Now that's comedy! Driscoll's Jesus-was-a-redblooded-pussyloving-fagstomping'-GOP-loving-G.O.B-just-like-me garbage is far inane and unjustified than the model of Christ that liberals are accused of whipping up. Mark Driscoll is the Sarah Palin of Christianity, and its a sad indictment of evangelicals that "anything goes, as long as its modern and fills the pews" priorities that his banausic guff is taken seriously.
I mean, come on Peter, you're an oxbridge, C of E proper priest! Do you believe that Avatar is pagan propaganda? Or that masturbation turns you gay? Or that Jesus had to have been a macho fratboy 'cause guys like Driscoll couldn't worship an "effeminate" saviour (!) ? Or that Christians have to be creationists? Or that *evangelicals* who insufficiently condemn gays are really "homo-evangelicals" ? Or any of the other definingly moronic "theological" statements by Driscoll?
*NB note Driscoll's inane point on hurting God's feelings; showing that, for all his homophobic bluster, his weepy model of God is quite as man-made and spurious as the straw-god he accuses liberals of creating.
There are few things more unintentionally hilarious than camp evangelicals pretending to be tough guys. I've known multiple middle-class evangelicals who are opposed to gay lib because they think it will lead to more straight guys trying homosexuality (!) and a number, now married to women, who confessed their same-sex attraction and had a "there but for the Grace of God go I" attitude to gay sex. You will not find any self-respecting normal straight man who would spout such nonsense (but then, masculine men tend to be in the pub on sundays, instead of singing "you're altogether lovely" "he takes me too the banquet table" etc worship songs in nominally anti-gay evangelical churches). Your average drag queen could kick Driscoll's ass without breaking sweat (or, indeed, a nail ;))
NB I've provided links because of your "in-context". I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking seemingly inane statements that are somehow magically transformed in serious theological points when properly contextualised.
Not least as Matthew 26:53 suggests that nobody could "beat up" (!) Our Lord unless He willed it, irrespective of whether He had long hair or not (!!) (typing this, it strikes me that Driscoll might not know or care what 'Zen' actually is. Many of Our Lord's statements are certainly closer to those of the Buddha than they are to Driscoll's rhetoric).
"There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity."
"Commitment to make someone bleed" lol! Ironic that a Real Man of Driscoll's pudgy appearance comes across as someone who's a bit TOO into Fight Club ;)
And: aren't the stereotypes of hippies and too-much-product meterosexuals pretty dichotomous? Driscoll can't even get his stereotypes "right", consistent with a "preacher" who seemingly aspires to be and "edgy" comedian.
What do you see as the greatest challenge for young Christians in the next 10 years?
Mark Driscoll: “There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.
So you have no problem with people taking a particular culturally-created model of masculinity and then saying that the Perfect Man must necessarily fit that? How is that any different from someone saying "Jesus must have affirmed gays, because I couldn't worship a guy who was judgmental?"
"hippie, diaper, halo Christ" is a ludicrous strawman (and are you agreeing with Driscoll that the Infant Christ shouldn't warrant worship?)
As mentioned above, hippy and metrosexual stereotypes are dichotomous, so Driscoll's strawmen don't even make sense (although there's lots of unintentional comedy in his dim-bulb allegation that the emergent church not only say Jesus wore a dress, but also was a hair-product using hippy. 'Nice' demonstration of Driscoll's misogyny with his shoe-shopping line too).
Do you agree with Driscoll that the Jesus of Revelation is an Ultimate Fighting Champion with a tattoo (!) and the " commitment to make someone bleed"?
Do you agree with Driscoll that the way to tell whether one's model of Christ is accurate is whether or not one could beat it up? (!) I quoted Matthew 23:56 for a reason up there.
What Driscoll is doing in this piece is criticising a version of Jesus that is culturally derived, not creating one.
Can't find "Ultimate Fighting Champion" in that link.
The "beat up" reference is very clearly hyperbole playing on the hippie Jesus idea. And, to be honest, if you were able to beat up Christ Pantocrator, he wouldn't be a very impressive God now would he?
Driscoll is creating an inane strawman and using that to validate his own, equally unfounded and hyperbolic, model of Christ. And indulging in straw-men invoking bluster is a vice, as I hope you'll agree.
