Don't Study the Bible!?

I recently wrote a blog about the famous pastor Mark Driscoll's latest sermon. Today I watched the entire sermon (watch it here) partially because of a blog I read that critiqued a quote by Driscoll from that sermon. I watched the entire sermon to see for myself whether or not they were appropriately handling the quote (since I try to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt). I encourage you to watch and determine for yourself whether or not their blog (or mine) has been fair to Driscoll (and Christ and his body).

As Driscoll enters into Ephesians 5:22-33 he tells people they won't like what he has to say. He starts with the first two words. "Wives, submit..." He lightens the mood by laughing about how this has already caused tension for the audience (I appreciated that). "Submit" can be a word that causes tension, he knows this, maybe better than most these days. He stops his reading after emphasizing the word "submit" and states,

"'What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?' You can always tell a rebellious evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else. I'll just read. Ok..."

And with that he continues reading the passage.

BUT HOLD UP. There is a problem.

Whatever Driscoll meant is probably lost in his wording because his wording is communicating that word studies and learning about the Biblical languages is a sign of a rebellious evangelical. I don't know why he chose the term "evangelical" over "Christian" but I'll touch on that in a moment

I am sure he doesn't mean what his words communicate at face value. I think we owe it to him to investigate what his intended meaning was because it can be dangerous to just take people's words at face value when the words can be controversial.

What he might mean is that a casual reading of a translated Bible in the English will be sufficient for our understanding of a passage's meaning. In other words, an author's intent can be found through a reading void of investigatory study. 

Maybe Driscoll is (also) trying to say that people in other theological camps who disagree with his complementarian position try to find loopholes through selective word studies so they can disagree with his position and escape the "soft patriarchy" position he finds to be the Christian truth. Thus, "rebellious evangelicals." Maybe he is trying to argue that those who disagree with his position are abusing scripture to support their claims. Sadly, that approach reeks of an unwillingness to have reasonable discussion over a theological disagreement. I'm hoping this isn't what was in his heart/mind when he spoke these words but, at the same time, it wouldn't be surprising if he's making an off handed comment that jabs at people for disagreeing with him by trying to make them look bad. He's done it before without apology. Maybe this isn't the case though! Let's hope not. 

Maybe he meant those sorts of things but Driscoll doesn't say any of that. He doesn't qualify his statement at all. He leaves us with a statement that, at face value, villainizes word studies and a deeper look at author's intent. At the very least, at face value, he villainizes those who disagree with him. Either way, he used poor wording and for the sake of those under his teaching (and the rest of the body of Christ) he should clarify his statement in a public address or his next sermon. An apology would even be helpful since a lack of clarity can be incredibly damaging. I think of the new believers at Mars Hill and those who listen to his podcasts that will be confused or poorly influenced by this statement.

It's fine if Driscoll thinks his position is the right one. I expect that. I feel the same way about my opposing position. However, the way we talk about each other must be respectful Jabs don't help. Bold truth is fine but cheap shots are not loving. Implying that the brothers and sisters who disagree with us are abusing scripture simply because they reach a different conclusion isn't helping. We have to try to understand each other. Hopefully Driscoll isn't taking cheap shots. Hopefully he meant something harmless and just used the totally wrong words. 

 I hope he makes this more clear because right now he's saying the sort of thing that cult leaders say. I'm not wanting him to be viewed that way. I don't want my brother to be so terribly misinterpreted. 

To be clear, I'm not saying he is trying to start a cult or is trying to hoard power over people. I'm not saying Mars Hill isn't a part of the body of Christ as a faithful church. I'm merely saying Driscoll, at face value, just sent a message that sounds like the message cult leaders send (that is, don't investigate to see if my teaching is right or wrong, just listen to what I say). And remember, I'm hoping to God that he didn't mean what he said. That'd be incredibly sad and would cause me to seriously worry about the people under Driscoll's leadership. 

I just obtained my Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies. I had to take 2 years of Koine Greek classes to get that degree. I don't like Greek. In fact, I despised those classes because they got on my nerves. But I understand the value of word studies, etymology, cultural studies, and all the research that helps to better understand the biblical author's intent. This is especially true for passages that are controversial. That's what makes this statement so troubling.

