Scot McKnight Facilitates a Driscoll Roast
Mark Driscoll and the Kansas Jayhawks have one thing in common (other than their penchant for pulling out gritty wins) - they both know what it feels like to have a large bull's-eye on their backs. Driscoll, not having the invincibility of a mythic creature, will need a very broad back to absorb the latest salvo. (End of Jayhawk commentary, for now.)
As implied, Driscoll is definitely no stranger to flack - but I find the most recent barrage a little unsettling. Today, Scot McKnight posted an open letter from Rose, an ordained WA minister, on his well-heeled blog, Jesus Creed. The letter is lengthy, but Rose essentially takes issue with a recent Driscoll article in which he critiqued the Episcopalian church. She suggests that Driscoll's theology is flawed and his tone is "unhealthy, vitriolic, abrasive, unchristian, and uncharitable." Rose eventually closes on this note:
As a woman, an ordained minister and fully committed follower of Jesus that has been offended by you, are you willing to sit down and converse? I would appreciate a public response to this letter. You get to choose. I hope as a reformed street-fighter, which you have referred to yourself as, that you are able to find a way to be a part of the conversation. We await your response.Scot McKnight's stated intent, in giving Rose's letter a huge audience, is as follows:
I urge Mark Driscoll and the leaders at Mars Hill to gather together with the many concerned in Seattle to converse and, to the degree possible, to seek the face of God in reconciliation.To which I respond, Hmmm. I don't much care for this sequence of events; more specifically, I don't much care for McKnight's posting of this letter. I experienced a slightly surreal feeling as I read it, which was only exacerbated by the 60-some anti-Driscoll comments that were quickly appended. Why am I not down with this? For the following reasons.
- Giving Rose a public forum to express her unhappiness with Driscoll is probably not going to bring Driscoll to the kitchen table for a charitable chat over green tea. A personal phone call or email from McKnight would have gone much further toward this end, I think. (Perhaps this was done?)
- Posting Rose's letter feels like a power play to apply "political" pressure to Driscoll, so that he will conciliate in some way. As such, it's more coercive than persuasive, and will probably not lead to reconciliation.
- McKnight has not published similar "open letters" critiquing other controversial "emerging church" figures, such as Brian McLaren. This is merely circumstantial evidence, but it reads like a double standard.
- Rose's concerns are not only with the form of Driscoll's rhetoric ("vitriolic, abrasive," etc.) but also its content. Mark Driscoll will not back down from his conservative theological stance on women-as-pastors, so in this sense, a group hug will not solve the problem.
Question being: Is the glory of Christ the prime objective in what is being said? If so, some people should be angry. Thus, making people feel good is not the primary objective of a counter-cultural Christian leader. Some people will be livid when the truth hits them over the head. The question is not, How can I avoid offending anyone? The question is, for Driscoll and the rest of us, Are the right people getting angry?
11 comments:
Go Mark!! (I can't believe I'm saying this) You have my full support!!!
Thanks a lot Ariel!!
Question being: Is the glory of Christ the prime objective in what is being said? If so, some people should be angry. Thus, making people feel good is not the primary objective of a counter-cultural Christian leader.
That first question could just as easily be asked of Driscoll as well, it seems to me. But more to the point: Driscoll chose to make his critique of Episcopalians a public one; why should not responses to him also be public? This seems to me a case of Mr. Pot meeting Mr. Kettle.
I get the feeling, with Driscoll, that if he's truly offended by his Episcopalian brethern and sistern, he nevertheless just skipped right over the advice offered in Matt. 18:15-16 (that being awfully namby-pamby advice, after all, and our boy Mark is not that sort of guy) and went right on to verse 17 . . . the evangelical blogosphere standing in for the congregation.
At some point your question I quoted above has to be asked of Driscoll, just as it should be asked of every person who claims to be a man or woman of God. And if, as it increasingly seems to me from my admittedly-basically-ignorant perspective, Driscoll would say his primary objective as a proclaimer of the Gospel is to let everyone know that the glory of Christ is that He has testicles, then, you know, I respectfully submit that reasonable Christians can debate the theological efficacy of continually insisting on that.
Oh, come on John, she wrote him a personal letter asking him to sit down privately with her and others, but posted it on her blog. And her main argument is that she's offended that his theology is in opposition to hers. Cry me a river. Driscoll and I differ on enough things. Heck, were Ariel and I to make a comprehensive list, I imagine we'd come out fairly different as well. Ariel, I guess this is the end of our friendship. ;)
My issues with Ms. Swetman's letter is that she elevates her threshold for taking offense to some sort of Biblical standard and on top of that she has bad theology.
Here's a snip from her letter:
I would consider myself a daughter of my Father in heaven rather than a daughter of Eve, as per your wife’s article. I believe the work of Jesus has reversed the curse and set me free. I no longer live in Genesis Chapter 3.
By this sort of reasoning, she is implying that I am not saved as I still sweat and have to work for my bread. AND MAN, AM I OFFENDED!!! I'd better start working on a letter for Scot to post.
Dear Ms. Swetman...
Gymbrall,
I don't see why the passage you quote from Rev. Swetman's letter is also not true of you or of any professing Christian. You, after all, are a son of Eve. She's not denying original sin--it remains. But Christ redeems us from that old curse.
Or are you not being serious here?
In any case, her larger point remains. She indeed has theological differences with Rev. Driscoll and respects his right to give voice to them even as she disagrees. What she objects to, though, is the language with which he gives voice to that theology. His intention seems not to persuade via Scriptural interpretation but to use that interpretation as justification to provoke and insult and demean. And to what end? How, exactly, does that glorify Christ? I cannot help but think that, intentional or not, it does more to glorify Mark Driscoll by giving him a little tough-talking theological street cred and, less-charitably on my part I admit, fulfilling his desire for an audience than it does to reveal Christ's power and His saving grace.