"In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed." *isn't* a culturally-derived model? Driscoll might as well have said that the liberal Jesus is a wussy and his Jesus kicks ass, therefore his Jesus is more accurate. Driscoll is not quoting bible verses to establish a more accurate model of Our Lord in a relativistic world. He's stating opinion in a Palin-esque manner to garner rubbernecking attention.
that used "Ultimate Fighting Champion" to summarise Driscoll's ideas about masculinity, which to me seems justified. Especially given Driscoll's "Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist— are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes."
Unless Driscoll is going to offer biblical verses to back up those claims, then surely he very much IS creating a culturally-derived model? Pointing out, as you do, Driscoll's use of 'hyperbole' is not necessarily a point in his favour; part of the problem is that Driscoll, like an attention-seeking comedian, spouts headline-grabbing nonsense that is unfortunately taken seriously by the gullible.
And of course even if you DO think that the limp-wristed liberal stereotype is a fair summary of the emergent church's theology, that in no way means that Driscoll's kick-ass Jesus is legitimate. Strawmen, hyperbole, vulgar jokes, boasts, bullshit – that's the toxic Driscoll mixture, atomised in the quote above.
“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed.” *isn’t* a culturally-derived model?
Have you read the back end of Revelation recently?
You'll need to give me a direct quote of Driscoll saying "Ultimate Fighting Champion" for me to comment. That link simply has it in quotes with no indication as to where Driscoll might have said it (if at all). If that's what someone describes Driscoll as meaning then I'm afraid I can't talk about it. Happy to talk about what Driscoll actually says, NOT words put into his mouth.
I don't think anyone could sustain a reading of Revelation that regarded all of its imagery as literal; Driscoll doing so presumably because the Christ of Revelation is more of an ass-kicker than the Gospel version is, again, hardly a sensible,moral or laudable approach to Scripture. And is "commitment to make someone bleed" REALLY a fair summary of the vanquishing of the Antichrist beast etc in Revelation? Is it not rather the language of UFC, or WWF, being used by Driscoll because it sounds cool-and-edgy? Again, he's once again starting with a very culture-specific, American, modern notion of masculinity and building a model of "God" to suit. To put this in the vulgar terms that Driscoll operates in : Jesus Christ manifestly and pointedly did not, in fact, bang the Prom Queen, nor did He score touchdowns,nor did He bat .400, nor did He beat up nerds, nor was He the coolest guy in the fraternity. Nor did He necessarily or even at all do the historically most analogous versions of those things
The "Ultimate Fighting" tag might be a summary of Driscoll's model of Christ, but the Christianity Today piece has – as direct quotes – Driscoll saying :
If that quote is valid would you take issue with it? I'd love to see Driscoll try and offer some verses to defend that opinion (there's lots of Apocrypha about Our Lord blowing up snakes etc etc, but they're apocrypha for a reason). Here's a "chick" who puts it better than moi http://rachelheldevans.com/masculinity-crisis
And, of course, if Christianity Today just made up those quotes then mea culpa, and I'll (time permitting!) move on to the next wackadoo quotation from Driscoll. There is, afterall, quite a few to choose from ;-)
All the rest of this aside, if Driscoll is going to talk about how the liberal Jesus wears hair product while he (street wise ex thug Driscoll) is sporting a ridiculous faux-hawk it seems somewhat problematic. He also makes fun of things like cardigan sweaters while wearing eye gougingly ugly Ed Hardy shirts. He just doesn't seem to actually be tough, because most actuall tough guys would not have to tell you how tough or manly they were. Also he said hai-ku was not manly in one of his speaches, but I bet a flower arranging hai-ku writing samurai would have him looking a bit like liberal Jesus fairly quickly.
>>>>>>>>>>>Which one? Or is this another of the Driscollisms which is anything but?
LOL! You mean like the many objectionable things I attributed to Driscoll and you offered to defend and which, after I supplied links and, and with one quasi-exception, you failed to do?
Ed Hardy wearing willfully (one hopes) moronic fratboys tend not to have much time for any poetry, but, if true, it's a fairly minor item on Driscoll's every expanding litany of verbal garbage.
