cognitivediscopants.wordpress.co … eadership/
gosh, he’s put us in our place, hasn’t he? 
Yes, his comments in the interview were very disappointing and his follow up blog post (more thought through??) made it worse by blaming & slandering Justin, rather than turning the other cheek (ironic as the next day he suggested Christians should love their enemies)
Lying!? 
I found this helped calm me down a bit:
whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/art … or-neither
Robin made some interesting comments too:
theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co … y-god.html
Mark seems to be a bit of a royal drisc-hole…
I think I’ll give a little subtle protest, and let the world know how much I love and adore God the Mother, I for one don’t despise the idea of God being a Mom as much as Driscoll seems to.
Maybe Mark Driscoll has, er, mother issues. 
i always think many of these “ultra manly men” types are probably latently homosexual and are trying to cover it up by acting like they think “real” men should, and being drisc-holes ( ) to everyone that disagrees.
it’s a classic example of “methinks she doth protest too much”
on the contrary, i think it takes a man to be a girl! so said a slightly effeminite but utterly straight guy i know
as i’m personally fine with gay people, i’d much rather they came out of the closet and stopped preaching hate. not that Mark is gay, but one wonders about his type.
am checking out those links, thanks Alex!
I am unable to write what I truly think of ‘Pastor’ Mark Driscoll for fear of offending a) my American brethren, who on this forum are without exception (well, maybe *one *exception 
) unfailing kind, courteous and respectful, even to those they disagree strongly with; or b) anyone who finds bad language offensive (personally I try not to swear too much, but I don’t think it’s that big a deal).
So, having mentally censored my initial thoughts, I will say that I find Driscoll’s brash, sexist, culturally insensitive, antediluvian and hopelessly confused and incoherent brand of neo-Calvinism deeply offensive.
Yes, some of us Brit Christian guys aren’t particularly ‘manly’ in your Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt-ish way. (I myself, of course, would make Brad Pitt look like Liberace 
) But so, surely, are some of Driscoll’s countrymen? And what the hell does that matter to anyone anyway?
I have no idea what Driscoll’s true sexuality is. All I know is that God loves all men and all women, regardless of their sexuality. I happen to have a gay brother, so I find his gender stereotyping pathetic and offensive anyhow.
As for his neo-Calvinist theology, well, quite frankly, it stinketh. Gooogle ‘Mark Driscoll’ and ‘predestination’ and read his sermon and blog on the subject of predestination to see just how a) utterly nonsensical, contradictory and incoherent his theology is; and b) how spectacularly he talks out of both sides of his mouth at once when supposedly explaining it. For like most Calvinists, he bangs on about the wondrous, saving love of God in one breath, then consigns the greater portion of humanity to eternal conscious torment in the next - because, and I quote, “The truth is that God could save everyone just as he could have healed everyone (referring to Christ’s earthly healing ministry). Yet, because God is obligated to no one, the fact that he heals or saves anyone is a gracious gift.”
His sermon on predestination - read it, if you can bear the tedium - is a masterpiece of obfuscation, question-dodging, misdirection, scattergun prooftexting and abrupt and repeated non sequiturs - all, I suspect, designed to blind his congregation to what he actually believes - ie that his god burns billions of his creatures for eternity for *no *other reason than because he can.
By way of illustration, consider Driscoll’s closing prayer from his predestination sermon, as transcribed on his website (my emphases):
Pick the bones out of that illogical, self-contradictory pile of nonsense if you can!
Gosh I’m angry!!! 
When I’ve calmed down a bit I may start a proper discussion thread on some of the issues raised in Driscoll’s sermon and blog. But until then I’ve just got one word to say about the views of ‘Pastor’ Mark. If you want to know what that word is, check out Robin’s comments in his blog. All I’ll tell you is it’s utterly British, utterly appropriate, and you won’t find it in the Bible!
Grrrrrrrr!
an immensely entertaining rant! i agree 100%!!!
In short in the interview Driscoll came across as arrogant and foolish. And I’m sorry that he elevated American Christianity so highly. God only knows the challenges each region’s church faces. And I often wonder if in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus if the American church would be like the rich man. We complain about being demeaned in the media and call it persecution, when many of our Asian and Arabic brothers are facing the possibility of the loss of their families, livelihood, and even their lives. God is a righteous judge taking into consideration all we’ve been given and what challenges we face. And, well, that scares the hell out of me!
P.S. Johnny, I enjoyed your post and agree totally.
Jonnyparker!
Hello from a fellow brit.
And WOW! I like it when you’re angry. Spot on old chap.
I agree with all the above. That was a cracking good rant, Johnny
Let’s tone back on the “drisc-hole” pun, please. Critique him, but stay classy. We do have Calvinist visitors on occasion, and some Calv members, too.
And even if we didn’t, he’s a Christian preacher and teacher who contributes a lot of positive things, too.
And even if he didn’t, if he yaks in a provocative manner we don’t have to be that provoked.
Meanwhile, considering that I talk about God in mother terms even less than the Bible does (which isn’t much), and that I’m quite militaristic in my own Biblical mindset (my main complaint about going after noncombatants is that real men don’t do that, even when it makes clear strategic or tactical sense–something the scriptural authors themselves agree with when it happens to them ), I’m living proof that a strongly universalistic Christian doesn’t have to be overly (or even particularly) “feminine” in his or her theology, nor especially pacifistic either. (The two concepts aren’t equivalent of course; no one would consider Athena or the Amazons to be especially pacifistic.)
