I haven’t blogged about Rachel Held Evans in awhile.
In the past, I’ve been critical of her definition of femininity and her view that Christians should just agree homosexuality doesn’t REALLY matter. But lately it seems the popular blog mistress is moving from bad-theology to psychiatry–and diagnosing Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll as “disturbed” and “in need of counseling and discipline.”
Ah, feminism: that glorious utopia where women resent the term “crazy,” yet sprinkle it on their opponents without blinking.
Anyway, the most significant thing in Ms. Evans’ post is she doesn’t even have to build a case for her opinion. She just announces, “His quotes are misogynistic and homophobic and disturbing,” and then includes a link so you can make her voice heard at Mars Hill. (Oops. I mean YOUR voice. You can make YOUR voice heard at Mars Hill. Pardon me.)
She doesn’t have to explain what’s wrong with Driscoll’s comments, because the majority of her readership already agrees. All of them have been submerged in the same rigid, Feminist doctrine since they could crawl–so they recognize heresy when they see it!
(And, wow, did Pastor Driscoll lay that heresy on thick. CLEARLY, he is NOT a Feminist–if you can imagine something so ridiculous.)
But, unfortunately for Ms. Evans, not everybody who reads Pastor Driscoll’s heated comments is holding the same base-assumption that some words/topics are off limits.
And those of us who haven’t completely assimilated to the feminist culture would like more explanation about just exactly why Driscoll’s phrasing is unacceptable.
Humor me, and spell out the reasons no person should say what he did…
I think you’ll have a hard time defending your thesis. (Let alone arguing, “When you talk about women and homosexuals, the use of [these words] means you’re disturbed.”)
I’m afraid the best a person could do is complain Driscoll’s words aren’t very nice. (And that’s true.)
He uses lots of terms that many people consider no-no’s.
Is that it?
He’s worked-up and spitting fire about various issues in the Church, and we aren’t able to consider his points because we’re stuck on the word “pussies?”
That’s what makes him insane?
Because it just sounds to me like he’s carrying a message of life-or-death, and he’s using colorful language to hammer it through the more clogged ears among us:
“…the culture and families and churches sprint to hell because the men aren’t doing their job and the feminists continue their rant that it’s all our fault and we should just let them be pastors and heads of homes and run the show.”
“…At some point you will all learn that I don’t give a crap about how you ‘feel.’ Why? Because I am not talking about your right to your feelings. That is the result of feminism, psychology, and atheism which says we are all good and need to have freedom to express our goodness and receive goodness in kind. If you are a man, I want to teach you a new word: ‘Duty’…”
[sarcasm] “I have been thinking and praying about this whole string, and I am really sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. I am sorry if men of God had their inner child spanked. I feel terrible for all the tears you guys have shed over the pain of my words. Please forgive me. Please come to my house right now so I can hold you tightly in my arms and draw you to myself and whisper oh so sweetly in your ears…shut the hell up.”
So there’s just an excerpt. Blunt and crass. And if you read the whole thing, there’s nothing gentle in the entire rant. He never even ATTEMPTS the smooth-and-understanding approach.
But, is he saying stuff that’s really, universally, morally wrong? Or are we shocked mostly because his words aren’t suited for a culture as “nice” as ours?
“I speak harshly because I speak to men. A woman might not understand that…”
And I would agree that feminine cultures DON’T “understand that.” Most of us are aaaaaaaall about cooperation and gentleness and peace-making, because that’s what society emphasizes.
On the flip side, there’s very little room for “frank” and “angry.” (Unless it’s Mama Bear anger, I suppose.)
American culture says, “Speaking plainly is rude.” American culture says, “You catch more flies with honey…”
American culture says, “Love can’t exist next to harshness!”
The tone used by Driscoll utterly scandalizes most Americans, because we’re used to having things cushioned and sugared and gently whispered past our delicate ears. We don’t even care if the speaker is being slimy and insincere! He could be gritting his teeth and crossing his fingers behind his back, but he still better go through every one of those polite, social motions.