What did I fail to defend? You have yet to demonstrate the objection of what he says. Simply saying, "He said this, how awful", doesn't actually make it awful.
You present me something in context and we'll talk about it. Present me with half a sentence and I'm really not interested.
Cool, shall pick up on some more later (time permitting! ;-))
I know we're, in some cases, discussing matters of taste, but a lot of the 'objections' are hardly coming from a liberal place. How many normal, regular, respectful Catholics or Presbyterians do you know who would be down with describing Our Lord as an Ultimate Fighting Champion with a tattoo (Leviticus anyone?) and a "commitment to make someone bleed". If Driscoll had said "commitment to vanquish evil" or "destroy Satan", then fine, but he is quite deliberately invoking the language of inane violence in a bid to sound cool and edgy. And then we have a 'biblical' evangelical talking about Jesus and St.Paul punching people in the face (what bible is Driscoll reading?). And, even if you AGREE with Driscoll's model of Christ, surely starting from the point of saying that Our Lord must fit 21st century Red State American notions of True Masculinity because otherwise Driscoll wouldn't worship Him is horrendously self-aggrandising? How is that *qualitively* any different from a liberal stereotype saying a variation of "Jesus must be inclusive and gay-affirming, because I couldn't worship a homophobic God?"
Would it be trolling if I congratulated you on your handling of trolling, Peter? ;-)
I loved this video. It achieved something that most preachers struggle to achieve; making me think about something I hadn't thought about before in an inspiring, useful and godly way. Of course Driscoll has made mistakes, and has attitudes that wouldn't go down well in a Guardian editorial conference, but he is a superb counter-cultural expository preacher and encourager (even though I come from a very different tradition).
I think you'll find, O WC, that ad hom is far more indicative of trolling than, you know, providing links and evidence to back up an opinion.
And, of course, the response by John MacArthur et all to Driscoll's pornographic ''exegis'' (!) of Song of Songs suggests that defenders of Shock Jock 'preachers' really oughtn't to throw stones… ;)
And some nice context including the content of Driscoll's apology would indicate that you are prepared to see the whole picture, repentance and all, and not just interested in the "crime" regardless of the penitence afterwards. So much easier to raise the offence rather than the whole picture.
This one comment of yours reveals so much Ryan and, to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of your constant, yes, ad hominem.
lol! Shame I can't get a piece of that repentance and forgiveness action, eh? ;)
I said that Driscoll said objectionable things. You took issue with this and asked for examples. I cited x). You pointing out that Driscoll apologised for saying x) supports MY original claim – not yours.
But that being said, I didn't come here to piss on your rug and there is, ultimately, so many hours in the day: ;)
>>>>attitudes that wouldn’t go down well in a Guardian editorial conference,
Curious that lots of people who share Driscoll's attitudes don't get similarly criticised eh? It couldn't possibly be because its perfectly possible – indeed normal – to discuss serious issues in an intelligent way, but Driscoll has chosen the easy buck of frat boy vulgarities? I think most Roman Catholics or traditional Protestants – agreeing with Driscoll on e.g. homosexuality – still rightly abhor many of his statements, such as claiming that the Bible proves that women have to give their guys blowjobs. That's Orthodoxy?! As if.
Ryan: You wade in on these threads all guns blazing, careless of nuance and moderation, eager to presume the worst of yr ideological enemies, keen to dish it out but prissy and defensive when people give a bit back, and seldom apologising or reflecting critically on your own interactions (cf. the KJS thread: James offered an apology to you for misconstruing yr words. You didn't even acknowledge the apology, let alone offer yr own for yr own intemperate words in that exchange).
