Driscoll's Inner Sweetheart Author GlenPublished on August 4, 2010Leave a comment on Driscoll's Inner Sweetheart Can't believe I missed this April Fool's post from earlier in the year. .
0 thoughts on “Driscoll's Inner Sweetheart”
Mark's blog is one of the others I follow, and found myself chuckling a bit when I saw that one earlier this year.
Then I found myself thinking, hang on a minute, it's obviously humour, but doesn't this show up Driscoll's incessant praising of macho-men up for the wrong extreme it is? For example, I can imagine Driscoll taking the mick out of men who bird-watch in one of his "Be a man!" sermons, and then having to shuffle uncomfortably upon meeting John Stott.
Actually, that thought's almost making me chuckle just as much as the mockup!
Or, for example, you could imagine him (because he does it continually) casting aspersions on any pastor who would remain single throughout his ministry. Stott (not to mention many, many others) would get a double dose of Driscoll scorn.
I still don't know what to make of Mark Driscoll. But the book "review" was amusing :)
Driscoll has adopted a persona that suggests that he would scorn both ornithoscopy and celibacy as lacking machismo, despite the biblical warrant for both. (Seattle's not far from British Columbia, the inspiration for The Lumberjack Song!)
But his book, Death by Love, makes a fine complement to Stott's truly great masterpiece, The Cross of Christ. Many evangelicals today pit the penal substitionary view of the atonement against all other views, even the Christus Victor! But Driscoll follows Stott here in drawing out the richness of the multi-intentional dimensions of the atonement.
This mock review is a riot—especially the bit about the gift of Driscoll's mentor for interpretive dance!
Thanks for flagging this one up. The first time I heard Mark I found his approach quite refreshing. This was still the case for the next couple of things I listened to, but I became a little frustrated with his one-dimensional approach to masculinity. It's great to have a 'red-neck' pastor [his words!], and in terms of basic demographics we need a whole lot more... but it isn't the only kind of man in the world. Maybe I should revisit Mark's material, but it seemed to be the same thing all the time. I guess if we live all the time in 'Western' middle class Christian-ville, which does seem feminised, Mark is a helpful therapy. Or maybe for those who are lost in the shimmering kaleidoscope of post-modern sexuality, Mark is a heavy-handed but practical guide to a way out.
I don't want to criticise Mark though even though he's way off on The Song. There's plenty of people laying into Mark and he deserves a lot better than that. His debate with Deepak Chopra is excellent.
The danger is that I bump into certain evangelical men/ministers who have been inspired by Mark and now they trying to re-discover their testosterone. I'm not sure how helpful it is.
However, think of the different kinds of men within the Bible. Would artistic, multi-media Ezekiel spend his free-time with Jehu?
Who is the proper man - Esau or Jacob, Cain or Abel, Joseph with his fancy clothes and fear of 'sex' or Judah with fairly 'relaxed' view of what's on offer sexually speaking? Would bi-polar, zealous Elijah fit well with the very reliable/stable Daniel?
David himself is such a complex character. On the one hand he is a sorry figure, hunched over his roof-top porn... setting a destructive example to his sons... yet on the other hand he is capable of such profound and deeply masculine expression in the psalms; tremendous integrity and courage before Saul and Goliath.. but cowardice and stupidity before the Philistine king; passion for the LORD Jesus when enacting the ascension in transporting the ark, but the seedy and humiliating "hot-water bottle" of the latter years.
Marriage is the second choice and not all of us are man enough for the celibate life. The obsession with guns is peculiarly a North American thing, but it does seem odd to Europeans.
Driscoll's a bit of a mixed bag, but because he's nice and clear the bad stuff gets picked up upon and because he's blunt people have no problem being blunt back at him (compare Brian McLaren (who was in a similar place to Driscoll about 5 years ago, but they've gone in opposite directions - Driscoll's got better, McLaren has apostated), who so many people want to extend his generous 'orthodoxy' back at him, don't want to use the 'h-word', because he refuses to, though says the same thing in different ways and many people, because of his opacity, can't see how bad he is).
Interesting, as a manly-man, Mark Driscoll doesn't listen to his critics (unless they are his mentors), so laying into him doesn't do anything. From what I can make out, his Christology is a bit poor, and he wants to change the creed (removing terms of eternal relationship "begotten" and "proceeds" as they might lead to Arianism and they cause controversy - very odd from someone who makes a big thing out of complementarity).
I think the reason why Driscoll got picked on with this April Fools is that he's a big name, he's a good teacher (mostly) of the Bible, so many people listen to and read him, and know his views, which are worthy of satire - I'm sure he half jokes about it himself sometimes.