The Institute (協会)

I was raised to be a little leary of churches that focused on a specific demographic, but I understand Driscoll's point about who is shaping the culture. I've always like his brash, in-your-face style. That was the style of Jesus, after all. It's challenging, and nonconformist. The evangelical world needs that. I know I want to be Driscoll's kind of "dude", not a chick-a-fied dude.

Jake said, "That was the style of Jesus, after all. It's challenging, and nonconformist. The evangelical world needs that. I know I want to be Driscoll's kind of "dude", not a chick-a-fied dude."

Awesome! With that said, bro, even though you're at the "other seminary" (haha) drop me a line when you get close to graduating if you're looking for to do church stuff (or if you're looking for a summer internship or something). I'll do what I can to help if you're interested in churches like this.

Anthony,

My theology was formed by this guy's preaching when I became a Christian 2 1/2 years ago, and love every word he says.

But I also think it is important that we continue to reach the guys who may not bear quite so masculine an image of God, and that we don't focus SO much on reaching dudes that they aren't allowed to emote, or be sensitive and caring to their wives.

I know that Mark would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, so I mean that as far less a critique and more of an addendum.

And just to be clear, Driscoll rocks. His preaching single handedly convinced me that it was not only "ok," but prefered to embrace the "inner dude."

I'm in agreement with Jake on this. One thing I might point out though is that if you listen to more of what Driscoll says he points out that the reason they "focus" on a demographic (men) is actually to reach everyone. He believes, and I've seen this to be true, that if you get the guys, the families (including women) will follow. This makes sense since the paternal familial hierarchy was invented by God. I really feel that passivity in male role models has hurt me and a lot of my brothers in the church. I hope we are strong enough, by Christ's example and the example of guys like Mark, to change that in our generation.

why in driscoll's world is being polemical, wrestling and being a cowboy christian synonymous? and how does he forget that his bloodthirsty david also wrote most of the psalms--loves songs to his God?

Dave said, "if you listen to more of what Driscoll says he points out that the reason they "focus" on a demographic (men) is actually to reach everyone. . .I really feel that passivity in male role models has hurt me and a lot of my brothers in the church."

Good stuff, bro! Eddie Long grew a church into over 10,000 quickly by realizing this.

Thanks, Anthony. I'll certainly keep that in mind, right now the future remains uncertain.

Tom raises a great point, and probably the best response is; read some of the Psalms, and then read some modern love song lyrics. If you don't immediately see a difference, make sure you're reading a good, relatively literal translation, and read some more Psalms.

In other words, there's nothing inherently contradictory about a man of war writing emotional songs of love for God. To put the differences between that genre and the modern love song in a nutshell, however, is something I'm not up to at this point.

(would if I could...)

And for what it's worth, I got to sing Watts at church yesterday.

Maybe we ought to sing the Psalms? If we sang Psalm-based songs (or, better, chanted the actual text of the Psalms) with enthusiastic vigor every Sunday, it would reshape our theology and our sense of mission. If you pray the psalms consistently and systematically as a corporate and individual discipline, you realize quickly that the world is engulfed in a holy war, and a psalm-saturated liturgy engaged with properly masculine vigor and confidence is a vital component in the church's arsenal. We go to corporate worship in order to go to participate in the cosmic war of the kingdom of God. Our songs, our prayers, our preaching, our eucharistic celebrations should regularly re-orient our lives toward this reality. The problem is, where can I go to find this kind of liturgy? White evangelical churches? Only a tiny handful here and there. Black churches? Please tell me that there are black churches that sing the psalms regularly and systematically in a properly vigorous way.

As much as I appreciate the emphasis on masculinity, I think Driscoll is unwittingly adopting the machismo model of masculinity that our culture promotes as the alternative to metrosexuality, and holding machismo up as the Biblical model of masculinity. Some men do not have a neck made for carrying rocks, and never will.

More importantly, Driscoll's principle, as articulated, has no room for the weakness that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 9:22. Paul says he becomes weak to win the weak -- will Driscoll do that? Or how does he make sense of 2 Corinthians 10, where Paul is accused of being weak and unimpressive in person? Paul doesn't dispute that he is not the most impressive preacher (vv. 1-2), but rather responds that he bears authority and a message. Or what about 2 Corinthians 12, where Paul boasts that God's power is made perfect in Paul's weakness?

