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.