Wed 2 May 2007
The Banned Church (Planting) Video
Posted by tom cottar under theology
Love him or hate him, Marky-Mark Driscoll (and the Funky Seattle Bunch) have put together a great video designed for church planters. But it's got some great thoughts in it for all of us who are 'shepherds'–which I'm pretty sure is all of us on some level. Since Mark couldn't be at a conference he was invited to, he had this video made and sent en masse to be shown and freely distributed to all the attendants at the gig. According to Mark's blog, it was shown, but not handed out because Bill Hybels balked about it not addressing 'women church planters'. Sheesh. Talk about the baby and the bathwater…
I challenge you to watch The Good Soldier video and decide for yourself. Because I'm a slacker and haven't figured out how to embed video into WordPress yet, you'll have to go here to watch it. You can stream it or download it. Either way, it'll encourage you to 'endure hardship like a good soldier' as you missionally build the Kingdom in your community.
If you've got thoughts, I'd love to hear 'em.
12 Responses to “ The Banned Church (Planting) Video ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Thanks Tom for giving us the chance to talk about this. I watched the video after reading quotes from it on a number of clergywomen blogs.
As a church planting coach or sorts, I agree with Driscoll in that 1) church planting takes a personal toll on pastors, sometimes taking them out of ministry altogether; 2) the skills, passions, personality of the new church planter are extremely important to the success of the church plant; and 3) that the mission of the church being to make disciples of Jesus Christ is vital to the success of the plant. I agree that church planters are not pastors, but evangelists, missionaries, and apostles. I can even relate to the fact that young men are visibly absent from church these days.
However, the video, the script, the language is so blatantly sexist! Not only is there no inclusivity of women pastors or church planters, but the message of the video is openly hostile toward women … calling us “ladies” who make up 60% of the church, talking about young men wanting sex with their wives “at least” once a day, advising church planters to gather “men” … comes across to many women (dare I say, especially women clergy) as exploitative and severely lacking in gender sensitivity.
I’m glad that Bill commented negatively on the video … it was made specifically for an audience that included both men and women, was degrading to the women, and as inappropriate as the comments Imus made about the Rutger’s basketball team.
Sure … the video was technically made well, some of the content is solid, but so much of it is anti-women that it ought not to be distributed in any way, especially from an interdenominational organization which recognizes the equal calling of women and men to share the Gospel and start churches.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Actually, I was unimpressed by the technical quality of both the video and the speaking. Both struck me as average. I don’t think I’ve ever watched/listened to Driscoll before, but if that’s a typical example I’m at a loss to grasp what so many seem to find so compelling about the man.
And he was frankly overtly offensive. Young guys want to know how to get married, have kids, make money, and have sex with their wife (whom I presume won’t “let herself go”) at least once a day. I find that characterization offensive as a guy, even if I’m not young any more. Moreover, what in the world does the gospel of the Kingdom have to do with any of that? Last I checked it was about making yourself the servant of all, being content in plenty and in want, dying to yourself, and giving away what you have cheerfully.
I couldn’t even see anything in the presentation that made me think of Jesus at all. I found it thoroughly offensive on multiple levels and not in a good way.
I could show it to Stacey when she gets back, I suppose, and see what she thinks. But when I told her, completely unprefaced, about the idea that I should mentor her in how to do life, she had almost exactly the same reaction I did. Instantly and unprompted.
You’ve got to get better sources for your ideas about men and women. I tend to agree with iMonk, TSK, Bob Hyatt, Emerging Grace, and the rest about Driscoll’s video. I just quickly scanned their comments as they posted them and didn’t bother watching the video until you posted it. And now I wish I still hadn’t seen it.
Yuck.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
I just finished watching and listening to the video. I find it to be refreshing and exegetically consistent with the Biblical text. I find nothing offensive in the least bit and wish more of our pastors would grow a pair instead of being eunuchs and preach the word of God instead of the Americanized, politically correct version that I find reprehensible when compared to the text of the Bible.
This is the first time I have heard Mark and I have to say that I like what I hear. The re-masculinization of the church with the 20 something males is vital. Sure we like preaching to the “whipped” grey hairs that show up on Sunday because they give money, but in reality look at where that has gotten the American church, an entire congregation of grey hairs who are incapable of breeding new believers.