How long will we diss one another over this stuff? We should read Titus 2, where Paul urges young men to be self-controlled, models of good works, pure in doctrine, and full of integrity and dignity. Paul's words seem much more helpful than this sort of wistful longing for a Christian version of "Blood Sport."

I love Mark's preaching and agree with him that the church has failed to reach men in the past by being a place where women feel more comfortable than men. However, I also believe it's easy to go to far in the other direction (John Eldredge) whereby one is not a real man unless they are hunting, fishing and smashing beer cans against their foreheads (which, btw, is harder than it sounds).

To me, this approach seems more like “Christianity for Red necks” than “Christianity for the modern male.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Christianity for Red Necks” since St Charles co is filled with them but I believe there is a balance that needs to be sought.
Sure, many popular guys have successfully used this approach to grow their churches but just because it draws people in doesn’t mean it’s right.

All this being said, I think there are two things we need to keep in mind about Mark's comments. First, just because it works for him in Seattle but that doesn’t mean it will work for you or I or even Tim Keller in Manhattan. Ministry style has much to do with context and the people around us. We’d all do better to spend more time studying our own culture than we would studying Mark’s every word.

Secondly, with as much as I love Mark’s preaching, it seems that sometimes some of what he says is said for “shock value.” While the gospel is indeed shocking and offensive, it seems we should let the gospel do the shocking and not our own words.

Darden

Good post Anthony! Latin America suffers a lot with this. Some relate this to the demonic principality of the "Queen of Heaven". Any thoughts?

I don't know if Mark making his model of a man out to be a maschismo model of masculinity, as tusc0n said. I think he is just advocating a biblical understanding of manhood, which is nothing physical, but purely based on character.

Juan, really I wouldn't have guessed that. Bro, I really need to get back down there. I'm glad to see that you've safely re-engaged after you many travels.

Jake, yeah, I think you've got Driscoll's context right and his real intent. Whenever there's talk about the "masculinity" topic directly there's always the assumption that guys like Podles, Murrow, Driscoll, Keen, etc. are just preaching male bravado. It's not that at all.

What a lot of people don't know about Driscoll's church is that it's full of artists. I mean real artist and lots and lots of guys coming out of the gay lifestyle. He's not calling men to a fake machismo but to the virtues of following Jesus as a men with good and clear distinctions. Good stuff! This is such a needed conversation.

Anthony, if that's what he's saying, then his criticisms are misplaced. He should be going after egalitarianism, which encourages "chickified" husbands and fathers. But that would require going after people for their theology in a careful and loving way, as Carson, Grudem and other non-manly-man authors have done. And that would also require abstaining from habitual hyperbole.

Tusc0n, I'm assuming that you don't know much about Driscoll. This just a four-minute clip. He does go after egalitarianism A LOT!!! This actually part of the context here (did you read his book "Radical Reformission"?).

He regularly attacks egalitarianism if you listen to his sermons and read his books. If you're expecting Driscoll to sound like Carson and Grudem you're really out of the loop. Remember what happened when Driscoll spoke at Piper's Desiring God conference last year? Did you read the Christianity today article? His use of hyperbole is quite intentional. This is precisely what the CT articles have discussed about him over the years.

"in a careful and loving way"?? Are you sure Grudem and Carson are always like this? Are you sure?

Two quotes: (1) "You foolish Galatians"--Paul the Apostle, (2) "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"--Jesus. Would you consider those "careful and in a loving way?"

Thats kind of ineresting. But that neckless look kind of faggy. Do he talk about racism?

I am black dude (as you can tell by the name) and I agree 100%. I could be a bit bias since, I think he is one of the greatest pastors our generation has seen (I am talking 18-30). This guy is witty, funny, and theologically sound, without sounding like he is getting his sermons out of a Puritans catalog (though I love the puritan writings) or The Institues (I love John also). The truth is this and you know it Prof Bradley. I go to church and the songs I hear are "falling in love with Jesus". Now let me tell you, maybe I am bit overly dramatic here, but I don't imagine myself "falling" in love with any guy, even if it is Jesus! I love my Fahter, but I don't fall in love with him. It is like this over romantic, candle burning, slow dancing tune and I hate it. Furthermore there are so many demasculized (word?) man in the black church it ain't funny.

