa
I did not want to go into the theology of Driscoll.
But I really wanted to focus on the rhetoric of Driscoll.
I am entitled to assess his character because of the content he has written and spoke about. If one presents ideas publicly, I have every right to asses.
That is what is soo beautiful about the internet. I have access to everything and anything Driscoll has said. I still cannot get over the fact he blamed Haggard’s wife for Haggard’s sexual immorality. In way that is immoral.
Wonders keep wondering……..
October 6, 2007 at 5:32 am
jeremy zach
Listen Seth,
I did not disrespect Driscoll. I simply presented what he stated about Haggard and what he stated during his “bullying” at southeastern.
In the complementarian view, the man holds headship. Driscoll is very clear on that. I believe Driscoll evaluates the man a little too high.
If you can bring any more clarity to this complemntarian view I would love the insight.
October 6, 2007 at 5:35 am
jeremy zach
Also Seth, I am still in the process of “cleaning up” Driscoll’s theology point by point. Essentially I only agree with him on the gifts.
I have respect for Driscoll for what he is doing. But, in addition, I am very aware of how he is wooing over his followers. Again, over and over again it is all about persona and presentation. Driscoll is hilarious. He has the ability to navigate himself in and out theological topics making himself really good and funny. Again, it is not so much about what is being said, but how it is said.
October 6, 2007 at 5:37 am
jeremy zach
St. Beer
I would love that exchange. I will have to admit. I slightly like Driscoll, but he comes off really prideful.
October 6, 2007 at 5:40 am
jeremy zach
Seth you a presby?
Also I like the title of your blog. I think we do not need anymore believers, but followers. I like it.
Would you consider yourself a reformer?
I would love if we could dialogue some more especially about election and atonement.
ps how did you find me? And what is your PHD in?
October 6, 2007 at 6:00 am
jeremy zach
Also let me remind in rhetoric, Aristotle argued that there are three types of appeals in an argument:
logos (logic)
ethos (moral competence)
pathos (emotion)
I am sorry it is very hard to completely detach from logic without letting emotion bleed into an argument. Therefore I am justified in bringing in emotion
October 6, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Wonders for Oyarsa
That is what is soo beautiful about the internet. I have access to everything and anything Driscoll has said. I still cannot get over the fact he blamed Haggard’s wife for Haggard’s sexual immorality. In way that is immoral.
Indeed, this “beauty” of the internet is one reason I use a pseudonym. I don’t want anyone with a google search to have instant access to every idiot thing I’ve ever said if they want to do a character assassination.
The fact is that Driscoll holds a doctrinal position you disagree with – and as such this seems to color everything else you see in him. I have no dog in this fight, but I know an ad hominem when I see it.
October 6, 2007 at 4:04 pm
jeremy zach
ad hominem is exactly what I am doing. Driscoll has said some pretty ridiculous things about women. He also comes off extremely bold and confident.
This is a simple critique of how he handles himself. Like I said before I am still critiquing his theological position without the character. I had to get the critique of his character out first so it would not blend with my theological disagreement.
Lastly, I want to challenge you, wonders for oyarsa, with this. You have to understand one simple principle: Within the first 15 seconds of hearing/meeting someone you will already have made a judgment if you like or dislike this person. At times he or she does not even need to speak. That is why I am an huge advocate for : It is not about WHAT you are saying, it is HOW you are saying.
I would argue that the HOW you are saying it has more of an impact and influence in what you are communicating.
Let me be clear. I respect Driscoll. I think he is a cool dude, however when I saw/listen to him I felt like I was in a football locker room.
October 6, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Seth
Presby…..guilty! However I must be clear that I am not part of the PCUSA crowd, and neither am I a fan of infant baptism.
I do consider myself a “reformed” believer as far as separated from the Catholic Church and I do hold a “Reformed” (Calvinistic as some say) view of God and soteriology.
My PhD is (will be) in Religion and Society. I found you through a crazy series of searches on Mark Driscoll. I am doing research on gender and culture and have been picking his brain for a few weeks now.
And yes, in the comp. view, man does hold the headship as illustrated in scripture, over and over. Men and women are equal, with separate and distinct roles. Just like I said earlier, we have two hands, both with different purposes. One hand is dominant (generally) yet this doesn’t make the other hand of any less value. In addition, I have yet to hear Mr. Driscoll say anything demeaning on women, noting that he also wrote a blog about the Haggard scandal making clear that he wasn’t blaming Haggard’s wife for what happened.
Seth.
P.S. If you want to “clean up” Driscoll’s theology, you’ll be “cleaning up” mine as well. I’ll stop by from time to time. I am very busy and very new to the blogosphere…
October 6, 2007 at 4:47 pm
jeremy zach
Seth,
Thanks for the reply back.
What is the link where Driscoll clarified the issue on Haggard’s wife?
My problem with Driscoll is that the way he communicates it is very condescending. After I read his blog about how women need to keep their body in shape to please her husband; I became unglued.
How did you score an interaction with Driscoll? I would love to sit down and pick his brain. Does he respond to email? or his blog?
Welcome to blogworld. I am pretty new myself that is why I am coming my gun’s blazing. : )
October 6, 2007 at 8:07 pm
St. Brianstine
I was going to link to it anyways:
http://theresurgence.com/mark_driscoll_2006-12-01_count_it_all_joy
October 6, 2007 at 8:33 pm
jeremy zach
That link did not work. I do not believe you can the completed address. Try it again……..please……..with a cherry on top : )
October 7, 2007 at 12:42 am
St. Brianstine
Driscoll Link
October 7, 2007 at 12:46 am
jeremy zach
Man there sure were a lot of individuals who are frustrated with Driscoll. This guy better go in hiding.
October 8, 2007 at 1:47 am
MLM
jeremy,
maybe i’m too old but my eyes hurt when i read your blog. call me old-fashioned, but i like black type on a white page…any possibilities you could hook me up?
)
October 8, 2007 at 6:13 pm
MLM
MUCH easier for me to read…do you like it?
October 8, 2007 at 6:23 pm
jeremy zach
actually i do a lot better. My old template, at times, did not included all of my text. It would cut off half of my first word in my sentence.
Thanks for the suggestion.
November 27, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Simon
Grow up Jeremy and stop being a wimp. Your bashing of Driscoll uses out of context quotes and assumptions.
Simply pathetic post and to see you promote it at pomomusings shows such a lack of character on your part.
December 28, 2007 at 4:59 am
Luther's Bulldog
What a load of BS!
You glory in the fact that you can access all of Driscoll’s material – and yet its abundantly clear that what you’ve read is limited to the whiney complaints of your fellow emergent-bloggers.
PS, if your going to ’stir the pot’ with Big Man on Campus posts, then spend some time editing your material – some of the grammar is appalling – especially for someone who (by your own admission) is such a confident and accomplished communicator.
Bloody hell…
December 28, 2007 at 5:18 pm
jeremy zach
Luther/Sunday @ 5,
I appreciate the comments. You have to realize I wrote this blog out of reaction. I was pretty upset with what Driscoll had to say.
In reference to the grammar–I am sorry. Read this post and it will make sense: http://jeremyzach.blogspot.com/2007/10/spell-checker.html
Thank you for visiting.