The issue I was trying to raise in my rejected comment on Adrian Warnock’s post has been ignored in the discussion which has raged about it. But it is an important issue. Here is part of what Mark Driscoll said at the MenMakers conference in Edinburgh, as reported by Adrian:
The only thing that was described as “not good” before the fall was man being alone. Some single guys are strange, and what they need is a woman. There is nothing that sanctifies a man like a woman can sanctify him. Many young men run away from responsibility and think being alone is good. This is not true. The difference between a man and a boy is the responsibilities they carry. You need help! …
God is not alone. He is trinitarian. Man does not have that relationship in himself. He cannot fully reflect God unless he has someone alongside him—namely a woman. …
So, according to Driscoll, we single men are “strange”, irresponsible, boys rather than men, and, most damagingly of all, unable to fully reflect God. Now I can understand him coming to this conclusion from reading the Old Testament. Indeed it seems to have been the majority Jewish view, both in Jesus’ time and today, that men are fulfilled only in marriage. But in the New Testament we see a very different picture. So, no wonder I wrote
Looks like Driscoll has not read 1 Corinthians 7:25-32, or noticed that Jesus was not married. Come to think of it, looks like Driscoll has not read the New Testament at all, except perhaps for isolated verses, …
If, as Driscoll teaches, a single man “cannot fully reflect God”, then what does that imply for his view of Jesus? Is he not “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15)? In principle, as shown here, Driscoll accepts that Jesus should be an example for Christians, that
Being spirit-filled means living the life of Jesus.
But why is it not Spirit-filled but rather irresponsible and not reflecting God to follow Jesus’ example of singleness?
Within the Christian church there has always been an ambivalence towards marriage. In some quarters, especially Roman Catholic ones, there has been a tendency to reject it as incompatible with holiness; thus it is a disqualification for priesthood, and, as I noted in a comment about St Margaret of Scotland, quoting from here, almost as a disqualification from sainthood:
of all the saints canonised by the Church of Rome, Queen Margaret stands alone as the happy mother of a large family
Evangelical churches, on the other hand, have tended to promote marriage, perhaps partly in over-reaction to Roman Catholic excesses. Perhaps Driscoll is simply standing in this tradition, but, characteristically, he does seem to be taking it to extremes.
One important reason for the difference between the Jewish and Christian approaches is related to the universality of Christianity. Both religions rightly see some kind of duty to
Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
Genesis 1:28 (TNIV)
In Jewish thought this is clearly understood in a purely biological way: only biological descendants of Abraham are true Jews, and so the religious duty is to increase that number of descendants, which implies marriage. However, in Christian thinking the kingdom of God is not increased in population through natural biological birth, but only through new spiritual birth. While it is not wrong for Christians to produce more children in the hope that they will be born again and increase the kingdom, it is in some ways a higher Christian calling to increase the kingdom by bringing into it by new birth those who are born outside the Christian family. And, as Paul implied in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, married life can be a distraction from the Lord’s work of evangelism and building his kingdom.
Now I don’t want to oppose marriage as an institution. It is certainly an institution under attack, with rising incidence of cohabitation outside marriage and of divorce, with the promotion by some of homosexuality and same sex marriage, and most recently here in the UK in the ongoing debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which, if passed, would allow lesbian couples to have children (by in-vitro fertilisation) without a legal father. I hold strongly that it is important for children to be brought up with loving fathers as well as mothers, and that the lack of proper fatherhood is a major cause of the the ills of our society. Those who choose to remain unmarried (that is, without a marriage partner of the opposite sex) should accept the biological reality that they should also remain childless.
But as Christians we must accept that Jesus and Paul set before us an alternative path for our lives, the voluntary renunciation of marriage, at least temporarily, for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said:
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others have been made eunuchs; and others have renounced marriage [footnote: Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
Matthew 19:12 (TNIV)
It is not for everyone to renounce marriage, making figurative eunuchs of themselves. But it is for some who are called to it, whether through a deliberate choice or, as in my case, through circumstances and without permanent renunciation. And it is a way of life which Jesus himself modelled for us. We singles don’t expect others to renounce marriage. Why can’t those others accept that singleness is also a valid way of life?