Go to Pentecostal church and look at the brother on the keyboard. No offense, but he can be a little on the feminim (spelling) side. It is hard when the choirs are full of these type dudes. It is also hard when the music is consistently trying to woo you. I love good worship music, but I don't want 90% of the songs to sound like I am at a valentines party. Say what you want, but the cats I hang around don't like it either.

So with that said. I thought this was hilarious and true. Just go to the Chruch of God in Christ church around the corner. You will see what I mean.

Lionel said, "Furthermore there are so many demasculized (word?) man in the black church it ain't funny."

Very, true. I could totally go off on that but I'll save that for the RBA site. BTW, the word's "emasculated." And the black masculine crisis in the black church is simply scary.

Do he preech about rasism? If he don't, then hes a disgrace.

A number of us guys at my church have been reading Driscoll, I am now reading "Confessions of a Reformissional Rev." He is great in a number of areas. It is really important for the Church to connect with young dudes. Driscoll makes the point that many guys have not had proper father figures in their lives and are clueless as to what it is to be a man. I can relate to this big time. The church has the resources to address this problem. The problem is conecting with these guys and bringing them to faith and helping them to mature as Christian men. If the Church were to focus on this it would grow like crazy. The biggist issue I have with Mark, probably because I am PCA is his belief in "prophetic dreams" and "words of knowledge". They can be obused,even if they were real, and can easily become tools of the evil one.

It seems like more and more I'm hearing that true manhood is about being a violent ass. I think it's a mistake to look at David and see how he "slaughtered" men and then from that say it's okay for us to respond with violence whenever we want.

I look at a guy like Shane Claiborne (http://www.irresistiblerevolution.org/) and think he's a good example of someone fighting for truth and justice without being violent (he's a pacifist) or an ass (unless his interview on Speaking of Faith was completely out of character, but I really doubt it was). The funny thing is, I don't think Driscoll's description of manhood would fit Claiborne (I should point out that I haven't read Driscoll at all and am basing this off the short clip above... so I recognize that I may be off base).

Does no one else find it weird that Driscoll refers to women as "chicks"? It may just be me, but most women I know find that offensive. Oh never mind, I forgot that to be a real man you have to be offensive even in situations when the exact same point could be made without it.

Paul,

Your sarcasm offends me. Could you have made the same point without it?

Have you seen the Claiborne videos on YouTube? I think the dude might be loosing it. I'm actually more scared of him than Driscoll.

"In other words, there's nothing inherently contradictory about a man of war writing emotional songs of love for God."

And at Mars Hill we DO sing "love ballads to Jesus" occasionally, and many of the songs we sing do portray God as loving Father, etc. The Psalms has a wide range of songs praising for God for different attributes and identifying our relationship with Him in different ways. We attempt to sing just as widely as the Psalms have been written.

The point is you can't ONLY sing love ballads to Jesus and expect to reach men. (Or frankly even be faithful to Scripture, based on the wide variety of other types of songs as seen in the Psalms and other places.)

"I think Driscoll is unwittingly adopting the machismo model of masculinity that our culture promotes as the alternative to metrosexuality, and holding machismo up as the Biblical model of masculinity."

Absolutely not.

While it's not uncommon to folks to draw conclusions from short clips like this (or snippets from his books) that Pastor Mark is teaching men to be ass-kicking, beer-drinking, beer hunting, belching, ultimate-fight-watching, etc...

Listen to a sermon where he addresses men or any of the men-specific teaching availabe on media.marshillchurch.org (Classes->Men's Teaching; also Sermons->Practical->Men).

His primary point in the video clip is men need to not be passive. Situations arise daily which require men to step up and do something and not merely sit back an be "nice" (I'm not referring to a need to go beat someone up, but primarily a need to lead people and set examples). We sin by commission AND omission. And it seems today, the Christian church likes to focus on sins of commission and not address the issues of passive men sinning by omission who have helped screw up so many things.

Thanks Kyle!!!! Great stuff!

If you're offended by sarcasm of the variety I used, then there's something wrong with you. Certainly there are times when sarcasm is offensive, but I think it's a stretch to say that was one of them (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that).

