…of the meeting recently between Mark Driscoll and his peers, this one on Dwight Friesen’s Blog. It is rather revealing, I think. A few thoughts to make, after a lengthy excerpt:

If we had simply met and nothing tangible would have resulted I still would have been thrilled by the fact that we met face-to-face as our Scriptures invite. But as further evidence of the grace of God, I’m delighted to report that the meeting was a time of frank and honest discussion, where everyone had opportunity to hear, to speak and inquire.

Mark demonstrated a desire to hear and to learn, and told a number of stories of the impact of the response to his language that illustrated his need for change. He told the story of his contact with a member of the Haggard family after his comments went public and how as a result of that conversation Mars Hill Church will have a female researcher read his blog posts prior to publication. With tears in his eyes Mark spoke of his fear for his family’s safety as a result of the public response to his language . . . threats of violence must stop. Please, if you or anyone you know has responded to Mark or (anyone) with such threats of violence please, for the sake of Christ and the love of humanity explore your heart and repent of your sin. Violence is not the Way of Christ. Also, Mark’s pastoral heart was evidenced as he spoke clearly about the need to model humble leadership which appropriately acknowledges failure; he even confessed his need for wisdom as he wasn’t sure how best to proceed. Although the primary focus of our conversation was the tenor of Mark’s comments in recent years, he wasn’t the alone in making movement during the course of this conversation. Paul, the organizer of the protest, asked Mark’s forgiveness for labeling him, “Mark the Misogynist.” Not only that, the protest was called off. Further, for those in that conversation who had seen Mark as something of an an adversary prior to our meeting there was movement toward being advocates one for the other. I left that meeting with greater hope for a reconciled church in Seattle, and beyond. For all of us the proof will be in the pudding. How will Mark use his wit and prophetic platform in the future time only will reveal, but I do believe that he loves God and is desirous to serve Christ and to finish well the race he has been called to run.

We all know that actuating lasting change is difficult and slow as our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses. And so the very things that brought us together for this meeting may bring people together again around future matters; and this is the nature of human experience. It is also the hope of Christian reconciliation that our differences and disagreements can bring us together at the foot of the cross. Our goal is not to agree on points of theology, as clearly we don’t, rather our goal is to grow in love and to move toward reconciled union because of God. This is just one of the many reasons why Trinitarian theology has such practical application in our lives. Three Divine differentiated persons in humble service of one another, and simultaneously one God: genuine plurality/genuine oneness. As followers of Christ we must disagree with another and we can still move toward one another in grace, love, humility and curiosity while recognizing that our oneness does not rest in our creeds but in our Creator.

I’m moved by this account. I’m glad that some practical, systemic measures are being taken to work on Driscoll’s public blogging (though, again, I hope he really has heard what the biggest complaint was; I don’t know if he has). I’m deeply troubled that Driscoll has received threats of violence. And I agree, this is a great model for future health of the church community in Seattle.

Driscoll’s latest on the controversy he sparked and his later response is up. Like his last post, I’m impressed by the spirit he brings to this latest message. I have no doubt that he has experienced these few weeks much like he mentions from the Book of James. That is impressive. I have no doubt that he has seen the effects of his words and might temper them in the future. I get his desire to mature more slowly, and am fascinated by his thoughts about how his sort of ministry in the 21st century is impacting that.

Still, while there’s quite a bit admirable in this post and what he’s learned, there’s nothing substantively new here on the original matter, and so far as I can tell there likely won’t be. An excerpt:

I came to the meeting expecting God would speak to me through fellow Christians and had much joy because He did. I learned that my theological convictions, even the most controversial ones, are as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back. I was also sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked. A female pastor had a very good insight: as my platform has grown, so has my audience, and that in some sense I need to consider myself the pastor of two churches. In Mars Hill where I labor as a pastor who deeply loves his people, they are gracious with my faults and flaws because they know me and they know of my love for them. But outside of Mars Hill, for those who do not know me or my pastoral affection for people, the perception of me can be very different. Therefore, I need to learn how to function most effectively in a new role as someone given a broader voice to speak for Jesus. There is much to learn. To be honest, this is all new to me and comes quicker than I would have hoped for; I wish I was at this place in my fifties or sixties, following a longer period of maturing. However, Jesus obviously has something different planned for me.

Either he still thinks this is just about him singling out Carolyn Haggard, and thus he’s missing the larger impact of what he wrote and what it means to say about women, or he’s got that and actually believes it. Either way, I think he’s likely done commenting on it. I note, also, that he’s a good and clearly thoughtful writer, and in nothing he’s posted on his blog has be apologized or retracted what he wrote about wives letting go for their bound-pastor-husbands. But I’m ready to move on.

Also helpful is this blog entry from one of the pastors who recently met with Driscoll about this matter, Rose Madrid-Swetman. (h/t Scot McKnight) As she says, “We are all life long learners on this journey where confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation is one of our highest callings.” Amen and amen!

And I’ll reiterate what I said before: no one should protest a church’s worship service. I hope the concerns about that he expresses in this post don’t come to pass. Driscoll, Mars Hill, and those who are upset with him all have my prayers.