I’m with you on this one.
Ironically, Paul said its better to stay single for the very same reason Discoll wants single men to marry: responsibilities.
At the conference Mark did take some time to discuss:
1) the call of singleness for a season
2) that Jesus perhaps didn’t marry because he would have been unequally yoked
I believe Adrian had left the conference by this point, as this was discussed at an question time for Mark (ask any question about manhood).
Part of the problem in this debate is that Adrian wasn’t there for the entire conference.
Even so, I do think Driscoll is slightly over-blowing his argument…I guess the interesting thing is the theological issue: how do men and women reflect the glory of God? How can we experience relationships such as that modelled by the Trinity?
Thank you, Alastair. Of course there is always a danger in taking one message out of context in a whole series. But I still think that Driscoll should not have said what he is reported to have said without some clear disclaimers within that one message.
I would be interested to know what Driscoll did have to say about singleness for a season.
Yes, of course Jesus would have been unequally yoked if he had married. There are women I could have married but would then have been unequally yoked with, not just because they are not Christians but also because even the Christians did not share my vision. Was I wrong to avoid this kind of unequal yoking?
Wow. This type of thinking is scary.
I don’t agree that ‘single men are strange’. I won’t comment further as the things Driscoll says just have a way of getting right up my nose.
I think that there is something in a wider critique of culture that in Western society we think that functioning as ‘rugged individuals’ is an ideal and that functioning as people dependent community is somehow weak, wrong and bad. And I think that there are Trinitarian implications in all of this.
I started coming back to the church about 6 months before I met my husband who is not a professing Christian. I don’t actually believe he and I are unequally yoked and he has been a real help in my ministry and it’s amazing to see the way God uses him. I’m sure, Peter, you knew whether someone was right for you and I’m not doubting your judgement, but I think that Christians can sometimes have quite a legalistic view of ‘unequally yoked’.
Thanks, Pam. I was half expecting you to say that I am strange! But I take your point about rugged individualism. I tend to be a bit like that, although the ruggedness has smoothed off perhaps with age, which is perhaps one reason why I have never married.
I don’t intend to be legalistic about “unequally yoked”. But to balance your positive experience I know of many negative ones, Christian women and men who have been restricted from fulfilling their potential in ministry by their spouses, or sometimes perhaps by excessive loyalty to their spouses, or just because they struggle, as I do, without a spouse giving them moral support. So I personally would not consider marrying someone who was not only a Christian but also strongly supportive of my vision for the Lord’s work, and I would expect that to be mutual.
Seems to me another case of re-interpreting Christian Faith from a specific cultural context and in the process ignoring scripture and it’s context.
Not a surprise given …
As regards the marriage bit. I think we need to recognise the complexity/richness of human relationships. It is wrong to pretend that marriage is the only important relationship for anyone (while recognising also it’s special nature).
It is also very complex to consider whether you should only marry a fellow Christian. I don’t believe in simplistic statements in such spheres, they cause more hurt than health.
It gets especially complicated when you consider Christian discipleship is not static. For example Jane married a Computer Programmer who later got a call into Ordained Ministry – not something that was part of either of our visions for the Lord’s work 20 years ago.
Conclusion. Allow some slack for the power of God to work among us.