Leaving aside matters of theology, we--in particular, those who support and affirm Driscoll's ministry--should be asking whether the very fact that we're talking about HOW he says things rather than WHAT he says means that the law of diminishing returns has become operative.
Er, um, that first sentence in my comment above should read, "You, after all, were also once a son of Eve." You, Rev. Swetman, Rev. Driscoll, and I are now sons and daughters of Christ. None of that, though, denies the truth of the doctrine of Original Sin--that is just as equalizing a truth as is our salvation through Christ.
You, after all, are a son of Eve. She's not denying original sin--it remains. But Christ redeems us from that old curse.
She is saying that once a woman is saved, her authority is equal to her husband's (the curse of the husband ruling over the wife is lifted). The problem with this is that Christ says the wife is the church and the husband is Christ (Ephesians 5:21-33), and once you take up her argument, your position becomes that Christ and the church are equal. The second logical argument is that a husband can be a woman and a wife can be a husband, because they are both the same. The third logical argument is that if women can be pastors, so can homosexuals, because we are all the same.
Or are you not being serious here?
I was being serious, but I'll admit to a great deal of flippancy as well. ;)
His intention seems not to persuade via Scriptural interpretation but to use that interpretation as justification to provoke and insult and demean. And to what end? How, exactly, does that glorify Christ?
I don't think it's fair to attempt to weigh Mark's intentions without attempting to do the same to Ms. Swetman's.
A few more snippets:
Can’t you see how even posting that women have motives such as this — my husband is a pastor so he is trapped into fidelityso I can sit back and let myself go — is offensive?
Remember, I believe in an Egalitarian view of gender roles. Your comments above seem to say that you would call me a “Christian” feminist. You teach that women like me are out of God’s intended roles for women in the church and home and that if the church allows women in ministry then homosexuals in ministry would be the next logical conclusion. This is not only offensive to me, it is demeaning of my personhood.
Throughout the letter she is constantly asking him to apologize for stating his beliefs. None of the Driscoll quotes that she references contain bombastic language (the only exception may be the bunny quote, but it's clearly not meant to be taken literally).
In the end, I don't see that Driscoll has an obligation to agree to her terms. If she wants to talk to him, she should call him or visit him and talk to him. I don't see Scripture calling for what she's proposing and I don't see her quoting or referencing Scripture to justify it.
Anyway, I think that's all I've got. I'm really not trying to defend all of Mark Driscoll's positions (we have some significant differences when it comes to orthopraxy) and I'm sure he's said things that I would disagree with.
I should also say that I've enjoyed the discussion. Thank you Ariel for posting it and you John, for humoring me. Anyone who would like to jump in and give me the logic-thrashing I so richly deserver, should feel free to do so ;)
Er, um, that first sentence in my comment above should read...
Just to make my response to you clear, that is what I assumed that you meant.
Also, I do know how to spell deserve... stupid Noah Webster...
John B. said:
"Question being: Is the glory of Christ the prime objective in what is being said?..."
That first question could just as easily be asked of Driscoll as well, it seems to me.
I should point out that I intended the question to be applied to Driscoll, as well as the rest of us. I realize that the question of appropriate language is a slippery one.
These days, Jesus would probably be thrown out of a lot of churches of his "unloving" comments. So while we can question the wisdom of some rhetoric, conscience will remain a very central player in this game. Does Mark Driscoll's conscience allow him to freely upbraid the Episcopalian church? After all, he will answer to Christ for his behavior. This role of conscience in speaking & writing was what I was pointing to with my "glory of Christ" question.
Driscoll chose to make his critique of Episcopalians a public one; why should not responses to him also be public?
I believe there are a couple of other factors involved here. First, Driscoll didn't publicly criticize an individual, but a political/theological hierarchy. Second, there's the questionable decision by McKnight to get involved in a fight "not his own." I guess I'd add that elements of Rose's letter seem overly personal ("personal" being a euphemism for "childish" here - oops, did I type that?) to be aired so publicly.
I agree that there's room for public response to Driscoll's views on women & Episcopalians; it's the overly "personal" nature of Rose's response (and Knight's involvement) that bothers me.
My issues with Ms. Swetman's letter is that she elevates her threshold for taking offense to some sort of Biblical standard and on top of that she has bad theology.
Sorting out the theological differences from the hurt feelings is kind of hard in this case. It's difficult to disentangle the two.
Gymbrall, I'm surprised to see you coming out on Driscoll's side here. I guess your love for justice and clarity in communication got the better of you. ;)
Gymbrall and Ariel,
Thanks to both of you for taking my questions and observations seriously. I truly want to understand and not just criticize, so thanks for helping me out there.
And Gymbrall, thanks for teaching me "orthopraxy"--a most useful word to know.
The question also needs to be asked if Driscoll would have sat down for discussion if the lovely Reverend had not made her letter "open?" My sense is no--he would have chalked her up to one of those "liberal, feminist" nuts that always lead to supporting homosexuality, etc, etc. In Driscoll's blog posts and his sermon, there is little grace offered to those who disagree with him theologically. That's why I think this means of discussion is very appropriate, considering the past of the individual involved.
Now, that being said, I do not believe this should end in some sort of schism up there, nor should Christians boycott a church (unless you want to boycott Fred Phelps' church). There has to be some middle ground.
Post a Comment