Granted, I’m a purgatorial universalist, but I doubt an ultra-u would have to be particularly feminine and/or pacifistic either.
As a man, I actually rather resent the implication that men shouldn’t be nurturing (and that women shouldn’t be combatative, though again I understand the usual tactical and strategic problems with that in a culture: the longterm biological survival of a group relies more on women than on men, for example.)
But I especially resent the implication that hopeless wrath and destruction is what is specially and ideally ‘masculine’, so that anything ‘less’ than that standard of hopelessness is ‘feminine’ by comparison–and thus worthy of rejection!
(I’m not tagging Mark Driscoll on that so much as growling about this sort of attitude I occasionally find in both Calv and Arm theologians when it comes to soteriology.)
Just to clarify, my drisc-hole pun was the closest I could get to translating my view of his discmasculine, chauvinistic, antichivalry. It was not directed against his Calvinism or towards Calvinism in general. Just to be clear to future Calvinistic readers who might be offended - or who currently are.
The words I felt, in more literal English, would have been of less polite company; hence a pun with many words missing more so than the obvious. Perhaps I need to learn more patience with Male-kind, even though I am one of them, but I find it difficult to refrain when Womankind is defamed - and I have had little patience elsewhere when Driscoll has expressed his views on Womankind, and especially her role in the sexual functions of relationship. I was also displeased with Driscoll’s devaluing of the interviewer’s wife, her ministry, and her effectiveness as a Christian simply on the basis that she is a female in position of authority.
That being said, I’ll officially apologise for the insensitivity, but my underlying critique of him stands.
I would also add that I take some personal displeasure in what he views a real man ought to be. I for one have (apparently, to the observation of my friends) very feminine tenancies (it’s because “I’m an elf” I suppose, and people who know me more would probably see why ), and maternal instincts also (though I certainly have masculine tenancies also) - but that does not devalue my sexuality as a heterosexual, and it doesn’t devalue my gender if I prefer sewing or poetry over American football. Driscoll would, if I were before him, judge me as an inadequate male and would most likely judge me a failure as a Christian man.
I would also like to add in agreement with you Jason, that I do not view women or femininity as pacifistic or…generally how Driscoll seems to be viewing it. My vision of femininity, and my experience with the feminine, is that womankind is very strong and extremely powerful, even intimidating. To put it this way, God the Mother (and Woman by being in the image of God) is no push over, and as a friend of mine likes to put it - “you don’t **** with mama bear”.
excellent post, Lefein.
personally i think we have a twisted view of what masculinity means, if we think it’s warlike, aggressive, or constantly needing to prove itself as tough and manly.
personally, i’m a pacificist, but i’m aggressively so in some ways (ie, i get VERY angry about the injustice of war…people suffer and die for WHAT?), but i don’t see either of those characteristics as specifically male. they are part of me, but they could equally be part of a woman (and i’m sure they are…my girlfriend would be a good example).
also, i have always valued the strength in women, as i was raised among some good examples. also, i see strong women in the Bible, doing their level best in a patriarchal society. the patriarchal point of view of Biblical authors is not evidence we should still think like that. on the contrary, some of the thoughts and views God inspired in Paul and even that He said Himself, show revolutionary ideas on the equality of women that would take years to bear fruit.
i can appreciate celebrating masculinity, as long as femininity is also celebrated (and not put down). but the traits we often associate with exclusively one or the other are far from black and white. they vary from individual to individual.
It always worries me when high-profile preachers/leaders demean their peers. God has given us the church. We must submit to one another; honor one another more highly than ourselves. The wisdom of the group is almost always greater than of the individual. Ego is deadly. I pray to God that Driscoll won’t crash and burn like so many others before him.
I find Driscoll’s theology interesting, as it seems to be entirely grounded on his idea of masculinity. Which is the “toughest” view to hold? Calvinism is, of course, because a manly man is “in charge” and God is the manliest man of all, so God must be in charge of everything. And since He’s in charge of everything, it’s nothing for Him to have decided already that He’s going to torture most of humanity in fire forever, because that’s the toughest thing He can do. And if you don’t agree, it isn’t because you’re reading Scripture differently, but because you’re clearly just a wuss that can’t handle the truth.
At any rate, I would’ve loved for Brierley to come back at Driscoll with Driscoll’s own theology: “How many have come to Christ in my church? As many as God has predestined. Oh, were you taking credit for people coming to Christ in your church? I’m sorry. Please continue.”
At least we can be confident he won’t crash and burn FOREVER
Well put Snitz. I also find it interesting how he links Penal Substitution and ECT as the litmus test of the interviewer’s manhood. And it is just so offensive the way he snearingly writes off female leadership.
Heh, on the women-in-ministry issue, I’d love to see him go toe-to-toe with N.T. Wright (who did an excellent presentation on this issue here). On the other hand, N.T. Wright is British and older, which apparently makes him both irrelevant and a coward afraid of the truth or something.
And to be fair, Tom has been known to wear a dress; especially when he was a bishop. Anyway, most of the people I trained with are women. Driscoll wouldn’t be able to go three rounds with any of them. It would be a TKO!
As an angry female quasi-pacifist, I agree.