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, has also just written on this subject. Thanks to Molly, who has just revitalised her dormant blog, for the link. The “monk”, who is not celibate but married, writes:
Driscoll doesn’t quite go as far as claiming that single people cannot be saved. But his unconditional promotion of marriage can indeed encourage the immature into inappropriate relationships, and that in itself is enough to raise further questions.
immature can have many manifestations… especialy in the perception of a 30 – 50 year old who sees 60 – 90 year olds as parents who were never capable of providing a secure work environment for their offspring. Those work opportunities slung off to more qualified .. aka cheaper slave labor forces… were breeding grounds for human development… Going through those struggles was a passage of rites for both men and women to take on before the rest of their lives unfold. Video games for instance, as much if not more blame can be placed on the age bracket and culture that initiated the toys that displaced having to pay attention to kids by the baby boomers in order to follow their own interests instead of properly stewarding their kids through life. They made a choice to find themselves and certainly schucked off the raising of their kids to 8-bit genetics and now blame the upcoming generations for the disaster that insues because they collectively walked away from the generational momentum of nourishing behavior that will always need to be there for an environment of healthy dynamics every individual needs to adapt to in order to mature to take on motivation to start a family. Its taboo to be single after 30 and 40 because we are the living mistakes of a generation from the 70s who were so opposed to military religion etc. that neglecting their children (us) became a more important statement to express to their parents than the actuality of they have kids and should literally use every resource available to them to do right by their new situation. As a result we have lost incredible ampunts of wisdom from our lineage because the babyboomers litterally walked away from it because it was too traumatizing to be responsible for cultivating a well rounded life through hard work and immersion in all things including what we dont like to accept about people and the world. At some point you have to jump in the water or climb the mountain. We 30s – 40s will always be a taboo subject to talk about because parents from the babyboomers are statistically horrible. WW2 and Vietnam soldiers who died off werent afraid of taking up the burden of other peoples responsibilties.. unfortunately some of the best fathers were probably killed off… ones willing to do what it took for their families… we conversly are left over with parents who are afraid to walk across a street without high visibility vests on, so that just in case their is an accident they wont be blamed. It would be nice to think that they are actually worried about us, instead of the sad story they might have to share about us. At some point you have to accept that life is real. There is no insurance policy that will make it pleasant for you to get through it. God doesnt need anyone to have a happy or perfect life for his Glory. Looking for that insurance policy is what the 70s generation did instead of raising their families, and we the younger generations are the result. We might have more potential intelligence, but we absolutely have no opportunity compared to what they had. So when you feel guilty about not having a family or kids or being alienated by your peers, realize that that momentum comes from actual individuals and their selfish behaviors influencing you to not take up all the spectrum of lifes experiences to grow to become alluring for another individual. In a way we were raised with the intention for men to not get along with women due to conditioning during our upbringing. A relationship now is way harder than the baby boomers had it. So dont feel bad because we have been socially and mentally conditioned for sterility so the baby boomers don’t have to deal with both their kids they didnt raise but also their grandkids. They dont want them and thats why you do t have them. It’s not fair to blame God or Jesus or even the bible for the reality of our situation just because they were used as tools to influence us by bad parents. Realise also that you don’t have the proper tools either to raise your kids and that if it something you feel calling you, you have to do it alone probably with someone who is an ex drug addict because the baby booomers severed us from generational help. Remember though, our country started out on its own. Average death during colonization was 30 years old. that means when the parents died, they left a 13 year old kid running a farm with no slaves besides his or her younger siblings who just wanted food. That is your blood. We are resilant away from our parents. We thrive we when fully engage the world God put infront of us. Why would you turn and blame a 70s generation for failing as parents when you can walk away from them and start new? They are bringing immigrants in as nurses instead of training their kids to do so. How can you respect a generation like that? So realize that comparatively we are seriously disadvantaged compared to what they had going for themselves, and when they say something that makes you feel guilty, don’t missinterpret it as you failed, realize that there werent many good parents from the baby boomers and their game is the blame game. We might die alone with no kids because of them, but don’t throw away the rest of your life because of a generational guilt trip. If your christian and you have not been out in the community putting