Maybe it is time for the testosterone to flow again.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Wendy,
Help me out…how does calling you a \’lady\’ become sexist/offensive?….is it because it\’s not inclusive of women clergy? I guess I\’m missing the point…I can\’t see how the specificity of addressing the Biblical text (in it\’s original context) can be sexist…I guess I\’m just not finding \’gender sensitivity\’ in the Scriptures…can you explain?
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
scott,
We definitely run in different circles.. the single, 20’s, unchurched guys I know fit into the ‘Young guys want to know how to get married, have kids, make money, and have sex with their wife at least once a day’ camp and far outweigh any other sliver of young men I run across here in Austin…IMO, that’s why guys like John Landis have such a following…
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
*WARNING: Explicit Sexist Content Below
One of the comments Driscoll makes towards the end of the video (I didn’t note the timestamp)is something like ‘Reach the man, and you reach the family, because as the man goes, so goes the family…or something to that effect. I’ll have to review it to get it verbatim.
All I can offer is my perspective: in EVERY ministry I have been a part of in 20 years, that statement is blatantly true. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule. As I’ve seen teens grow through ministries, knowing it’s very difficult to predict the future and judge fruit, what I have seen is this:
The students that have had godly fathers who filled the role as mentor/leader and are today involved in healthy churches, marriages, etc (what we would look at as ‘getting it right’) far outweigh those whose father was not the spiritual leader/mentor we see in Scripture.
Not that women cannot lead/mentor their children. In fact, there is plenty of Biblical basis for that…I don’t feel the need to defend that issue. However, since God did not reveal Himself to us in androgyny, it must be pretty important for us to identify and, yes, label, gender roles, however condescending and insensitive we may take it. (I wonder if there has been another time in history when a culture has refused to assign gender roles and God has visibly prospered them?…maybe one of you can help me with that..)
As I’ve stated elsewhere, femininity is not a weakness or handicap. It is a godly blessing from the Creator…but so must masculinity be also. Not chauvinism and not radical feminism. Both are equal perversions of our ’sexist’ state as Eikons.
Understanding the role of MFH (Man-Father-Husband)is crucial to a generation of men raised by women. If the plain-spoken Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (God), had felt a need for gender sensitivity…don’t you think he’d have mentioned our roles as androgynous? After all, no one in his day had any doubt what Paul EVER meant. Which probably explains the scars…
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Tom, first you missed my point entirely. I don’t particularly care if that list is what 20-somethings want to know. Driscoll presented that as the positive list after his negative list which it’s the job of the church planter to meet and fulfill. And there isn’t a thing on that list that zippo to do with the proclamation of the good news of the the rule of God through Jesus. It is simply affirming the good life of the gospel of the American Dream. I have no doubt that people are shaped in such consumeristic fashions. But feeding that does nothing to proclaim the rule of God.
In order to see if my initial impression of the video was grossly off-base, I watched it again. This time I took notes.
1. I was struck immediately by one of his opening statements about how church planters aren’t pastors and have to “fight”. In order to make sure nobody misunderstood his use of the word “fight” he bluntly said they “can’t just love people” as if “loving people” was some sort of secondary requirement or was soft and mamby-pamby. So right off the bat, he’s tossing most of the New Testament out the window.
Yeah, that sounds really orthodox.
2. Then he makes the bizarre statement that the most important thing is to select the right guy. Really? I thought the most important thing was the call of the Holy Spirit, the obedience of the one called, and the work of the Spirit among those who hear the proclamation. I didn’t realize it was all about human effort and ability. He continues to stress that point. Proper assessment is paramount. We have to make sure the guy has what it takes. It’s all on us and on him.
Yeah, that’s squarely in the center of orthodox Christian belief.
3. He then moves to mission. And once again he has a bizarre idea about the mission. The mission of the church planter is to gather men into an army to win a war. Once again, really? I rather thought the mission was to proclaim the rule of God, be the people who live under the rule of God, and be the people in whom heaven and earth intersect in the indwelling of the Spirit at the places of the pain of the world.
And in the sort of “war” in which we are involved, women are just as suited and useful as men. The “war” we fight is not fought with the tools of sin and death. Our example is Jesus, after all, which Driscoll alludes to and then paints a picture of a Jesus “winning” in the precise manner he tells his disciples in the gospels is contrary to the way of God’s Kingdom.
