************
The post that had been here has been redacted out of the worry that
my bad sense of humor could lead to more hurt or insult than I ever intended.
Mindflowers and I care deeply about the people of Seattle-all of them.
I believe that the comment thread below contains the original spirit of the post without having to weed through the sarcasm.
I may also redirect you to my other post here:
http://mindflowers.net/2009/01/12/when-us-domestic-bioterror-became-uninteresting-the-targeting-of-seattles-gay-community/
Thank you readers and apologies to Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill.
Ryan McGivern
www.myspace.com/mckibbon
Advertisement
January 11, 2009 at 6:23 pm
While you may call it satire, Driscoll could call it libel.
One should be careful what they publish.
January 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm
We here at Mindflowers have always
fought to publish only the most accurate and pertinant reporting since the New York Post.
And I don’t think that being ignorant
or homophobic or mysogynist is anything
that one would consider libelous if it were God’s bidding.
Such “negative comments” about one’s character are actually compliments when they encouraged by the Word of God, right?
Besides, we’ve already heard about the way that Driscoll bullies his congregant-dissidents. I’m sure he’s much too busy pounding iron fists at home to care about the world’s opinion of him or his ilk.
Thanks for your passive aggressive threat!
Ryan McGivern
January 12, 2009 at 10:43 am
[...] (Check out the New York Times article on Seattle’s Mark Driscoll at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 and my comedic remix response at: http://mindflowers.net/2009/01/11/mark-driscoll-of-mars-hill-is-absolutely-fabulous/) [...]
January 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Ryan,
No threat at all.
I am nowhere near Seattle, don’t know Driscoll, but know that you have put some very libelous things up here on your blog. Satire is one thing, but this goes beyond the bounds.
January 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Pastoralmusings, thank you for reading Mindflowers. We take all our readers seriously and always appreciate any feedback we get.
I understand that you think that this posting goes beyond the bounds. I understand that it does too. I recognize that the satire and extreme situations I used are probably the strongest I’ve used in my normal send ups of pop culture figures.
I think that this is because of the current
threat made to Seattle’s LGBTQ community (see my more recent post about “How Bioterror Became Uninteresting”).
In the midst of a cities’ populace under terroristic threat, we witness the demeaning and divisive language of one of the city’s pastors. This I think is pretty amazing.
This post is only riffing on the article published by the New York Times written by Molly Worthen available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
If Pastor Driscoll can stand by that article, that is, if it is at all arguably reflective of him, my satirical riff on him makes more sense.
I don’t know Mr. Driscoll and have only visited his website and seen a few videos of his on the internet. But from the NYTimes article, I would argue, he speaks in not so veiled code for values that demean women and LGBTQ communities. His control over his church is also evidenced in that original article.
The divisive and mean spirited language of Driscoll was able to hide comfortably within the confines of his Seattle church…until now. We who care about the safety of women and LGBTQ communities will stand up to his bullying. We who care about the religious life and making justice will use peaceful means to counter Driscoll’s depiction of the ‘right theology’.
I should iterate also that in no way am I through this post trying to skewer the folks who attend Mars Hill. Pastors and leaders are held to higher accountibility, and it is Driscoll whose language misses the mark in bringing compassion, peace, safety, and justice to Seattle and the world.
Thanks for reading, and as always, we here
at Mindflowers also need to be held accountible so thank you for your concern and perspective.
Yours, Ryan McGivern
January 12, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Ryan,
That was a very conciliatory statement, and I appreciate it.
The NYT article is actually how I got here. I blogged about it and WordPress linked our posts to each other.
My impression from listening to Driscoll’s podcast is different from yours.
He is somewhat macho acting, and could go overboard with that.
Demeaning to women? Have you seen/listened to the Peasant Princess series? The way he treats his wife is touching to me. The way he speaks to and of her reflects a deep love and respect for her as a person, not simply as a lesser, but an equal. On the other hand, you may point me to what led you to feel as you do. Perhaps we both have not had the balanced coverage of him that we need. I do know, as a pastor, that it is difficult to learn a man in a small sampling of sermons.
Am I correct in getting the idea that you, or someone in the homosexual community in Seattle feels that perhaps Driscoll or his people are directly or indirectly responsible for these threats? I’ve not heard of this for two reasons: I’m in Dixie, and I’ve not had much chance to catch up on news, if it has been on there in the last few days. Honestly, that is a sincere question and not bait.