yourself out there to help community dynamics and learn about it and you are living on the security of eharmony, realize that you have bought into the baby boomers concept that if the world doesnt do what you want your gonna throw a temper tantrum. You havent even reached the point where your tempertantrum has fully realised itself yet. Stop waisting your life and blaming it on God. Go date someone everyone says not to for two reasons, your support group doesnt want to be blamed if it fails so you probably have already missed mister or miss perfect for you because baby bomers are just selfish across the board so don’t miss mister or misses second best by being inert because we didnt have cultural momentum handed to us on a silver platter to throw away like the boomers. The second thing is, if you dont get in the mix, you throw away your spiritual exercise for both you and another person. That means you don’t grow in wisdom nor does the individual you would be doing something with. You don’t get better, they don’t get better. oth of you need to experience life. Thats our job, not the safety net of boomers.. thats their control device for their fears of having to be responsible parents. We already know they werent responsible and that we are on our own so quit responding to their influence and just walk away from them. They have been telling us that for the last 30-40 years that they never wanted us. Dont devalue yourself and quit just because they are selfish. They talked to their parents about why they couldnt or wouldnt their whole lives, then it was our turn to complain about them… way too much time has sacrificed so many lives because of them, their wisdom has had no meaningful impact in our lives that has not been traumatizing, just ignore them and walk away from them and anyone like them. They are purely social predators. Any dating you might want to do can be done safely with friends etc.. you dont have to goto someones house or bring them to yours and you probably need the exercise of actually telling someone that the two of you are not suited for each other and the men need more constant rejection for their peers instead of just the piles of it recieved from boomers that influenced them to quit before they even started. so go out, date a guy or a girl, then reject them. make the date something beneficial for the local community that is conducive towards family and kids while your at it. Statistically its not possible for it to end up any worse than what the baby boomers did as parents. Just remember, if your afraid your social network doesnt have a persian prince in it or some harem of beautiful women who do all kinds of things for you, you can always go join the muslims in the middle east. They got a great retirment package for you. Better than the baby boomers! That is the cculture of shopping for great deals and you need to be a part of it today! I cant actually wait for you to leave because then the people who are not shopping for a mate and who are actually interested in building a life with someone will be easier to find without waisting incredulous amounts of resources with delusional hopes that their is someone out their who finds it fun to start from scratch and create from the ground up. Why would you not do that? Tired of dating people that is just a social protocol of someone from the babyboomers? Its better to date a 90 year old than a mental clone of your friends mom or dad! Your mind was designed to engage your environment, if your forcing the world to fit your perception your just a clone of the baby boomers! Go live life already, thats why God made it. Hopefully ill see one of you out here eventually instead of all these baby boomers and hippies displacing my generation.. or stay in you man/woma cave and blame God after its too late… your social support group is probably your enemy if your upset with your life, ignore them if you feel like they have selfish intentions they probably do which means your life will be stifled if they influence you. Go live, be safe and develop some sense and keep manipulative people at arms reach and develop that, but for God sakes go experience the people who have a presnece in your community and relise you cannot kill them and replace them with trophy mates!
Peter, have you read the transcript, or listened to the whole message to get the context?
(You quoted Driscoll as saying that “some single men are strange”, and when you answered, you left out the “some”, saying that “So, according to Driscoll, we single men are “strange”
I understand that there is a “gift” of singleness – I also believe that very few people have it.
Driscoll has a way (if you consistently listen to him) of lifting women up, urging women to develop and hold very high standards of how men should be treating them, teaching men to love their wives, humbly confessing and repenting when he himself falls short. Other than one time, I have not heard him speak of his wife in anything other than the highest praise – and I’ve heard him speak of himself as a humble sinner many times.
I think that Driscoll is both loved and despised for the very same reason.
He teaches equality in person although different in roles, he teaches loving and joyous submission of a wife to the loving and gentle leadership of her husband – and he makes the job of husband much more difficult than I’ve heard most pastors make it.
Another thing to note is the demographics of Mars Hill Church. He may be very heavy on the teaching of marriage because of the population in the city where Mars Hill is located.
Being single myself I am aware of the “marriagolitry” that exists – Mars Hill has an active and diverse singles ministry that seeks (as many others do not) to integrate single folks and married folks.