I also noted a weird section where men father their sons but don’t father their daughters. The love and care for the latter. I would think any father should father both his sons and daughters. But I guess that’s just me.
It was also weird that you need the men so the women will be loved. ??? I was under the impression that we were all to submit to each other (yield our wills) and love each other sacrificially. Across the board. I guess I ended up with the wrong Bible somewhere. Too bad. I actually like the one I have. I don’t think I would much care for the one Driscoll uses.
And then, at the end, as an after-thought, he throws in the message. It’s just something that ties everything together. Once you have the right man and he’s on the right mission (to gather men) then it’s important that he say something about Jesus. But it needs to be the right sort of Jesus. Driscoll’s vision of him, ‘natch. Funny, but when I recall John peering through that window in Revelation, one of the main pictures I recall is the Lamb that was slaughtered. (Read Revelation 5.)
But again, we’ve already established that I’m not using the right Bible, so I’m not sure what his says.
And to go back to Wendy’s point, his comments about the “ladies” are sexist and demeaning because of the context. You need the right man and you need to gather men because the pressures are intense and the struggle is great. The way he framed it conveyed the idea that the “ladies” just aren’t strong enough for that. You need some real men to do it. And that’s just a load of crap (to use what I understand is Driscoll language). Some of the strongest people I’ve known have been women. And if you pay any attention to history, that’s been true throughout history. If you are going to attempt to overpower someone with physical force, then women are, in general, at a disadvantage. But that’s the only time that’s true. And since physically overpowering people is directly contrary to what the NT tells us to do, that sexual advantage is irrelevant to the Kingdom.
There are not gender roles assigned in the Kingdom. Certainly there are gender distinctives. Men and women aren’t identical. Thank goodness for that. And there are certainly roles. Lots of them. And though the renewed creation is difficult to wrap our minds around, it appears there will continue to be plenty for us to do. But I’m not seeing any roles based purely on gender.
Driscoll’s ideas seem to be shaped more by Plato than anything I see in Scripture.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hey Tom!
About gender sensitivity …
1) please, jimmiekirsch, saying that you “wish more of our pastors would grow a pair” is offensively laughable to this pastor (who happens to be female, btw).
2) Tom, many find the word “lady” or “ladies” as offensive to women, depending on the context. Most of us prefer the word “women” as it has a stronger connotation. Being called the congregation’s “lady” pastor, made me seem like I was somehow less than a “real” pastor. In Driscoll’s case, it’s not the term “ladies” so much as the tone and whole attitude in which it was said — showing a deep lack of respect.
3) Tom, you’re right. The Bible isn’t especially gender sensitive … consider the times in which the texts were written, and the patriarchal, western, culture that has since translated and interpreted them … That doesn’t give us permission to use the scripture to openly offend half of all people. And, maybe, we need to re-interpret some of what we’ve assumed over the centuries in light of the knowledge we have regarding women and men and our abilities to serve, lead, etc.
Tom, you’re also right in the research and statistics of men’s involvement in church and their children. I think it was the Search Institute that did the study more than ten years ago: the likelihood of a child being active in a congregation as an adult rose from something like 30% to 60% if the father attended church with them … and more like 80% if both parents attended. It only shows a correlation not a cause and effect … and I don’t know if more recent studies have concurred or not …
The research I’ve seen, also shows that when a family is looking for a church the women are more likely to choose which congregations to visit and the men are more likely to make the final decision about which one to join. Again this information is probably 10-15 years old or more.
I agree that getting men to see the value in their spiritual life and development is extremely important. Especially since young men are the most absent in religious life. Having particular ministries targeting that demographic is needed … but implying that the decline of church membership and involvement is because it has been “demasculinized” is absurd.
Regarding gender roles in families … well, that’s another post.
Wendy
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
And to clarify a bit more. Driscoll gave one list of negative things young guys are doing. Banging their girlfriend (and I suppose their girlfriend has no say in that). Playing World of Warcraft (though I wasn’t clear what his problem was with WoW). Blowing their money on a subwoofer for their retarded car. Those are the things they needed a swift kick in the rear for.
Then there was the list of positive desires that a church planter must be able to meet and fulfill. Give good answers to. And the implication was that if you did, you could recruit them into your army, thus fulfilling your mission. It’s that list that seems to have little to do with the Kingdom.
