All the Innovative Dudes are at Home Watching Football

Silly me. I thought that innovation was all about saying to hell with the social convention of the day. I also thought that Jesus is supposed to be the ultimate role model for how both women and men should conduct themselves as ministers of a gospel of peace and reconciliation.

But I believe that I would be wrong on both counts according to Pastor Mark Driscoll. Apparently innovation is all about subscribing to perpetual social stereotypes, at least with regard to “gender roles.” As Driscroll assesses the situation of Church leadership: “We’re looking around going how come we’re not innovative?” His answer: “Cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football” As for a role model for the Christian life and ministry, well here is just a part of Mr. Driscroll’s offensive, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic dribble:

I’ve got a feeling, you got around Paul when he was a young guy or you got around John the baptist or Elijah – I mean these dudes seem pretty ruff to me. You know, they don’t look like like church boys. You know, wearing sweater vest and walking around singing love songs to Jesus. I mean, guys like David are well known for their ability to slaughter other men. I’ve gotta think these guys were ‘dudes.’ Heterosexual, win a fight, punch you in the nose, dudes. And the problem in the church today is it’s just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chick-ified, church boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks. I mean its just sad. When you walk in its sea foam green and fuchsia and lemon yellow the whole architecture and the whole aesthetic is real feminine and the preacher is kind of feminine and the music is kind of emotional and feminine and we’re looking around going ‘how come we’re not innovative?’ ‘Cause all the innovative dudes are at home watching football or they’re out making money or climbing a mountain or shooting a gun or working on their truck. They look at the church like that’s a nice thing for women and children. So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing. You get nothing.

This is all word for word from the above video. And unfortunately, Driscroll does not seem to be alone. Earlier this year several prominent evangelical figures involved with Together for the Gospel movement (including John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul) all signed a confession containing a set of affirmations and denials. Article XVI says that men and women have different “roles within the home, the church, and the society.”

Other prominent evangelical voices have spoke out in recent years about the “feminization of the church.” Perhaps, John Eldredge has been the most visible leader in what some evangelicals seem to think is a revolutionary “reclaiming of masculinity.” Eldredge’s books Wild at Heart and Waking the Dead are read and celebrated by men across denominational lines, with book studies often culminating in camping, fishing or hunting trips. The books are full of references to movies like Brave-heart and Gladiator. Eldredge’s wife Stasi has now joined him in coauthoring “Captivating” a book supposedly about capturing the true feminine heart in which she writes:

Beauty is what the world longs to experience from a woman…Pioneer women brought china teacups into the wilderness, and I bring a pretty tablecloth to eat on when my family camps. We wear perfume, paint our toenails, color our hair, and pierce our ears, all in an effort to be ever more beautiful [for an excellent review of this work check out Agnieszka Tennant's article for CT]

Too bad for the woman who is not all that beautiful or the man who is more of the quiet poet than the action/adventure type. They do not exemplify the two-dimensional qualities that “the world longs to experience” from them. And we can talk all day about “inner beauty” or “inner strength” (which of course is all very good, and very important stuff). However, in the end, when ever I hear that as an explanation from defenders of this so called “complementarian” view it just sounds like they are back peddling or covering their bases. Like when John Eldredge turns to talking about inner strength after going on and on about William Wallace.

And what is “complementary” anyway about telling a woman her value is in her beauty or derived from her worth to a man? Or for that matter, in Driscroll’s case, what is complementary about scoffing at men who “talk about their feelings”?

Of course scripture is constantly invoked to defend such views. And it is not my intention here to get entangled in proof-texting debate. I will say however that it seems to be the weight of a social order that developed in a fallen world that best supports such claims and not the weight of scripture.

I am sure that John and Stasi and probably even Mark Driscroll all have good intentions. Unfortunately – whatever their intentions – they seem to be endorsing the status quo more than the seem to be saying or doing anything innovative.

Shalom,
Wayne