So yes, I'm going to stick with my charge of trolling – which isn't an ad hominem by the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You wade in on these threads all guns blazing, careless of nuance and moderation, eager to presume the worst of yr ideological enemies
Wrong. When I last asked you to back up this accusation you pointedly refused to provide evidence. Chickenshit ring-the-door-bell-and-run-away provocation scores pretty highly on any definition of trolling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>>>>ad: James offered an apology to you for misconstruing yr words. You didn’t even acknowledge the apology, let alone offer yr own for yr own intemperate words in that exchange).>>>
There's only so many hours in the day. And I love your spin. James posts a message that HE HIMSELF recognizes as inflammatory and deletes 3 minutes later; i respond with a mild mannered, conciliatory, reply and I'M at fault. And you'll note that reply pointedly included the words "My aplogies" – I didn't "apologise" for intemperate words because I very much do not give credence to your ad hom labeling and offered this :
I don’t hang about any oddball revisionist sites, but IIRC ‘spaff’ was popularised by Caitlin Moran, quite the most entertaining journalist (and tweeter) in the UK. I could be wrong, but the phrase you cite was (IIRC) used by me to quite deliberately puncture the grandiose sentiments and languages that are used for heterosexual sex as a means of privileging it and damning the gay kind via invocations of Natural Law. It wasn’t needless vulgarity. I don’t swear here, quite deliberately. More generally, I’m not sure it makes any tactical sense for conservative evangelical route to go down the route of writing off language as ‘offensive’ on the basis of subjective emotive responses. For example, no self-respecting gay man, coming across terms like “homosexual practice”, is liable to cease from regarding it as “offensive” simply because it’s an improvement on more obvious anti-gay slurs. So it seems sensible to assume that causing offence is not necessarily the intention of those who use such terms, and that finding a mutually acceptable vocabulary for these kinds of debates will necessarily involve a degree of sacrifice. My apologies if I suggested that scaring people off is my intention. I’m here for dialogue.
….. a hell of a lot more self-reflection than you've ever bothered to engage it. Your own prose style and general approach isn't exactly a combination of Simon Heffer's conservative clarity with the Dalai Lama's tranquility.
>>>>So yes, I’m going to stick with my charge of trolling – which isn’t an ad hominem by the way
The thing about charges is that, in the real world, they tend to be followed by examination of evidence. Throwing out labels that you cant' back up is indeed ad hom trolling – by the way.
Ryan: Go back and read any of your posts as evidence for "all guns blazing" approach and a lack of nuance and moderation – the way you describe Driscoll is an exmaple of it, as is your suggestion that conservatives are motivated by "anti-gay prejudice".
Ryan, I don't make any claim to be perfect in my tone and approach – but I admit it when I'm in the wrong and I do try and make an effort to give people the benefit of the doubt and listen carefully to what they say. I don't see you doing that anywhere, e.g. in your scathing comments about Evangelicals in the KJS thread.
Look, if you're not interested in apologising, or being conciliatory, or seeking respectful dialogue, fine. I've made the point I was going to make. There's nothing more I can add.
Peter you were dead on about the hai-ku thing not actually being a Driscol-ism. It was in a parody that had me fooled because it was so damn close to something he would say. That said, I would like to get back to the issue of the faux-hawk. He did call hair product sissy, and he is obviously wearing it. He also dresses like a frat guy. I bring this up because Driscoll himself has made comments about how others dress in such unmanly ways (pastels, cardigans). Another fact is that according to Driscoll leadership teaching, because Driscoll is a "tough guy/man-warrior for Jesus" his staff should be right there with him. That is called fruit of the harvest I believe. I know people that work for Driscoll, and not once have I been impressed by their manliness. Also, I have a hard time accepting the theory that watching Ultimate Fighting in any way makes someone manly. Further, his assumption that people always wanted to fight is insane. It flies in the face of all logic. Of course there were nerds/wimps (some people are just good at stuff besides MMA) back in the day. Also there have been a hell of a lot of gay warriors. Spartans? Put just a little more thought in Driscoll, then you might be remembered when you are dead. Probably won't be though, unless of course he gets caught in a scandal.
Always spot on? Really?!
Pretty much.
>>>As always, Driscoll is spot on.
Now that's comedy! Driscoll's Jesus-was-a-redblooded-pussyloving-fagstomping'-GOP-loving-G.O.B-just-like-me garbage is far inane and unjustified than the model of Christ that liberals are accused of whipping up. Mark Driscoll is the Sarah Palin of Christianity, and its a sad indictment of evangelicals that "anything goes, as long as its modern and fills the pews" priorities that his banausic guff is taken seriously.