How do you feel that Driscoll bullies? If he preaches against homosexuality? He certainly has the right to do that. Does he take it farther than that? Can you direct me to audio of where this has occurred?
All of these things being said, I am convinced that homosexuality is a sin. Would I condone bullying? No. Unfortunately, bullying occurs in many places. Christians face it, too. At the same time, bullying has become a relative/subjective term that is sometimes taken to such an extreme that, if one speaks against something they are accused of bullying. Obviously threatening poisoning is probably beyond bullying. That brings us back to the question of who is responsible for those threats? Let’s hope that the person does get caught and receives the appropriate discipline for the threats.
Jason (The Pastor)
January 12, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Ryan,
I said
“Obviously threatening poisoning is probably beyond bullying. ”
Probably was not the right word.
Definitely is the correct word to be in that sentence.
January 12, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Jason:
Thanks for writing again!
I think your questions are well put and I should clarify a bit of how I got from A to B.
I think that second article on Driscoll begins to touch on this, but you’re right-there’s huge room for expansion there.
First, I should say that in the Bioterror blog I make the point first of talking about all the violences possible when derogotory statements are made towards a perceived ‘other’. I know many pastors who cannot tell their congregations who they are for fear of losing a job. I know many living in fear of social repercussions and of physical violence. But as I said, many of these violences are barely perceptable by those who are not in the LGBTQ community. They live with heteronormative privilege, just as real in America as white privilege (though they play out differently, certainly.)
So, no. Driscoll is not under fire from me as having anything to do with the threats. What I wanted to suggest is that Driscoll’s language and portrayal of Christ (as any pastor or cultural leader who have influence) has the power to act as seeds to oppression, injustice, and violences-emotional, psychic, social, spiritual.
The spiritual abuse encountered by non-hetero folk is huge. I have spoken with many Unitarian Universalists, Atheists, UCC, MCC, etc. identifying people who have told stories of how difficult it has been to have any sort of spiritual life after having been told they were, in their essence, their life, their core-bad.
In conversations of those outcast by the extremist churches, and in organizations combating misinformed teaching of the Bible on homosexuality and gender, I have heard repeatedly that one of the most powerful cultural hurdles for the violence to stop is in churches and the teachings of pastors.
Now: herein lies the rub. It is certainly within the right of anyone to express who they think are sinful. No one has to accept anyone they don’t want to. But! The good news is that there’s cultural evolution to slowly shift these things. There was never a supervisory board to sit in on racist churches preaching segregation or Jim Crow. Culture saw that it was dumb and it phased out through the long hard struggle of many faithful people standing up to it.
So is the case today. Only, the nature of it is changing. Every church has ‘glass walls’. What was once whispered in private among the chosen elect is now announced to the world. And so…Mark Driscoll is now on our radar.
I know I rambled back there, so I’ll say it again in a different way: there are ripple effects to what we say. This is why pastors and leaders are held to a different standard. If they give the fodder for just a little more hatred (whether self hatred or for others), or shame, or playing to stereotypes and bullying (aha! that word!), it ripples out and people pick up on that. So why wouldn’t you beat up a ‘fag’? You’d been told all your life that they’re blaspheming against God and nature, and are destined for hell. I don’t think its a stretch to say that the little seeds of power and oppression can get ugly quick.
Secondly, Driscoll does a little trick in this NY Times article. Its the way he connects liberal Christianity (not his words, but I think that’s about right) to the “effete”, or “feminine”. The ‘limp wrist’, the ‘Richard Simmons’, these are references to weakness or the “effete” that is the master stroke: connect women with an essence-and that essence is weak, immoral or without the constitution to stand up for ‘rightness’. Men act wrong and against their nature when ‘effete’. Men are strong. Jesus was a man. Not a ‘wuss’ or womanlike-to wit, weak. “Neutered” and “Queer” he uses to describe how mainstream churches depict Christ. There’s wonderful literature on Queer Theology, Queer Theory, and Christ as Queer, but what Driscoll finds problematic with Queer-ness isn’t really said. Or is it Queer people? Or did he mean “Gay”? In the article’s context, it seems derogotory in my reading.
Again, by characterizing stereotypically effeminate traits as negative, this causes me to wonder: what is his feeling towards women? Now its easy for outsiders looking in to judge a culture or religious expression, but its typically wrong. People look into some Muslim expressions and see subjugation of women. This is more complex than commonly portrayed by outsiders presuming to know. So, when I read that he doesn’t allow female pastors, and that women are subject to men….I’ll give him a pass. I won’t say anything more about that. I’m just working with what I read him saying. Its those statements that reveal a troublesome connection for me.