Only minutes earlier Driscoll emphasized that this might be one of the most controversial passage in all of scripture for some listeners. This is a big deal, a hot button issue. This is difficult and causes tension. He admits this before he begins. He even says some people refuse to discuss the issue because it's so touchy. He makes it clear that our culture has trouble with the word "submit" and then, almost immediately, dismisses the pursuit of understanding what that word means for the author and his audience. Driscoll opts out for his own interpretation (which can't be void of word study with how much he speaks on this issue on a public level). That's beyond foolish. It's dangerous. 

However, again, I'm hoping and betting he's not truly against word study. I think he'd agree that it is good and wise to do word studies and to do everything you can to better understand the words of scripture. If all we can do is read the Bible at face value then that's fine but most of us can do far more than this and we should do far more. We should do everything we can (together) to better understand the truth of scripture as Holy Spirit leads us in our learning (and remember, God gave us study tools as well as the Spirit). I firmly believe Driscoll and I agree on this.

I won't villainize Driscoll. I'd rather assume he said something he shouldn't have said off the cuff and it was a poor choice of words to communicate what he actually meant. I pray that he clarifies and apologizes. I encourage you to study scripture and to respectfully interact with those with whom you disagree. Seek unity! Seek to understand how you might be wrong. I may be wrong about Driscoll's statement. I try to be fair but perhaps I'm not being fair enough. I don't know but I'm trying to help us all however I can, if I can, if it's needed.

And if you want, tweet @PastorMark and encourage him to clarify this confusing and dangerous statement for the sake of his ministry. Be blessed my siblings!

Birth Control for Christians Part II

Recently I picked up a book entitled Birth Control for Christians by Jenell Paris. I was going to do a blog series through the material because I was under the impression that the book would be giving a theological perspective on the various types of available birth control methods.

I was wrong.

Paris' book is highly informative about the various available forms of birth control but she doesn't give very much theological thought to any of them. A few of the methods are given a paragraph or page of light reflection on some general theological positions regarding them but that's about it. For example: It's debated whether or not certain methods can be classified as abortive. That's really all that's provided theologically.

The beginning of the book is far more informative on the theological matters of birth control. Paris provides a few historical positions of the Catholic church, which is great, but doesn't travel too far beyond the short history lesson. I was hoping to see theological argument for and against all the various methods with a short explanation of the method as a precursor to the positions. Needless to say I didn't get that. Instead, an explanation of the intricacies of each method were explained, pros and cons were listed, prices were listed, side affects both in the positive and negative were listed, and how one can obtain the method was mentioned. As stated before, there were, at times, concise mentions of theological thoughts on the method but this was a rarity. 

Though, I must mention, there is a good little bit on the pull-out method and misreadings of "the sin of Onan" which I found to be entertaining (too bad I've already studied that and written a blog on it). 

As a result of my being wrong, I won't be delving into a blog series about this book. I apologize. Sorry. However, if you're looking for a book that just says "Here's all the birth control methods and all you need to know about them outside of theological stances" then this is a fantastic choice! It's quite informative. Perhaps this is a good book to read prior to reading literature on theological positions regarding the various methods. 

So with all that, good luck on your baby making... or avoiding. Maybe Pray about it or something. I hear that helps a good amount. Also, adopting is a good idea. Just saying. If you know of books that might be more in line with what I'm looking for please let me know! Thanks and may God direct your steps as you make plans in your heart. 

Is Driscoll Right About Women & Conflict?

I was watching a 7 minute video snippet of a recent Mark Driscoll sermon (source) that was brought before me through an article criticizing an interpretation of a Proverb (which was unfair). In the sermon he speaks of Ephesians 22-33 and how women submit to their husbands in love and respect.

I always try to hear Driscoll fairly and to give him the benefit of the doubt since I know I disagree with some of his major theological views. I owe it to him, myself, Christ, and the body to give him the benefit of the doubt so that I can ensure that my love for my brother is not tainted by ignorance, pride, lies, or any other weapon that can be used against me by the enemy. Unity is important and I don't want to give the enemy a foothold. 