1. How to get married.
Well, Jesus seems to say it is a higher calling to be able to stay single. Paul seems to reinforce that idea. Regardless, God offers no guarantee of marriage. Don’t avoid it out of selfishness, but it’s not a given.
2. How to have children.
Once again, no guarantees here. Many people do. Many don’t.
3. How to have sex with their wife at least once a day.
Do I really need to comment on that one? If so, just go read Michael Spencer’s comments on it. I scanned it quickly, but I think he covers the gist of anything I would want to say.
4. How to make money.
You can’t serve Jesus and Mammon. Period. If money and stuff rules your life, you will become a human counting machine as you deconstruct your true humanity and replace it with an insatiable lust for more.
As far as I can tell, if you’re meeting the desires of people of any age to know how to do those things, you aren’t telling them anything about how to live under the rule of God, worshipping God, and being renewed as true human beings.
I don’t deny that young guys want those things, though it varies. Probably most young girls want those sorts of things as well.
So what?
It sounds to me like a church planter for the gospel of America more than anything related to Jesus.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Oh, and as TSK (who was there) clarified with the guy with the Acts 29 network who was handing out the video and their brochure, it wasn’t ‘banned’. That was purely Driscoll over-reaction. The Acts 29 people didn’t get their brochure or copies of the video in time to have it put in the bag, so they decided to hand them out after the session. However, they only had enough people to cover 3 of the exits. It was their own logistical problem and nothing the conference or Hybels did. What Hybels did do was acknowledge the women pastors and church planters present with a comment before beginning his presentation.
Just to have the facts more or less straight, which they aren’t on Driscoll’s post.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
This is what I call a brouhaha! Its nice to see all the feminized whining going on over one pastor’s attempts to be both Biblical and relevant. Some people just look for reasons to get offended rather than allowing.
It is easy to be Biblical. It is easy to be relevant. It is extremely difficult to be both Biblical and relevant.
As for some who have commented it appears they do not realize that the Scriptures (even the New Testament) are replete with Warrior/Battle motifs. “fight the good fight,” “our battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces…”, “put on the full armor of God.” Church planters are in a battle to gain ground that are both spiritually and physically in the hands of the enemy. They can love people and do battle with the enemy. Driscoll does not exclude love as a area of responsibility NOR does he simplify the nature of church planting to be only about love. It is hard work and not for the faint of heart.
As far as his theology being influenced by Plato or being through the lens of a western patriarchal society, come on. You can view scripture through whatever lens you want. But through that lens name me one female church planter, name me one New Testament figure that was a pastor/elder/bishop, apostle, or church planter that was female. Name me one verse that addresses the female as pastor. Men are instructed on how to conduct their personal lives in order to qualify as pastors/apostles, women are not. Women are, however instructed in other areas like conduct in worship, dress, etc. The only logical conclusion, the only one that does not require hermeneutical backflips and politically correct posturing and name calling is to take the scriptures at face value.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Let’s start by taking scripture at its face value. It actually requires “hermeneutical backflips” to arrive at your position. There aren’t actually that many people associated with an office by name in the NT, and we have examples of people (Paul and Peter notably) calling themselves by other offices as well as apostle. The terms seem rather more fluid during the NT, though they have become rigid today. (It is interesting, though, that every tradition and even denomination in the Protestant tradition today interprets these ’self-evident’ offices differently.)
But let’s start with the one about which there is the least debate: apostle. To the best of my knowledge, there are only 15 apostles (excluding Judas Iscariot of course) mentioned by name in conjunction with the title in the NT. Out of those, the Twelve occupy a special place. When Jesus called them, he was obviously (to people of that era) calling out a new Israel. In the culture of the time, had any been women, that symbolic point would have been lost. Many have written on how that act stands out so prominently in second temple Judaism. I prefer N.T. Wright’s historical explanation, but take your pick.
So, given that the Twelve (with Matthias replacing Judas Iscariot) had to be men, that leaves us with 3 specifically named apostles. Of those three, two were men (Paul and Andronicus) and one was a woman (Junia). From the way Paul phrases some of his writings, I tend to think there were more, and I find it likely (just from the people who followed Jesus and saw the risen Lord — apparently a requirement if I read Paul correctly) that a number of them were women. But obviously we can’t say for certain. Still, one out of three — particularly given the predominant culture in the first century — is pretty significant. And apostles were certainly the highest office and exercised authority over all the churches they started. I don’t think anyone disputes that.
