Saturday, January 28, 2006

how not to engage in conversation

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church (a Very Important church apparently). In this article he clearly demonstrates how NOT to go about having a helpful conversation on an important subject. Thanks Mark! You can find my comments about half way down.

8 comments:

Mark said...

To be honest, apart from the name I don't see how Mars Hill is any different from other Evangelical mega churches... their creedal statements are more than a little conservative e.g. We do not believe in feminism because we believe that men should responsibly lead homes and churches with sacrificial love like Jesus Christ.

I know Andrew Jones has a lot of respect for Driscoll and that he used to be a speaker on the pre-emergent young leaders network... both good EC credentials but the rest of it is pretty un-de/re-constructed reformed party line stuff. As is his attitude in the post... to say nothing of the vitriol with which he speaks about (ex)friends! Does him no credit at all... can't say I will be following his writing/blogging... there is way to much interesting stuff out there to be bothered with this petty back-bitting.

Andy said...

Scary stuff Matt, thanks for pointing it out - I've added my comment to the list too, though I think it's pending.

Frankly I'm mortified, gutted, angry that someone in such an influentual position can communicate in such a way with such hatred. It really makes me so ashamed of my faith.

:(

Chris Bullivant said...

Matt, I'm really surprised at your 'take' on this. Here's a pastor doing what we're actually meant to do - accepting people of all lifestyle preference, letting people find the Lord through community, to belong, believe and behave - who's saying "God says homo stuff is wrong" but "he loves you and accepts you just as you are but too much to let you stay as you are", and is understandably blowing off steam at evangelicals inability to marry these two ideas, in a playful tone. You come across as oddly prudish. I didn't see anything hateful in this at all and think he's used any leadership influence to great effect. Go Mars, you rock!

Matt said...

thanks guys for your comments. Chris, I am not commenting at all on the rightness or wrongness of Driscoll's position. That's another (huge) conversation altogether. what i am objecting strongly to is his attitude, his lack of love, graciousness, and respect, for other Christian brothers and sisters who are wrestling with some very important questions with honesty and integrity. To make fun of and belittle people in the way Driscoll does in his article is just not on. Remember - it's not just about being right: even if Driscoll's position is right it's possible to be right in the wrong way.

Mark said...

Chris, Have you actually read the whole article (I guess not before it's slanderous bestiality accusations were edited out by the site owners - not Driscoll I may add)? We all holed different positions on different issues... that is not the point... The point is the vitriol and violence of his rhetoric (I won't use the word argument!) I cannot see how this could be described as "playful", vindictive, aggresive, ascerbic, childish, stupid, plain nasty, yes... playful definately not! BTW have a surf around and see if the "Emergent" team found it fun... I think BM uses the word "pain". Bullies often consider their activitites "playful" and harmless!... I don't agree with Andrew Jones, who disagrees with Driscoll but excuses his attack... nor does agreeing with Driscoll mean one should accept his verbal violence... regardless of his view on Homosexuality (which I am not commenting on), he should be ashamed of his childish behaviour!

Kyle said...

"...all this is just gay"?

You can't tell me the man doesn't hate homosexuals.

Chris Bullivant said...

I must have read a different article. But it did end with "...all this is just gay?" which I thought was a fun, playful self-referential use of the word to underline a complete lack of him being a homosexualist.

Chris Bullivant said...

Actually, the article I read finished "this is all just gay." So perhaps we are reading a different article - or, as I suspect from my own vast* experience of writing - there is absolutley NO accounting for how people will interpret what you say. Which is why politicians end up sounding so bland once their views and comments have been put through the "non-regional accent" of non-nuanced, non-offence.
*I appreciate that the sarcasm I've employed here will not translate and come accross as conceited. The light hearted humour of my tone will also, to some, transcend online to a vitriolic hatred, to others an irresponsible inability to grasp the enormous world-ending gravity of the discussion. This is just lesbian.