With that said, Driscoll's view of men and women often baffles me. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong and I'm not insulting him, I'm just saying that I don't see what he sees and what it is that he sees in this world baffles me. Let me explain.

Starting at about the 2:20 mark of the video he instructs women that they need to be respectful, which is true, and that wives must feel and speak in a way that doesn't "pick a fight with him, declare a war, and start the crazy-cycle." I agree that wives and husbands need to not fight when they disagree but rather respectfully work through conflict. This isn't a command just for women but for spouses, and as I'll later explain, people in general. Also I don't think Driscoll is saying "crazy-cycle" in a way that demeans the female gender. Unfortunately, it can easily sound like he is saying women are typically the ones who start the "crazy-cycle" and we all know that's not true. This is the biggest problem with Driscoll's sermon. Sure, he's working off a teaching meant for wives and such but this is wisdom for all God's people, not just married females and that isn't expressed in any form.

Driscoll states emphatically that it is good and right for wives to express their thoughts and feelings to their husbands because Jesus expressed thoughts and feelings. He goes on to say that women shouldn't disrespect their husbands in public because it encourages others to do so. This is a big part of his teaching; the public nature of the wife's "disrespect" and how it affects the husband socially in the realm of being respected. Next he states, "You can disagree with your husband but respectfully, privately." Here's an issue for me, and I'm not sure if he intended it but, it seems Driscoll is making respectfully and privately into synonyms. Now, disagreement with the husband can only be a private matter, otherwise it's disrespectful. Earlier he was saying to just be respectful but now it's to be respectful and to be private.  

I don't disagree that most conflict needs to be settled privately (again this goes both ways for husbands and wives). This is not the case for all conflict. Some smaller conflicts can happen in public. Anyway, Driscoll continues this thought and it's the next point I'm actually focused on.

Around the 4 minute mark he says to the women, "...you ladies don't perhaps understand this but when you disrespect, cut down, your husband in front of others, he is in a lose-lose scenario because if he argues back he is being mean. If he doesn't argue back he is being weak. He's in a lose-lose. Men with men, it's not like this.You disrespect me, we can talk about that. Right? We can actually have a bit of a debate about that. But with your wife? 'I'm in a bad position. Either I respond and I'm a mean husband or I don't respond and I'm a weak husband.'"

I 100% agree that disrespect is harmful to the person in a personal way and in a social way. We should never disrespect one another be it in private or public. That's just flat out loving others. Husbands should respect their wives and wives their husbands. However, I still worry Driscoll is operating under the idea that disagreement in public is disrespect. I hope not because I couldn't say disagreement in public puts a spouse in a lose-lose situation. This brings me to my next thought.

Why must the dichotomy be mean v. weak? Who says it is weak to refuse to engage in conflict publicly and opt to settle the matter privately? Isn't this, more or less, what he was teaching the wife to do only moments earlier? I think this is the third way out of the situation if it arises. Respond, in love. That way you're not "mean" or "weak." This scenario will inevitably happen and the proper reaction is to respond in love. Don't be passive, don't be aggressive, be kind. Step to the side and settle the matter in love or agree to resolve it later alone. Back to the dichotomy.

There is nothing weak about being disrespected. If it is weak then it's probably the type of weakness we see when Jesus is spat upon (to a much smaller degree). That is, it is an appropriate weakness. It is better to be wronged to than to wrong. Christians don't fight back to uphold a reputation. Christians have no interest in their own pride or looking good in the eyes of others. No, their aim is to be loving, patient, and kind. They want to be like Jesus and thus they don't need to worry about appearing weak to others (especially if the others are a bunch of guys).

I also don't think engaging in the disagreement and having an argument, even in public, constitutes being mean. The wife isn't mean when she publicly disagrees and the husband isn't mean when he disagrees in public. How one disagrees determines whether or not they are being mean. If it's insulting or done in an unloving manner then it can be classified as mean but arguing in and of itself, even in public, is not enough to constitute being mean. So I find the dichotomy to be unreasonable on both ends.