Ellen, I want to second what you say. Driscoll’s teaching is contextualised to Seattle, as it should be. By all accounts, his church is filled with immature singles sleeping around, which explains his teaching on marriage. Driscoll rarely does plain exegesis: he always interprets the text as it applies to his particular audience. The implication of this is that his messages, including the hyperbole, may not be as relevant for others.
Along with my wife I host a bible study that watches the Driscoll sermons and then discusses then. Mark’s preaching has attracted mostly women to my group, all of whom love the way he encourages men to treat them. No other Christian leader in their experience has done that.
Finally, speaking from my own experience, my sanctification and understanding of the Trinitarian love of God has gone to a whole new level since getting married…
Ellen and Alastair, thank you for your comments. Yes, of course his teaching needs to be put into context. Of course he should preach that singles should not sleep around, that if they do not want to remain celibate they should get married, 1 Corinthians 7:9. But that is not what he said, even in Edinburgh where the context was different – although perhaps not that different.
Paul, also writing to a church where sleeping around was a problem (1 Corinthians 5:1,11, 6:12) did not suggest that singleness was just for a very few, but for everyone to consider at least in the special circumstances (7:32-35), although he recognised that it was not for all (7:8,9).
On the point about single men being strange, which already came up in comments here: yes, I did ignore the “some”, and deliberately, because the only way I could make sense of “Some single guys are strange” in context was to understand it as “Some guys are strange in choosing to be single”. Alastair, maybe you can comment on what Driscoll really meant at this point.
I don’t want to get into discussing more general issues of Driscoll’s complementarianism in this comment thread. I just want to say one thing: I criticise Driscoll a lot on this blog because I respect him as an important preacher who says many good things. I just wish he was more balanced on certain issues.
Peter,
I appreciate your post, and your related comments here and at Complegalitarian on Jesus. We men are concerned, whether married or single, whether “Menmakers” or makers of men otherwise, about how God’s and Jesus’s image might be reflected in us males. Glad to hear a few women entertaining thoughts as well.
The logic, the question, is how we earthlies (created male and female) are meant to relate in marriage and out. And whether the second earthly (namely our Master Jesus) is normative, as a male, since he didn’t find marriage fulfillment in his very own Eve. And whether he must be, then, a strange man incapable of exemplifying God’s image, his own ideal design, for his earthly self, for his heavenly father God, and more importantly and personally for any one of us, female or male, for ME.
I think were so married to our Plato-ic logic of the ideal that we’re afraid to divorce ourselves from its conclusion. Simply put, we idealize our own personal ideals (of my God, of my Jesus, of my marriage or my singleness, of my manliness, of her femininity) by (my ideal reading of) the Scriptures. As long as I need not change (i.e., transform), then I could care less the implications for any of the rest of you.
Francis Schaeffer warned of this logic when he wrote of people in our western culture who tell the “upper story” of meaning and the “lower story” of hard reality, with no connection between them. And before him, C. S. Lewis addressed this sort of logic, this kind of question, when he warned Christians of abandoning beauty and myth and desire; in his book, The Abolition of Man, Lewis puts the problem this way:
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
I do understand the irony of this quotation in the context of this discussion about whether Jesus as single, is a eunic, a castrated fruitless gelding if you will. But I also think person is above logic (as the genius Kenneth Pike would say) and that we do best looking to Jesus and not to the hidden God (as Philip Yancey, in The Jesus I Never Knew, paraphrases Martin Luther talking to his own students). If man shall not live by bread alone, then why must he live only in marriage complete?
Peter, lets see if I can add some insight to Driscoll’s comments.
First, he did talk about that verse (singleness is a call for certain seasons, certain situations, certain times in one’s life). This was talked about in the Q&A time after his preach.
