Feeling the stranger to The Stranger and its churches
Monday, May 8th, 2006 | Posted in Seattle, christianity, interpretationThe Stranger reviews and compares Mars Hill Church and Trinity United Methodist Church. Oh, Christians, how much unrest you cause my soul. Both sides of the fundamentally partisanship based aisle (thanks, Stranger) seem obsessed with their brand of truth. – Cross Purposes – The Stranger (P.S. I don’t claim to know these churches.)
May 8th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
the slant that favours diversity as the holiest of holies is a little too loud. why is diversity all of a sudden (okay, not so suddenly) the trump card? I don’t think judgment is the best idea ever, but that the article touts the beauty of communion for christians and non christians alike is ridiculous. it isn’t even a symbol of the body and blood of Christ if it has nothing to do with uniting Christians.
what is the purpose of communion? unity in disbelief?
May 9th, 2006 at 11:17 am
(”God made the man and put him in charge and gave him a job description… and the woman was made to help him… Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them.”); in the church (”Every single book in your Bible is written by a man… Priest[hood] is reserved exclusively for godly men.”); and in society (”There is no occasion where women led a society and were its heads and the men complied and followed. … It’s a matter of Biblical creation.”).
I’m with the guy who was”really turned off” by Driscoll’s “sexist and chauvinist” comments. I think too often Christians don’t fully think through the dangerous implications of such statements. There is so much harm that can be done by this kind of discrimination and exclusion of an entire gender — yet this pastor has 1000 congregants at 4 services every Sunday. I’ve been guilty of this kind of selective listening — we want so much to feel at home at a church that we’re willing to leave critical thinking at the door. Replace every time it says “woman” and “man” with “black” and “white.” It’s the church’s racism. Does the fact that every book in the Bible was written by a Jew make Europeans unfit for spiritual leadership? Where’s the discussion? We are all so mute on this issue. “Biblical authority” shuts people up.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
“what is the purpose of communion? unity in disbelief?” – I like that.
“Does the fact that every book in the Bible was written by a Jew make Europeans unfit for spiritual leadership?” – That’s money. I love it.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Ok, but honestly, you guys are educated, right? You’ve read things? So much of what that writer quoted Driscoll on was taken out of context – even down to the title for his sermon. Articles like this have an agenda. This wasn’t hard news it was a feature and unlike news writing, which at leasts makes claims (whether it holds to them or not) about fairness and objectivity, feature writing makes no such claims – especially not features in rags like The Stranger (that whole publication has a very strong agenda). Also, there’s no eternal relevance in the “issues” that this writer highlighted about Driscoll. Sure you may disagree with him on the place of women in the household or the church but these are opinions that have no bearing on salvation.
I take greater issue with the claims made by the other pastor from Trinity United Methodist who, like David said, championed “unity in disbelief.” The badges on his alter clothes were his female pastor and the gay worship leaders in the front row. It may sound harsh but Driscoll’s perspectives on homosexuality in the church are more inline with the Bible than the other pastor’s. It’s not that Christianity is an exclusive club (or that we shouldn’t behave with and act out of love at ALL times) but the Bible gives pretty clear guidelines about what sorts of behavior God does and doesn’t condone. Being a “good” person who accepts everyone “as they are” will not get you into heaven. That wasn’t even Jesus’ example. Jesus met with people, showed them that how they were living was evil and then he taught them about change, about healing and about eternal life.
We christians are always so quick to judge one another. Visit Mark’s church. Listen to him speak. Hear the love he has for people and the committment he has to Jesus. It’s why I go every Sunday.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:15 am
I appreciate the comment, Heather. With regards to Mars Hill Church’s attitude concerning the role of females in society, this wasn’t the first I had heard of it articulated in this manner. What’s your take on that? Do you know if Mars Hill made a statement on the article?
May 12th, 2006 at 9:20 am
I’m pretty sensative to gender issues (being a woman who enjoys being a leader and enjoys church ministry) and I haven’t heard anything I disagreed with strongly enough to be concerned. Of course the writer of this article didn’t say anything about the way Mark speaks of is own wife. He has spoken of the respect he has for her, how great she is, how much their marriage is a partnership and, of course, that their marriage has different roles. But I haven’t taken any of his comments to be condecending or oppressive – as the article makes them out to be. We’ve had women leading worship at church – actually as the leader not just part of the band, although we have women serving as part of the band too. I see women serving communion (a job reserved for men in a lot of prodestant churches) ushering, greeting, etc…
To say that God has given men and women specific roles and that he has communicated those roles through the Bible is not incorret. Eve WAS created as a helpmate to Adam. Every book in our Bible WAS written by a man. Priesthood IS reserved for Godly men. We have been given different roles.