Furthermore, the notion that men get to hammer out differing opinions in public but women (or a particular woman) can't hammer out differing opinions with their husband in public is a bit silly. Sure, there is a different intimacy. I get that. Again, most matters should be handled privately if possible BUT anytime a Christian man is disrespected, be it by a wife or another man (be he Christian or not) then the Christian man ought to respectfully, patiently, kindly, seek to resolve the conflict in a way he would with a beloved. That might mean saying "Can we talk about this later in private?" instead of fighting for his reputation or pride in front of the guys. But, like with the wife, sometimes the issue must be handled in the forum it is proposed and the matter must be solved in a loving and respectful way. I don't think we need too different an approach to conflict with wives and bros (and this is the context I think Driscoll presents as opposed to a context which has within it a personal enemy). 

Also on that note, I don't want to assume Driscoll is saying women are incapable of engaging in debate when men are capable of it. I don't at all think he is proposing them women are of weak mind and unable to intelligently debate with men. That wouldn't be fair to him and his intent. So let's not go there, let's respect the man and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Either you are mean to people and a bad lover of neighbor/spouse or you're like Jesus. Why must we say the dichotomy exists with the wife and not fellow men? To me, it seems like Jesus wants us to be the same person for everyone, consistent in our conduct. Yes, context (even socially) plays a part but I don't see how it plays as big a role as Driscoll seems to think. Both men and women need to be respected by the Christian man (and woman) in the same way. Our conflict resolution skills in marriage can, for the most part, work off the same principles in public with those we are not bound to in marriage.* Maybe I don't understand marriage very well as a single man but I do understand conflict resolution pretty well and this is something I've found to be true in my experience.

Here's the real question: Am I misreading Mark Driscoll? Do I not understand his view of how men and women are different or am I misunderstanding what he is teaching here and the implications of that teaching? I'm working hard to hear him rightly. 

*A great book for conflict resolution in marriage which has a ton of carry-over principles for conflict resolution in general is Fight Fair! by Tim and Joy Downs.

Favoritism & Sanctified Murder

Before Bonhoeffer became a pacifist he presented a speech in Barcelona in which he discussed the relationship between Christianity and ethics. In this presentation he spoke of war. Below is a short exert from this presentation. As a sidenote, the word “Volk” can be translated as “people” but is left in the German by the translator because the word “people” is not rich enough in the concept of community or belonging. 

“I will raise the weapon in the awful knowledge of doing something atrocious, but being unable to do anything else. I will oritect my brother, my mother, my Volk and nevertheless know that this can only be done through the shedding of blood. Yet love for my Volk will sanctify murder, will sanctify war.”

What I appreciate about this position is that Bonhoeffer is completely honest and takes the position to it’s full end. He openly admits that there are times when the only way to protect a person is through killing another person who is posing a threat to the well being of those we would seek to protect. That’s undeniable. However, I wouldn’t say that in and of itself justifies the killing of the aggressor. 

Beyond this, Bonhoeffer states that this favoritistic love sanctifies murder and war. Because we seek to protect “what’s ours” with lethal force we are justified to destroy those who would seek to take “what’s ours.” Of course, as Bonhoeffer will later discover, this perspective flies directly in the face of Jesus’ teachings. 

Jesus tells us “...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:44b-48).

God does not show favoritism and is kind to both those who love him and those who do not. We are to be merciful, compassionate, and kind just like God in this way. We are to do good to those who are both loving towards us and those who are not loving. To all people we are commanded to be lovers and those who nurture life through good deeds. 

In Luke 6 Jesus is recorded as teaching us, “...do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. ...And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ...But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”

Within Jesus’ teaching there is no way to conclude that favoritism (which can’t truly be a Christ-like love) sanctifies murder or war. In fact, Jesus stands overtly against the idea that we are justified to love one person over another. We often think our love for neighbor is evident when we protect those we love with violence against an enemy but Jesus shows us that we couldn’t be more wrong! True love is seen in treating the enemy with the same love we would give to those who love us. 

Does this complicate how we see love and how we fight against injustice and protect those we love from evil? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or worthy of abandonment. It simply means we must seek Christ more and trust him more each day as we seek to be perfect as our Father is perfect, loving both our loved ones and our enemies, choosing to do good to both no matter how they live.