I mean, come on Peter, you're an oxbridge, C of E proper priest! Do you believe that Avatar is pagan propaganda? Or that masturbation turns you gay? Or that Jesus had to have been a macho fratboy 'cause guys like Driscoll couldn't worship an "effeminate" saviour (!) ? Or that Christians have to be creationists? Or that *evangelicals* who insufficiently condemn gays are really "homo-evangelicals" ? Or any of the other definingly moronic "theological" statements by Driscoll?
Tell you what Ryan, you give me a full, in-context, quote of Driscoll's that you don't like and then I'll comment.
Lots of links on my comment here:
https://www.peter-ould.net/2010/07/23/driscoll-on-…
Avatar:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2010/02/24/a…
*note that Driscoll doesn't actually seem to know what paganism is*. Surprise, Surprise!
SoS :
http://defendingcontending.com/2009/04/17/john-ma…
"Homo-evangelical"
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mcl…
*NB note Driscoll's inane point on hurting God's feelings; showing that, for all his homophobic bluster, his weepy model of God is quite as man-made and spurious as the straw-god he accuses liberals of creating.
Driscoll's macho fratboy Jesus
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mcl…
http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2008/05/09/who-can-…
There are few things more unintentionally hilarious than camp evangelicals pretending to be tough guys. I've known multiple middle-class evangelicals who are opposed to gay lib because they think it will lead to more straight guys trying homosexuality (!) and a number, now married to women, who confessed their same-sex attraction and had a "there but for the Grace of God go I" attitude to gay sex. You will not find any self-respecting normal straight man who would spout such nonsense (but then, masculine men tend to be in the pub on sundays, instead of singing "you're altogether lovely" "he takes me too the banquet table" etc worship songs in nominally anti-gay evangelical churches). Your average drag queen could kick Driscoll's ass without breaking sweat (or, indeed, a nail ;))
NB I've provided links because of your "in-context". I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking seemingly inane statements that are somehow magically transformed in serious theological points when properly contextualised.
Choose one of those and we'll talk about it.
What is "Macho Fratboy Jesus"? :)
I don't know. Perhaps a link would help.
Not least as Matthew 26:53 suggests that nobody could "beat up" (!) Our Lord unless He willed it, irrespective of whether He had long hair or not (!!) (typing this, it strikes me that Driscoll might not know or care what 'Zen' actually is. Many of Our Lord's statements are certainly closer to those of the Buddha than they are to Driscoll's rhetoric).
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mcl… http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2008/05/09/who-can-… http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/dr…
"There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity."
"Commitment to make someone bleed" lol! Ironic that a Real Man of Driscoll's pudgy appearance comes across as someone who's a bit TOO into Fight Club ;)
And: aren't the stereotypes of hippies and too-much-product meterosexuals pretty dichotomous? Driscoll can't even get his stereotypes "right", consistent with a "preacher" who seemingly aspires to be and "edgy" comedian.
Ryan,
Instead of throwing lots of links around, just give me one URL with one example of what you don't like about Driscoll so I know what I'm addressing.
I specifically quoted the original text from Driscoll, for that reason.
Here's the url
http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/dr…
What do you see as the greatest challenge for young Christians in the next 10 years?
Mark Driscoll: “There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.
Right. Your problem with this is what? I for one don't worship the "let's all just love each other" Jesus either.
So you have no problem with people taking a particular culturally-created model of masculinity and then saying that the Perfect Man must necessarily fit that? How is that any different from someone saying "Jesus must have affirmed gays, because I couldn't worship a guy who was judgmental?"
"hippie, diaper, halo Christ" is a ludicrous strawman (and are you agreeing with Driscoll that the Infant Christ shouldn't warrant worship?)
As mentioned above, hippy and metrosexual stereotypes are dichotomous, so Driscoll's strawmen don't even make sense (although there's lots of unintentional comedy in his dim-bulb allegation that the emergent church not only say Jesus wore a dress, but also was a hair-product using hippy. 'Nice' demonstration of Driscoll's misogyny with his shoe-shopping line too).
Do you agree with Driscoll that the Jesus of Revelation is an Ultimate Fighting Champion with a tattoo (!) and the " commitment to make someone bleed"?
Do you agree with Driscoll that the way to tell whether one's model of Christ is accurate is whether or not one could beat it up? (!) I quoted Matthew 23:56 for a reason up there.