Updating my earlier entry, Mark Driscoll thanks his critics on his blog this week. He stresses that his advice was directed towards young male clergy, and wasn’t intended nor thought through for a wider audience. So, as  Stephen Shields summarizes:

“What I did not mean to communicate was anything regarding the Haggards, particularly Mrs. Haggard. She is not to blame for the sin of her husband.
…
Lastly, I want to thank my critics, especially the most vocal. They have helped me to understand that more than just pastors are following what I am saying. Subsequently, they are helping me to learn how to more clearly articulate what I am trying to communicate. In that way, they have been of great assistance to me as I seek to pastor most effectively for Jesus. I have waited some time to post this clarification because in times past I have gotten angry and responded with a tone that was defensive, prideful, and not helpful. I am learning that critics in some ways are also friends because there is often some truth in what they are pointing out. Subsequently, God is using my critics to teach me and is asking me to be willing to listen.”

I’d suggest you read the Driscoll’s entire post. I admire the attitude of appreciation for critique (one such was from Andrew Jones, outlined on his blog TallSkinnyKiwi, who incidentally and rightly points to bob.blog as a helpful summary source of the whole affair).

I guess my thing is that Mark doesn’t seem to get what the big deal was: its not just that he intimated that it was Ms. Haggard’s fault, but it intimated that women in general are somewhat at fault when men go astray. True, this response is all about what the male pastor needs to do to get his sexual house in order. But that whole wives “letting themselves go” bit wasn’t mentioned in Driscoll’s response to the critics. He talked about full biblical sexuality within Christian marriage. He spoke about the importance of solid marriages for clergy. But nothing about the blaming the victim schtick. You know, the “she dressed provocatively so I couldn’t help ravaging her” thing. The “she’s not sexy enough anymore so I slept with a male prostitute in a meth-haze” thing. Not to mention how the deeper issue–the systematic suppression of innate homosexual orientation–isn’t even considered, but I gather there might be on his part a feeling that these are either choices or can/should be suppressed.

Now, was this original problem due to the audience that Driscoll was writing to, as he says?:

As I have re-read my blog, I can see how some may have misconstrued what I said. Because I was writing to male pastors, I spoke in such a way that was not as clear as it could have been regarding what is true of Christian marriage in general. Therefore, I hope that this post is more clarifying.

Whether written to male pastors or not, the point he made about women is just plain wrong. Whether its misogynistic or chauvinistic, as the debate is currently going in some parts of the blogsophere, isn’t really that germane to me. Its wrong. Not misconstrued. Wrong. Sinful, in fact. So I’m not satisfied. I appreciate Mark’s attitude of gratitude for the critique. I just don’t think he gets it. Still. In short, I continue to think that he’s a cad.

…by way of addendum, two quick other thoughts. First, as I think it should be clear, I don’t think that anyone should be letting Mark Driscoll off the hook because of this statement. Sure, we should be glad that he has an attitude of listening to his critics. But his critics should then point out, well, the obvious. Second, I also don’t think that anyone should protest someone else’s worship service, regardless of Driscoll’s response or views. There are ways to protest, complain, cajole, ridicule, critique, lambaste, etc, without disrupting a religious community’s worship of God.

This ticks me off. In the same breath as rightly offering prayers of concern for Haggard’s wife and children, Mark Driscoll (founding pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle) then goes on to insult her and intimate that at least one reason some leaders can’t keep their penis in their pants is that their wives don’t work hard enough to stay attractive for them:

A follow-up article by the Associated Press said that Haggard purchased methamphetamines from the gay prostitute but claims he never used them. He also admitted to getting a massage from the gay prostitute but denies any sexual activity between the two.

Of course the media is having a field day with the scandal, particularly since Haggard’s home state of Colorado is on the brink of a highly charged political vote regarding homosexual rights. It will likely take weeks to untangle the truth in all of this very devastating news. In the meantime, let us pray that his wife and five children will be loved and supported through this incredibly difficult time. The horror they must be experiencing is likely unbearable.

As every pastor knows, we are always at risk from the sin in us and the sinful temptations around us.

…

My suspicion is that as our culture becomes more sexually rebellious, things will only get worse. Therefore, as a means of encouragement, I would like to share some practical suggestions for fellow Christian leaders, especially young men:

…

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

Now, it really is important for those in leadership positions–in the church, outside of the church–and in fact all spouses to consider what they need to do to strengthen their marriage and their commitment to their spouse. This blog post is helpful to some extent in that regard. Pastors do need a pastor. They do need to acknowledge that their vocation and role (like many others of leadership) sometimes puts them in positions where they might be propositioned, and habits and relationships that allow for strength to reject these advances are helpful and sometimes essential. And, for the record, there are many many many good reasons why spouses want to work at being attractive–to one another, for one’s self esteem–and might work at physical fitness too.

But, for God’s sake, no matter what the wife looks like, if these reports are true, this is about Haggard’s repressed sexuality. Even if this were just a straight-forward affair, that would not be her fault. Nor would their sexual relationship be purely her responsibility: it is a shared negotiation and often based on many complex factors, partly physical attraction, partly emotional intimacy, partially stress and fatigue, partially ennui or playfulness, partially care and compassion and love for the other. And physical attraction isn’t a pure matter of “letting oneself go” or not but is wrapped up in all those other things. For God’s sake, how many pastor’s wives have kept with their once-skinny-now-apple-shaped husbands through thick and thin?

Oh, but if only wives put out more and were sexier, then maybe their clergy-husbands wouldn’t seek male prostitutes for “massages” and buy-but-not-use Meth.

Please! It boggles the mind.

…Looks like I was being temperate, by comparison. See Bob Carlton’s thoughts.