“single men are strange” – I can’t recall the exact context but in large this was just a joke, I recall everyone falling off their chairs in hysterics around about this time. He point was something like “single men live at home and stay up all night blogging” (not his words, but the general gist). I didn’t think for a moment those words would apply to someone like yourself, or indeed to my own brother who was with me and is also single. The context was obvious to those in the conference, unfortunately a transcript doesn’t do it justice.
Thanks for the insight. Adrian’s matter of fact report missed the humour there. I suppose he is right that many of us single men are strange:
Guilty as charged!
But even if we drop “strange”, we still have the accusations that single men are irresponsible, unsanctified, boys rather than men, and unable to fully reflect God. And Jesus’ and Paul’s calls to singleness were not just for “certain times in one’s life”, but for some people for life.
Again, Peter, hyperbolic generalizations based presumably on his own congregation. I think every time you hear the word single you can add “teenager/20-something”. I think you can rest assured that Driscoll is not charging you with irresponsibility. 🙂
We should really be debating: “how much hyperbole is too much?”…
Just noticed “unable to fully reflect God” – probably the only point worth discussing further. I suppose Driscoll was referring to Paul’s connection between marriage and the Church’s relationship with Christ, and also reflecting on Genesis where man and woman together reflect the Glory of God?
I think that Driscoll is both loved and despised for the very same reason.
He teaches equality in person although different in roles, he teaches loving and joyous submission of a wife to the loving and gentle leadership of her husband – and he makes the job of husband much more difficult than I’ve heard most pastors make it.
I’ll speak personally here, aware that the charge for my statement might well be ‘unbiblical!’.
A number of people have recently remarked – to my surprise – that my husband and I have an ‘excellent working partnership’. My observation of our ‘roles’ is that we both allow the other to do what he or she does best and we support each other. Whether that support involves A doing well what B does not do well, one or the other standing back and allowing the other to do something or participating in something together.
I think that my husband and I probably each have about 50% ‘typical female’ and 50% ‘typical male’ gifts. Were my husband left to be the sole person to make decisions, he’d find it a very heavy burden.
Complimentarianism, in my experience of it, would lay a heavy load on both of us that I tend to ‘play the male role’ by taking decisions and making sure that he’s happy before finalising them. We would both be denounced as ungodly, unbiblical and I’d be a strident, shrill, emasculating harridan and he’d be a weak-willed, emasculated man who didn’t relay on God for his strength.
Whereas the truth of the situation, in my view, is simply that I’m gifted with the ability to make decisions and he’s gifted with the ability to revel in looking at alternatives (which, not having that gift, I seriously view as a gift). No guilt about not having the ‘right gifts’ and no wasted energy thinking that godly Christian holiness somehow requires both of us to make huge efforts to be something that we’re not.
I believe that God’s call to holiness involves moral and ethical issues. I don’t believe the call to holiness involves the idea that gender A is always gifted with ability X.
The sex-role thing is a great example of needlessly laying heavy burdens on people.
Well, if Driscoll thinks that “single” means “teenager/20-something”, he is making an unwarranted generalisation, and an offensive one as well. There are plenty of us older singles around, all the more if you include the divorced and widowed. He is also being offensive in implying that 20-somethings are irresponsible.
Is “He cannot fully reflect God” intended to be hyperbole? I didn’t read it that way. Where in Genesis do “man and woman together reflect the Glory of God” in a way which they do not each individually? And if he does have in mind the risen Christ’s relationship with the church, that strengthens the implication that for him Jesus on earth, not yet “married” to the church, did not reflect God. That sounds like a very worrying theological tendency.
Peter, this may sound condescending and it probably is, but there is a big part of me that responds to Driscoll with “Wait until you grow up, young man”.
Indeed, Pam. I can’t help thinking that young men’s irresponsibility doesn’t suddenly disappear when they get married.