It's a separate question as to whether or not a woman should be offended by being called a chick. Personally, I think it shows a level of ignorance on Driscoll's part. As I said before, I don't know a whole lot about Driscoll, but when he calls women chicks and bags on men for being "chick-a-fied" it seems like he's reaching out to men at the expense of women.

Kyle, are you suggesting that it's okay for women to be passive?

Mark is so confused about what's wrong with the church. He's got some big problems with the tackiness around church culture (sea foam green, schmaltzy songs, lack of innovation, all of whicih are problems) but he found the wrong culprit: femininity.
For the sake of sensationalism he's pinned all these problems on one gender and named women the scape-goat.
He needs to think deeper and longer on this one. As one innovative, critical thinker who loves bold colors, marching hymns, philosophy and buying real estate, from one woman who loves the variety and power of femininity and masculinity working together, I'm disappointed that so many men have followed Mark's diagnosis. I'd like to debate with Mark, to see if his ideas stand up to serious inquiry.

As an male, itinerant speaker and writer who sees church culture all over America, Driscoll is out of bounds here but he gets a hearing because he's trendy. Trendy is not enough of a credential for such a deep issue as gender.

Innovative guys who make money, watch sports, and buy real estate, don't make culture. Culture is made around the 'cult' of a community. Michaelangelo made culture. Not the local business man who commissioned him. Much 'culture' today is barbarism...

So many qualities today in the Scripture, like the Fruit of the Spirit, are considered 'weak' by our culture and are conflated as 'feminine' (an accusation that is neither right nor fair). What is more, the larger problem is not femininity but the culture as a whole that has informed the church.

For example, the downplay of humanities as a valuable enterprise over sciences and business is everywhere. This is an issue over what our society values. And the study and imitation of the life of Jesus would be a discipline of the humanities... and therefore perceived as weaker (or as church leaders mistakenly confuse it as 'feminine'). So why would scientists or businessmen not want to go to church? Because the Bible is literature, understanding it is the humanities, following it is like poetry (and poetry is also considered 'feminine' and men who write it as weak).

Do we need guns to bring in people who don't care about the literature of the Sermon on the Mount? Show me a 'manly' man who thinks it is blessed to be poor in spirit and I'll show you a man that will get labeled as a 'chickified man' by church leaders. Yikes!

And why are we decrying at 60-40% percentage in gender attendance? I thought that was way better than then what I expected based on the interview. Women outnumber men in the population, in the University, and even in dating circles (an online search shows there are 86 single guys to ever 100 single girls)... so why are we freaking out over the statistic at church?

Did you know these 95% of these 'femininized' churches are run by men?

Blaming femininity is like playing pinning the tail on the donkey. Best to get a little education in this and a little history to remove the blindfold and pin the tail where it really belongs.

Following the party-line of evangelical trends isn't always the best way to go.

Come on, men, let's think about it and protect the honor of women by not blaming them on things that aren't their fault and stand up to other men for thinking barbarism is the Jesus way...

"For I am meek and lowly of heart and you fill find rest for your souls."

Dale and Joanlyn, a few things are obvious from your comments. You've never been to Mark's church (because it's FULL of Seattle artists) and you haven't read any of his books. He's not saying the problem is with women or femininity. Those aren't actually the culprits at all. The problem is with men. He's not blaming women. He's blaming men for being passive and not stepping up.

I know it was just one video clip but to draw too many conclusions from short-clips and rumor simply won't stand up to serious inquiry.

Anthony,

I see what you're saying that Dale & Jonalyn (and perhaps myself) may have drawn too much from this one video clip, but don't you post clips like this to get people's reactions to the clip itself? You don't typically post a clip from a guy, expect people to visit his church, read his books, and then give their reactions. I'm curious to know if there are wrong conclusions drawn based upon that video alone. If not, is it a mistake to make videos available that are so easily misinterpreted?

Anthony,
What clip or book better represents how Mark values femininity/women? Could you post this near this video to prevent misunderstanding?
Jonalyn

Anthony, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to our posts. That is helpful. I am curious why you originally posted this video. To get everyone aboard? Or to discuss pros and cons for this kind

By the way, you posted up the Christianity Today article, so I am figuring that is to go along with the clip... yes? I want to be charitable and believe Driscoll isn't as self-conscious or as identity-hungry ('pastor provacateur') as the article makes him sound.