What Driscoll is doing in this piece is criticising a version of Jesus that is culturally derived, not creating one.
Can't find "Ultimate Fighting Champion" in that link.
The "beat up" reference is very clearly hyperbole playing on the hippie Jesus idea. And, to be honest, if you were able to beat up Christ Pantocrator, he wouldn't be a very impressive God now would he?
Driscoll is creating an inane strawman and using that to validate his own, equally unfounded and hyperbolic, model of Christ. And indulging in straw-men invoking bluster is a vice, as I hope you'll agree.
"In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed." *isn't* a culturally-derived model? Driscoll might as well have said that the liberal Jesus is a wussy and his Jesus kicks ass, therefore his Jesus is more accurate. Driscoll is not quoting bible verses to establish a more accurate model of Our Lord in a relativistic world. He's stating opinion in a Palin-esque manner to garner rubbernecking attention.
The UFC line was used in the Dan Savage piece, which linked to http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27…
that used "Ultimate Fighting Champion" to summarise Driscoll's ideas about masculinity, which to me seems justified. Especially given Driscoll's "Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist— are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes."
Unless Driscoll is going to offer biblical verses to back up those claims, then surely he very much IS creating a culturally-derived model? Pointing out, as you do, Driscoll's use of 'hyperbole' is not necessarily a point in his favour; part of the problem is that Driscoll, like an attention-seeking comedian, spouts headline-grabbing nonsense that is unfortunately taken seriously by the gullible.
And of course even if you DO think that the limp-wristed liberal stereotype is a fair summary of the emergent church's theology, that in no way means that Driscoll's kick-ass Jesus is legitimate. Strawmen, hyperbole, vulgar jokes, boasts, bullshit – that's the toxic Driscoll mixture, atomised in the quote above.
Have you read the back end of Revelation recently?
You'll need to give me a direct quote of Driscoll saying "Ultimate Fighting Champion" for me to comment. That link simply has it in quotes with no indication as to where Driscoll might have said it (if at all). If that's what someone describes Driscoll as meaning then I'm afraid I can't talk about it. Happy to talk about what Driscoll actually says, NOT words put into his mouth.
I don't think anyone could sustain a reading of Revelation that regarded all of its imagery as literal; Driscoll doing so presumably because the Christ of Revelation is more of an ass-kicker than the Gospel version is, again, hardly a sensible,moral or laudable approach to Scripture. And is "commitment to make someone bleed" REALLY a fair summary of the vanquishing of the Antichrist beast etc in Revelation? Is it not rather the language of UFC, or WWF, being used by Driscoll because it sounds cool-and-edgy? Again, he's once again starting with a very culture-specific, American, modern notion of masculinity and building a model of "God" to suit. To put this in the vulgar terms that Driscoll operates in : Jesus Christ manifestly and pointedly did not, in fact, bang the Prom Queen, nor did He score touchdowns,nor did He bat .400, nor did He beat up nerds, nor was He the coolest guy in the fraternity. Nor did He necessarily or even at all do the historically most analogous versions of those things
The "Ultimate Fighting" tag might be a summary of Driscoll's model of Christ, but the Christianity Today piece has – as direct quotes – Driscoll saying :
"dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes."
If that quote is valid would you take issue with it? I'd love to see Driscoll try and offer some verses to defend that opinion (there's lots of Apocrypha about Our Lord blowing up snakes etc etc, but they're apocrypha for a reason). Here's a "chick" who puts it better than moi http://rachelheldevans.com/masculinity-crisis
And, of course, if Christianity Today just made up those quotes then mea culpa, and I'll (time permitting!) move on to the next wackadoo quotation from Driscoll. There is, afterall, quite a few to choose from ;-)
All the rest of this aside, if Driscoll is going to talk about how the liberal Jesus wears hair product while he (street wise ex thug Driscoll) is sporting a ridiculous faux-hawk it seems somewhat problematic. He also makes fun of things like cardigan sweaters while wearing eye gougingly ugly Ed Hardy shirts. He just doesn't seem to actually be tough, because most actuall tough guys would not have to tell you how tough or manly they were. Also he said hai-ku was not manly in one of his speaches, but I bet a flower arranging hai-ku writing samurai would have him looking a bit like liberal Jesus fairly quickly.