I have not heard the Peasant Princess sermons. What I would say is that its always dicey territory when women are ‘spoken for’. In my opinion, this is why its great to have women pastors and input. Feminisms are complex and so is power.
Driscoll’s masculine privileging plays out in a quote from the NYTimes: “He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, to plant churches and train men.” Is this just Freudian (over)analysis? In one of his churches’ videos, in stating the gospel, he says “God created man and woman…” plenty of work has been done on the cultural constructions of gender and sex. We live among the intersexed and transgendered, we know that in Christ there is not only neither Jew nor Greek, but neither male nor female: We are more than our constructions. (This is a digression).
Anywho: Yes, Christians I am sure get bullied. I’ve read my share of Voice of the Martyrs. Here’s a link to a site that has information about the situations LGBTQ face:
http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/stats.html
Included therein: Gay students are five times more likely to avoid school due to feeling unsafe. 28% of LGBT youth drop out.
LGBTQ youth have 4 times higher risk of suicide.
Here’s a 2001 article from San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/13/MN221466.DTL
Info included there:
16 anti-gay murders committed in the U.S. in the year 2000.
2,475 victims of anti gay violence in U.S. in 2000 (a 1996 study quoted at now.org states that 80% of victims never report. Gulp.)
There is race violence, anti-Semitic violence, domestic violences, and all of these must be met and faced realistically by our churches. And so must violence against LGBTQ communities. For churches to remain silent on any targeted group is to implicitly condone it.
Bullying against Christians is also not acceptable and should be fought. Violence against Christians because of their identity as Christians in America has not seemed to have the same rate as other groups (I only researched quickly on google-forgive me if I’m wrong here. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen also. Just not the same degree.)
So I hope Pastoralmusings that I have clarified myself a bit. I must admit again that in the midst of a largescale threat against marginalized people in Seattle, reading the NYTimes article on Driscoll definitely colored my reaction.
I can only hope that in the tradition of someone who was much more direct and pithy than I, that outsider Jesus, Christians and faith people of all traditions in Seattle would stand in solidarity with those targeted by terror.
As for me: I know that my redaction of the blog you read above is for the best-and with thanks to you. The issues we face are sometimes too big to let a not-so-funny-blog stand in the way of real progress and conversation. I’m glad that if nothing else, my sophmoric wit led to our having conversed.
Thanks again for your reading Mindflowers.
Our readers are important to us.
Yours, Ryan McGivern
http://www.myspace.com/mckibbon
January 18, 2009 at 3:40 am
Bullying?
Where would you ever get that idea?
January 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Thanks sd for the link!
Mark Driscoll is a lovely fellow, we must admit. Nothing like getting a good laugh out
of slapping people around. High class.
What’s even more upsetting is the way he
neglects honesty about the Bible, preferring instead to prattle off quick answers with the ol’ shell game of “look over here-oops! look over here” when asked ‘if homosexuality is a sin’. Physical violence is not funny and neither are crimes against peoples’ intelligence.
Thanks again!
Ry
March 9, 2009 at 7:31 am
Ryan:
Don’t worry about the libel threats.
By definition, “libel” is an untrue statement.
If it’s true, it’s not libel.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1154&bold=||||
March 9, 2009 at 10:49 am
Thanks sd!
I do appreciate your reading our posts here and thank you for your lookin’ out.
I hadn’t worried about the warnings of Pastor Jason, or any threats of libel. The article I originally posted and then retracted had never been a source of that sort of worry.
I had taken it back however, because people are too important to me. I could see that my post (which I had figured would never be read by folks who didn’t understand my humor) had indeed now been read by at least one person (Pastor Jason) who was upset by it. I couldn’t allow myself or anything I wrote become a ‘stumbling block’ to dialogue about love, ‘sin’, Christianity, our bodies, misogyny and heteronormativity.
I felt that anything I could do in good faith for Pastor Jason or others who may also visit this site was absolutely requisite. I have since this occasion turned over a new leaf at it were on this site and in my life in general. I’ve been having a harder time finding the gallows humor in Christian fundamentalism that I used to rely on to get me through the hurt and division I see there. Its been hard to ‘stay in the conversation’ without retreating to my safe places, but I feel that this is what I need to do right now.
I’ve personally seen so much spiritual abuse, pain, marginalizing, and idolatrous theologizing to not take the hard path.
Thanks for your reading and care, sd!
Yours, Ry McG