It is obvious his view of women in the CT article... And I know the authors he says are influences on him... :)

Driscoll is saying what others are saying about the 'feminization' of the church, many of them coming from Reformed camps, like Driscoll. So I thickened up my comments to address broader suppositions from those who may actually watch a video like this and are involved in gender issues and debates in the evangelical church.

Driscoll may not have said in the video that femininity is the problem, but he connoted it. Using the word 'chick' and 'chickified' are derogatorily used here. Imagine saying that a black man is acting too much like a white man... it insults both ethnicities.

Insulting a man for being too much like Driscoll's view of a woman is insulting to a woman too. Using woman language negatively, at all, is insulting to a woman and reveals some of Driscoll's deeper beliefs about what is permissible to say about women. I don't say this simply to critique Driscoll's view but anyone who would parrot it (as many do in these comments above).

And it is obvious that Driscoll has a narrow view of woman as homemaker and wife (see article), not as champion (like Easter), judge (like Deborah) or teaching leader (like Priscilla). Homemaker and wife are good, yet let's not corset all women in such a fashion who are gifted and called to other things. Biblical human femininity is far broader, just as masculinity is broader than Driscoll seems to be saying.

The stereo-types are punching through in this video and it is insulting both genders.

I do hope Driscoll's church draws artists. Though they may attend in spite of Driscoll's remarks here. I find it difficult to think they stomach this when he just said the real innovators are shooting guns, buying property, and watching football--not once mentioning writing poetry, painting or sculpting. Yet if Driscoll carried the attitude and demeanor I see in the video, I know many artists who would look elsewhere for church.

For all the good that Driscoll is trying to do, I'm unsure what good can come of this video besides exposing false beliefs and approaches among evangelical leadership about church and gender. My prayer is that people are waking up to a more nuanced, Biblical, and free view of men and women today.... give it 20 years before this kind of talk steps aside for a more helpful view of gender.

Paul, thanks for your comment. ;)

I'd be the first to admit women (like men) can be weak thinkers. I'm afraid that the presence of women at Mark's church does not exonerate him from putting down women (you say he doesn't, but perhaps you need to ask a female friend who is a leader to listen to this video in your presence. Ask her what she hears. I'm afraid you've become immune to the subtle ways Mark's denigrating women). I really don't think he's even aware of it.

What if, Anthony, in an eagerness to "do your part" you have put too much burden on yourself? What if men are not so wholly responsible for situation of the church? I don't believe that men (without women at their side and Christ at their back)can ever reform the church.

I'm concerned because you doubt that I (and others) could interpret that Mark might be hurting women, even if it be unconsciously. You defend Mark as if the fault lies in me for "reading him wrong."

You are absolutely correct, I have not read Mark's books or attended his church. I have only read Christianity Today's article and your video and blog.

Here's what I gather. Mark is trying to motivate men to "step it up." But when he calls the problems in the church "feminine" or "chickified" or even "tender", he is, consciously or no, assaulting all women in his attack. If he has a problem with weak thinking or emotionally unhealthy dependence or Jesus-as-my-boyfriend songs, then he needs to talk about this as an unhealthy quality, NOT a feminine quality. It's his choice of words that bothers me the most.

And most the guys who've posted assume that to call these qualities "feminine" is A-OK.

It would be the same as saying the military is a mess because it's run by a bunch of power-hungry, torture-mongering masculine guys. By putting masculine in there, it denigrates an entire gender. It would be better to stick with the non-gender insulting words like tacky, uninteresting, banal, etc.

Oh, but it's less controversial, too. But come one, let's not be controversial for controversy sake! And let's not put women down to pull men up.

You've taken up the language yourself when you write "feminized church" Can you please take a moment and consider how that harms women from owning their gender? For too many centuries femininity has been slapped with all the harmful connotations like: weak, subservient, dependent,will-less, nice, harmless, lesser. You are not helping the problem.