Which one? Or is this another of the Driscollisms which is anything but?
>>>>>>>>>>>Which one? Or is this another of the Driscollisms which is anything but?
LOL! You mean like the many objectionable things I attributed to Driscoll and you offered to defend and which, after I supplied links and, and with one quasi-exception, you failed to do?
Ed Hardy wearing willfully (one hopes) moronic fratboys tend not to have much time for any poetry, but, if true, it's a fairly minor item on Driscoll's every expanding litany of verbal garbage.
What did I fail to defend? You have yet to demonstrate the objection of what he says. Simply saying, "He said this, how awful", doesn't actually make it awful.
You present me something in context and we'll talk about it. Present me with half a sentence and I'm really not interested.
Cool, shall pick up on some more later (time permitting! ;-))
I know we're, in some cases, discussing matters of taste, but a lot of the 'objections' are hardly coming from a liberal place. How many normal, regular, respectful Catholics or Presbyterians do you know who would be down with describing Our Lord as an Ultimate Fighting Champion with a tattoo (Leviticus anyone?) and a "commitment to make someone bleed". If Driscoll had said "commitment to vanquish evil" or "destroy Satan", then fine, but he is quite deliberately invoking the language of inane violence in a bid to sound cool and edgy. And then we have a 'biblical' evangelical talking about Jesus and St.Paul punching people in the face (what bible is Driscoll reading?). And, even if you AGREE with Driscoll's model of Christ, surely starting from the point of saying that Our Lord must fit 21st century Red State American notions of True Masculinity because otherwise Driscoll wouldn't worship Him is horrendously self-aggrandising? How is that *qualitively* any different from a liberal stereotype saying a variation of "Jesus must be inclusive and gay-affirming, because I couldn't worship a homophobic God?"
Mark Driscoll is the Fred Durst of Christianity.
Would it be trolling if I congratulated you on your handling of trolling, Peter? ;-)
I loved this video. It achieved something that most preachers struggle to achieve; making me think about something I hadn't thought about before in an inspiring, useful and godly way. Of course Driscoll has made mistakes, and has attitudes that wouldn't go down well in a Guardian editorial conference, but he is a superb counter-cultural expository preacher and encourager (even though I come from a very different tradition).
I think you'll find, O WC, that ad hom is far more indicative of trolling than, you know, providing links and evidence to back up an opinion.
And, of course, the response by John MacArthur et all to Driscoll's pornographic ''exegis'' (!) of Song of Songs suggests that defenders of Shock Jock 'preachers' really oughtn't to throw stones… ;)
And some nice context including the content of Driscoll's apology would indicate that you are prepared to see the whole picture, repentance and all, and not just interested in the "crime" regardless of the penitence afterwards. So much easier to raise the offence rather than the whole picture.
This one comment of yours reveals so much Ryan and, to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of your constant, yes, ad hominem.
lol! Shame I can't get a piece of that repentance and forgiveness action, eh? ;)
I said that Driscoll said objectionable things. You took issue with this and asked for examples. I cited x). You pointing out that Driscoll apologised for saying x) supports MY original claim – not yours.
But that being said, I didn't come here to piss on your rug and there is, ultimately, so many hours in the day: ;)
>>>>attitudes that wouldn’t go down well in a Guardian editorial conference,
Curious that lots of people who share Driscoll's attitudes don't get similarly criticised eh? It couldn't possibly be because its perfectly possible – indeed normal – to discuss serious issues in an intelligent way, but Driscoll has chosen the easy buck of frat boy vulgarities? I think most Roman Catholics or traditional Protestants – agreeing with Driscoll on e.g. homosexuality – still rightly abhor many of his statements, such as claiming that the Bible proves that women have to give their guys blowjobs. That's Orthodoxy?! As if.
Ryan: You wade in on these threads all guns blazing, careless of nuance and moderation, eager to presume the worst of yr ideological enemies, keen to dish it out but prissy and defensive when people give a bit back, and seldom apologising or reflecting critically on your own interactions (cf. the KJS thread: James offered an apology to you for misconstruing yr words. You didn't even acknowledge the apology, let alone offer yr own for yr own intemperate words in that exchange).