We value PC-speech so highly, we assign labels like “disturbed” to those who don’t use it.
In my opinion, that’s at least 98% of the “problem” with Driscoll’s quotes. Not what he believes; but how he said it.
For most Americans, the responsibility for “keeping the peace” rests entirely on the writer/speaker, and everybody else holds unlimited power to stop them, if offended. (Here’s a post of mine in defense of my tone. And here is Matt Walsh’s explanation that Christianity isn’t the same as “Niceness.” That’s just two examples of people being told they’re saying stuff “wrong.”)
In contrast, there is virtually no responsibility placed on the listener–to toughen up a little.
That’s “just how it is” in a Nice Society.
But, my question is, are we upset with Mark Driscoll because he actually, truly is “homophobic” and “misogynistic” (do you believe he HATES gays and women?), or are we upset because he didn’t tow the line and present his opinions the American-proper way?
If you’re not entirely sure, maybe it would help if I translated some of his comments into the standard language. Maybe he won’t sound quite so “crazy” if I take some of those scary words out…
(My regular readers know I’m not exactly fluent in Sugar-ese, but I’ll try.)
He said: “It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian, when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.”
More palatable translation: “In my opinion, the trouble started when Adam followed Eve into sin. I could be wrong, but I think Adam showed poor leadership by adopting the first “yes, dear” approach. This seems cowardly. Now, I’m not saying that Eve was worthless and stupid [insert five minutes of over-explaining what he “doesn’t” mean, and listing the good qualities of women, etc.] But when the woman was deceived, I feel strongly that Adam should have stood up to her.”
He said [on homosexuality]: “Every man knows you can’t build anything with bolts and bolts. Damn freaks… [the] sympathizers contend ‘But they really really love each other.’ I love dogs, but I don’t stick my tongue in their mouth and lobby congress for a tax-deductible union. ‘But we need to be nice.’ What the hell for? …Should we form some form of homo Promise Keepers so we can all…hug each other and cry like damn junior high girls watching Dawson’s Creek? I’d tell you to kiss my ass, but I’m afraid you’d take me up on it.”
More palatable translation: “I feel strongly that homosexuality is unnatural. Of course, the sin of gay sex is no worse than when a straight person lusts… [insert five minutes talking about other, just-as-bad sins] …But I struggle to accept homosexuality for the same reason I can’t support bestiality. Please, oh please, don’t take this the wrong way! [insert five more minutes of back pedaling and fire-extinguishing] I’m just saying, like…This trend is fairly upsetting, and I’d say more except I’m tempted to use shocking adjectives in the process.
I can say with certainty, not everybody in this culture is offended by Driscoll’s method of conveying his beliefs. (*raises hand*) I was able to filter out his “saltiness” and define his platform without a problem.
Contrary to what Rachel Held Evans suggests, it didn’t even hurt me.
In fact, I belong to a sub-culture which prefers when people say what they mean (and use fewer “I thinks,” and “in my opinions” and “please don’t think I’m sayings…”), because–in my opinion–it’s tedious and unnecessary.
What one person considers “unacceptable,” may sound to me like “just loud and urgent.”
What one Feminist calls “disturbed,” just seems like “direct and passionate” in my view.
But why not let Mark Driscoll himself explain why he’s so fighting mad:
“…I am screaming at you to [change]. And, yes, I am screaming. Why? Because listen to all the noise we’ve got to cut through…”
The dramatic accusations of Rachel Held Evans are perfect examples of Feminist “noise.”
If you don’t stick to certain topics, and use only female-sanctioned terms, you are “troubled” and “unhealthy.” Thousands of women will rally together and actively work to get you fired…because… well just read the quotes! He’s ANGRY! And he said “pussies” and “homo-erotic!”
Yeah, I can see why someone might resort to screaming over that nonsense.
(Part Two: If Jesus Sought Help For His Problem)