Here's a question for you and Mark. How much are you willing to sacrifice to motivate men? I see you come from the Reformed tradition. Most of your readers assume that God has instituted the patriarchal family. I'd like you to take a moment and see if you can prove that from Genesis. Perhaps this assertion is less well-grounded. How deeply have you read outside your tradition to find historical and exegetical reasons for women as co-equal in essence and equal in function/role? Have you studied the egalitarian camp? Are you willing to read beyond your borders? I'd recommend you read a bit wider, at least before posting a blog with this clip front and center.

Finally, getting the church grown larger isn't always a virtuous goal. I think if the fact that targeting men will bring along the women and children then you've for already lost the audience of single moms with kids, single women, widowed women, divorced women. All of which count as human and worth the church's attention.

And yes, it's harmful, unjust and unhelpful for a man to call a woman a chick.

p.s. Your video concerned me enough to blog on it with some more commentary of how Mark has contributed to the fallen male culture and dubbed it "manly." I'd welcome your comments, positive or negative: www.jonalynfincher.com

Jonalyn, my apologies, I thought you were being genuine. The implication that the women at Mark's church must be "weak thinkers" was amazing. Call the church and ask to speak to one of the MANY female deacons who are leading all sorts of ministries at the church and ask one of them if they are "weak thinkers." I had intended to respond and then you went here:

"How much are you willing to sacrifice to motivate men? I see you come from the Reformed tradition. Most of your readers assume that God has instituted the patriarchal family. I'd like you to take a moment and see if you can prove that from Genesis. Perhaps this assertion is less well-grounded. How deeply have you read outside your tradition to find historical and exegetical reasons for women as co-equal in essence and equal in function/role? Have you studied the egalitarian camp? Are you willing to read beyond your borders? I'd recommend you read a bit wider, at least before posting a blog with this clip front and center."

You obviously are not looking for real answers. You have definite pre-commitments that will never be satisfied regardless of what I say because you are assuming things about me personally.

BTW, I spent almost 22 years in the United Methodist Church and was first licensed to preach in the AME Church (African Methodist Episcopal) alongside female pastors. I had female pastors all of my life until I left the Methodist communion. So yes, I have read outside of Methodist sources. And yes, I am very familiar with the culture-driven, unbiblical, androgynous egalitarian position that's forcing it's way into the church and I've seen what it does to men.

I need to read more widely? Haha, that's a good one. Since you don't know me and haven't been following my conversation on this issue on the blog over the past 3 YEARS, I can only laugh at the absurdity of that personal attack.

I am struggling to understand how one can say that his words and his attitude towards the problems of the church and "chickified dudes" are not offensive, inapprorpiate, insulting - and most importantly unbiblical. Not only are they insulting to Christian women, but should be insuting to Christian men as well. To hold up mere toughness and insensitivity (and of course the absence of sweater vests) as the model of what Christ calls men to be is far from the truth of God's word as I understand it.

I'm not denying that God has used Mark Driscoll in a unique way to reach people that might otherwise have never stepped foot in a church. However, this fact alone does not make his rhetoric any less offensive or damaging. I realize that people claim Mark is so humble because he is always willing to apologize when he has said something inappropriate. Perhaps one should ask why he seems to have to apologize so often.

Anthony, brother, I think you're not hearing Jonalyn very well. Because you are making assumptions about her personally--where she is coming from, what commitments she has (and you seem to assume that those commitments preclude her from genuinely seeking the truth)--you are not addressing her real concerns. Can I join Meredith in pulling us back to the issue at hand?

No one is saying that Mark is intentionally putting women down; rather, what is troubling some is that the way he is trying to encourage certain sorts of men to be more active in the church relies on an anti-feminine rhetoric that is hurtful to women and encourages men to look down upon traits that are seen as feminine. Instead of simply encouraging men to be who God made them to be and the church to be fully human, a true image of God, this rhetoric enlists femininity as a weak, 'sissified' foil for the true gold, the 22-25 year old innovative, entrepeneurial man.

Do you think that Mark could still affirm that the church needs that 22-25 year old man in the same way (e.g., with the complementarian perspective that such men lead families into churches) without using that anti-chick rhetoric? Or do you think that a robust complementarian perspective requires that rhetoric in order to get its point across today?

If Mark (and others) could still affirm the same positions but without the anti-chick rhetoric, should he do so, or is there some other reason for keeping it?