So yes, I'm going to stick with my charge of trolling – which isn't an ad hominem by the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You wade in on these threads all guns blazing, careless of nuance and moderation, eager to presume the worst of yr ideological enemies
Wrong. When I last asked you to back up this accusation you pointedly refused to provide evidence. Chickenshit ring-the-door-bell-and-run-away provocation scores pretty highly on any definition of trolling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>>>>ad: James offered an apology to you for misconstruing yr words. You didn’t even acknowledge the apology, let alone offer yr own for yr own intemperate words in that exchange).>>>
There's only so many hours in the day. And I love your spin. James posts a message that HE HIMSELF recognizes as inflammatory and deletes 3 minutes later; i respond with a mild mannered, conciliatory, reply and I'M at fault. And you'll note that reply pointedly included the words "My aplogies" – I didn't "apologise" for intemperate words because I very much do not give credence to your ad hom labeling and offered this :
I don’t hang about any oddball revisionist sites, but IIRC ‘spaff’ was popularised by Caitlin Moran, quite the most entertaining journalist (and tweeter) in the UK. I could be wrong, but the phrase you cite was (IIRC) used by me to quite deliberately puncture the grandiose sentiments and languages that are used for heterosexual sex as a means of privileging it and damning the gay kind via invocations of Natural Law. It wasn’t needless vulgarity. I don’t swear here, quite deliberately. More generally, I’m not sure it makes any tactical sense for conservative evangelical route to go down the route of writing off language as ‘offensive’ on the basis of subjective emotive responses. For example, no self-respecting gay man, coming across terms like “homosexual practice”, is liable to cease from regarding it as “offensive” simply because it’s an improvement on more obvious anti-gay slurs. So it seems sensible to assume that causing offence is not necessarily the intention of those who use such terms, and that finding a mutually acceptable vocabulary for these kinds of debates will necessarily involve a degree of sacrifice. My apologies if I suggested that scaring people off is my intention. I’m here for dialogue.
….. a hell of a lot more self-reflection than you've ever bothered to engage it. Your own prose style and general approach isn't exactly a combination of Simon Heffer's conservative clarity with the Dalai Lama's tranquility.
>>>>So yes, I’m going to stick with my charge of trolling – which isn’t an ad hominem by the way
The thing about charges is that, in the real world, they tend to be followed by examination of evidence. Throwing out labels that you cant' back up is indeed ad hom trolling – by the way.
Ryan: Go back and read any of your posts as evidence for "all guns blazing" approach and a lack of nuance and moderation – the way you describe Driscoll is an exmaple of it, as is your suggestion that conservatives are motivated by "anti-gay prejudice".
Ryan, I don't make any claim to be perfect in my tone and approach – but I admit it when I'm in the wrong and I do try and make an effort to give people the benefit of the doubt and listen carefully to what they say. I don't see you doing that anywhere, e.g. in your scathing comments about Evangelicals in the KJS thread.
Look, if you're not interested in apologising, or being conciliatory, or seeking respectful dialogue, fine. I've made the point I was going to make. There's nothing more I can add.
Peter you were dead on about the hai-ku thing not actually being a Driscol-ism. It was in a parody that had me fooled because it was so damn close to something he would say. That said, I would like to get back to the issue of the faux-hawk. He did call hair product sissy, and he is obviously wearing it. He also dresses like a frat guy. I bring this up because Driscoll himself has made comments about how others dress in such unmanly ways (pastels, cardigans). Another fact is that according to Driscoll leadership teaching, because Driscoll is a "tough guy/man-warrior for Jesus" his staff should be right there with him. That is called fruit of the harvest I believe. I know people that work for Driscoll, and not once have I been impressed by their manliness. Also, I have a hard time accepting the theory that watching Ultimate Fighting in any way makes someone manly. Further, his assumption that people always wanted to fight is insane. It flies in the face of all logic. Of course there were nerds/wimps (some people are just good at stuff besides MMA) back in the day. Also there have been a hell of a lot of gay warriors. Spartans? Put just a little more thought in Driscoll, then you might be remembered when you are dead. Probably won't be though, unless of course he gets caught in a scandal.