To discount a pastor because of some quotes in a leftist gay publication where he is perceived as wrong from the start, I feel, is careless.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Oh, and as far as I know no comment has been made by Mark or the church regarding the article. I checked his blog to see if maybe he wrote something about it but nothing yet. (There was a big conference for pastors at Mars Hill this week so he was probably overloaded with that). Feel free to check out his blog: http://www.theresurgence.com
Maybe he’ll say something about the article in the future.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:09 am
One of the issues up for discussion (gender roles) is indeed what Heather assumes is already taken care of: “Eve WAS created as a helpmate to Adam. . . . Priesthood IS reserved for Godly men.”
But isn’t this precisely what is being discussed in many Christian circles. As Veronica earlier mentioned, when Christians say “biblical authority” productive discussion is incredibly stilted. We don’t talk about the origins, definition or implication of the term “biblical authority,” and like a legend that has gotten seriously out of hand, we canot have a real diaologue about “biblical authority” much less women in the Christian context. Biblical authority has become a phrase which encompasses a great deal of fear and power–the implied statement is that one is either within or outside of “biblical authority.” There is no place for discussion when the dialogue is only about being “in” or “out.”
May 12th, 2006 at 11:25 am
I liked the guy from the Methodist church, Rich Lang. He made a pretty perceptive connection between in-or-out morality and a highly eschatological view of Christianity:
“Lang takes a more liberal, pluralistic view of right and wrong. He says conservative churches like Mars Hill appeal to those who believe that ‘we live in apocalyptic times. Society’s falling apart and Jesus is coming back—basically, there’s no future.’ Churches like Mars Hill ‘create a system where people can have a feeling of control, where they can believe that Papa’s going to fix it if you just follow the rules. I want that myself, but I just can’t find it.’”
Remove the sense of imminent judgment, and with it goes the urgency of line-drawing and circle making almost inevitably embedded in moral/gender language in the church, paving the way for some moral creativity that this faith of ours has lacked for far too long.
However, Christianity seems pretty tied up with the idea of the impending kingdom (a la regnum ex mergere).
I say we shift from the focus from the imminence to the immanence of Christ’s return.
This gets us out of all those nasty dispensationalist tendencies and into a much more present sense of presence. The future is now.
Does this reconcile Christian hope in the eternal with a much more flexible moral system? Je ne sais pas. Thoughts?
May 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Amber, I would say you sort of missed the point of my comment – probably my fault, not being articulate enough. I was just pointing out that in the Bible it says God created Eve to be a helper.
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Gen. 2:18 NIV
Whether we women like it or not, that’s why Eve was created. It’s why we exist. There was a need and God chose to fill that need by creating woman. It’s undeniable. We could go on for ages (and people have) about gender roles in the family, and in the church and in society and how they feel the Bible gives direction to each of those issues. I will say that it is my belief that God did not intend women to be oppressed or harmed or to be perceived as “lesser” human beings than men.
MWJ – I liked you comments a lot – made me think about church and Christianity in different way although I’m still a little unsure how to incorporate your “creative morality” into my thinking…
In my experience with Mars Hill, the church leadership and teaching seems to be more focused on the immanence of the kingdom and the imminence of Christ’s return. The impending nature of his return in undeniable. It’s a reality. It’s coming. It’s something in the future that will happen. The kingdom is something we live with, amongst, etc… Although maybe I should revise my own word choice because I don’t feel a sense of dread attached to Christ’s coming and that’s what those words, (imminence, impending) make me think of – dread. So maybe, instead, we are expectant and watchful of His return, which to me connotes a sense of excitement, hope and caution – which is, I think, holy. I think it’s Biblical (there’s that word again, sorry Amber…
) to live carefully, in a sense, because we know there is a judgment day coming. I don’t think there’s anything kooky or fundamentalist or close-minded about that.
I agree with you that the future is now but how does that change our belief systems regarding gender roles and homosexuality. Even if the future was yesterday it doesn’t make homosexuality godly.
I appreciate your commentary on being more present minded (I agree the collective church needs a more present minded focus) but there is still a sense of urgency in the preparation for Christ’s coming – the bride preparing for the bridegroom – that is necessary.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
yeah, biblical authority sounds like a language for using a trump card. anyone can claim biblical authority, its all in how you look at it. goodness, there are people out there who truly and sincerely think that being (and acting on your attraction) Gay is within God’s will and perfectly acceptable for Christians. this is ridiculous if you read the Bible and check with history, but, people still think that it is how it should be done.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Nothin’ like seeing Christians duke it out with each other!
May 17th, 2006 at 10:09 am
with swords! en gard moustarde!