Next, we have Phoebe, clearly designated with the office of Deacon. (Not ‘deaconess’ as many say in English, but in Greek the identical word describing Stephen, the famous deacon passages, and even an office Paul ascribes to himself several times.) Further, she was entrusted with the letter to the Romans, arguably the most important letter in the NT and from a literary perspective, Paul’s masterpiece. The importance placed on a letter was marked in the culture at the time by the prominence of the one delivering it. Clearly Phoebe was highly regarded within the NT church. Paul makes that pretty clear in his comments.
Another famous example is Priscilla or Prisca, the wife of Aquila. Paul often affords her the place of prominence in his letters. Further, it appears she led the way in the instruction of Apollos. I don’t believe a specific title is given to either Priscilla or Aquila, but clearly they were prominent in the early church.
Personally, since I had an interest in ancient history, particularly Greco-Roman, long before I was identifiably anything like a Christian, I have always found Lydia fascinating. Philippi was a wholly Roman military outpost and colony, so much so that there apparently wasn’t even a Jewish synagogue for Paul to begin his proclamation in. He goes to where the women (Jewish women) could be expected to be performing post-menstrual cleansings (the river) and among those drawn to his proclamation is Lydia. We know that she is a dealer in purple cloth (rich!) and she appears to head the household. That’s highly significant in a Roman colony since the head of a household was utterly responsible and in charge of any association that met within their house. (Rome did not have what we think of as the freedom to assemble.) And as far as I can tell, in the NT the church in Philippi is synonymous with the church that meets in the household of Lydia.
Is she specifically called an ‘overseer’? No. But then, not a whole of people are specifically called ‘overseers’. (Without searching, I can only recall Timothy, Titus, and Apollos — other than Peter’s reference to himself as one of course.) She really stands out, though. And once you recognize that, you see other texts and women named in a different light.
That’s just a few key ones, but the amazing thing about the NT, in its first century context, is the sheer volume of women talked about in high regard as doing significant things for the church. I’m not sure how you can read the NT and fail to see that. I would suggest moving beyond a handful of prooftexts.
Next, I’ll simply ask you to back up your claim that the NT is ‘replete’ (deeply filled or permeated) with warrior/battle motifs. I’ve done lots of searches and all I find is the familiar passage from Ephesians, which is primarily striking in how little it looks like a ‘warrior’ or ’soldier’ in a traditional sense and how much it looks like Jesus’ oft-repeated description of life in the Kingdom of (that is, under the rule of) God. There is a less developed, but similar, metaphor in Colossians. Other than that, we have a handful of places where Paul calls someone a fellow soldier. And frankly, if you truly are a ’soldier’ after the manner of Paul (as illustrated graphically in 2nd Corinthians and much of the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles) more power to you! But that does not tend to be the image that I find most people have in mind when they invoke the ‘warrior’ motif.
I am not suggesting any dichotomy between ‘biblical’ and ‘relevant’. Frankly, I could care less about ‘relevant’. I’m not coming from any sort of distinctly Christian background, so don’t have to struggle to escape my Christian subculture upbringing in order to relate to culture. I am interested in ‘biblical’ simply because I have learned to find the God revealed in our scripture worthy of trust and a God who speaks with authority. But I have little interest in easily deconstructed interpretations of that scripture because I will inevitably deconstruct them.
BTW, when someone says something like “the only logical conclusion”, I tend to hear that they badly want to assert this, but don’t really have the grounds to do so.
The Driscoll video was overtly offensive to a significant portion of the Christian community and, more significantly, to a considerable number at the conference at which it was aired. Driscoll’s public, untrue, and unretracted statements about it being ‘banned’ have simply fanned that spark, which otherwise would have died with Hybel’s off-hand and humorous remark. How exactly is that a ‘Christ-like’ response?
Further, whether or not you feel they should have done so, a significant number of your brothers and sisters have said they found Driscoll’s presentation demeaning and offensive. Even if you are ‘right’ (which I don’t believe is scripturally supported), there is a way to be right and still be wrong. I would refer you to Paul, who said it better than I ever could.
I’ve probably offended you with at least something I said. And if you point it out, I will apologize for the offense. I do not always say things with the grace with which I should. I’m working on it. (I used to be much worse before I began to follow this strange Jesus fellow.)