My last comment (on this topic) is that can we just give Driscoll credit for what he has done with the single young men in Seattle? Whether or not we believe in his theology of gender, by all accounts he has encouraged, discipled and otherwise persuaded a bunch of womanising, blog-reading, World of Warcraft-playing dossers to start reading their bibles, praying, get a decent job, grow-up, date a girl and treat her with respect, refrain from sex until marriage, be “pro-sex” after marriage, and take responsibility for their family, be a loving father, etc, etc, etc. That so many unchurched and formally non Christian young men have been discipled and come to faith is amazing, and we should not forget this. We can nitpick and argue about how valid his message is for EVERYONE, but its changed the lives of many, in a very real way. If only we saw that change in Edinburgh, or wherever we live, I would be very happy!
Regarding comments about the “glory of God” (as it pertains to men and women), I think that’s worthy of a separate blog post…is anyone up for it?
Alastair, if this has really been the effect of Driscoll’s ministry, and if in addition these young men have been truly converted to New Testament faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, rather than just changing their behaviour out of fear of a god who hates them, then indeed I give Driscoll credit.
We can nitpick and argue about how valid his message is for EVERYONE, but its changed the lives of many, in a very real way.
I can celebrate if he has gotten formerly unchurched people coming to church then I’ll give him credit.
From where I sit as a woman and my painful experience in male-headship, the worth of women before God is not nitpicking.
I’m also not convinced that marketing Christianity to men on the basis that God wants them to have authority over women is theologically honest or even Christian.
“the worth of women before God is not nitpicking.” — I agree wholeheartedly!
Thanks Pam. I was thinking the same thing. Since CBMW models that Thanksgiving is about women working in the kitchen and men watching TV and playing in the park, it is no wonder Christianity is attractive to men.
Since CBMW models that Thanksgiving is about women working in the kitchen and men watching TV and playing in the park, it is no wonder Christianity is attractive to men.
Precisely.
And I do not believe that ‘power over’ is the message of Christ.
Jesus did not advocate the powerful or well positioned having authority over the weak and the lowely. He advocated that his disciples use any power they had on behalf of the weak and the lowely.
From the CBMW post Suzanne links to:
An interesting use of singular “they”!
But I note that internationally Christianity seems to be more attractive to women than to men. I applaud efforts to get more men into the Kingdom, but not if they are based on this blatantly patriarchal or power model.
By the way, a happy Thanksgiving to all my American readers!
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Driscoll’s Horrible Histories
Pam and Suzanne,
Given the worth of women comment I am sure you will be encouraged (not) by one story Driscoll told in his talk about sex.
He mentioned that one man started coming to Church because Driscoll had taught his wife that as a Christian wife she had to offer oral sex.
That strange sound you heard last night was my mind boggling when I heard that.
As a single christian man in his 50s I have to say the article is mind-controlling hogwash.
Ben, as another single Christian man in his 50s, I agree with you.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » A Complementarian in Canada
I’m a 50 year-old single nevermarried man who attends a Methodist church and was raised a Christian. I really disagree with your theory that a single man cannot fully reflect God. Hogwash.
I don’t need someone like you telling me whether or not I reflect God. It’s not your decision to make. Only God alone knows whether I reflect him or not.
You and others like you are full of crap.
Ben, don’t address your comments to me, address them to Mark Driscoll whose theory this is. I think I agree with you, although I would not use quite the same language.
Pingback: Mark Driscoll pastor of Mars Hill – views on singleness « Christian Pundit
Pingback: Mark Driscoll on Single Christian Women Who Desire Marriage – the positives and negatives of his piece | Christian Pundit
Pingback: Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage | Christian Pundit
Pingback: According to Pastor – Jimmy Evans – It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ? / Too Much Sex Talk | Making Marriage into an Idol Marriage Idolatry Anti Singles Singlehood Singlenes
Pingback: Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview). | Christian Pundit
Pingback: Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy | Christian Pundit
Pingback: Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Womanhood” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity | Christian Pundit
Pingback: The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings | Christian Pundit
Pingback: Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity | Christian Pundit
Pingback: I’m a [Single / Unmarried] Woman, and my Church Didn’t Know What To Do With That – by A D Abdallah – Christian Pundit