Comments on: “Be A Man, Hulk”

By: Hairspray «

Hairspray « — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:26:05 +0000

[...] go ahead and take away my man card. Remove Wild at Heart from my bookcase. You can even tell Driscoll on me. I don’t [...]

By: brodyharper

brodyharper — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:24:21 +0000

ryan…

are you married? if not, I wouldn’t suggest meeting a woman for the first time and calling her a non-innovative chick. just a thought.

if you are, how does your wife feel about what Mark says in this video?

And yes, maybe I am a little protective of my sweater vest. It’s a camo one made of human hair though…

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:00:17 +0000

Generalizations are a common and useful tool in speech to address broad issues. Mark uses them and often. I don’t see a need to defend my pastor, he’s a big boy and can take care of himself. However, I am still curious why his specific words in this case seem so ‘offensive’ to people. I just don’t get it. Are y’all offended that an effort is made to reach out to young men? Did the term ‘chicks’ suddenly make the non-PC list? Or are you a little too protective of your sweater vest? I can understand not liking his style of speaking, it comes down to personal preference. He tends to use strong words to point out problems in the church and that offends some people but are you so offended that you fail to see the issue?

By: brodyharper

brodyharper — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:18:50 +0000

…”We need fighters and leaders as much as we need “guys wearing sweater vests and singing love songs to Jesus”…

I’m afraid I missed the part where Mark even hinted at that. Was it mixed in with the part where he called all the men in the church “chicks”? There was never and suggestion that both were needed in the church…

“You get the men, you win the war”… that’s what I heard.

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:08:27 +0000

I’m sorry but I’ve watched the (full) version of this several times now (and I’m a member of Mars Hill) and I have yet to see what the majority of posters find so offensive. The PC-knee jerk response of ‘homophobe’ is thrown around quite a bit and what is that in response to? The “sea-foam green” mention? There is more than mere biology that differentiates men and women, there are corresponding roles and unique abilities of both that define. Godly Men do need to be more present in the church and the culture at large in order to affect change and expand the Kingdom. Why is there resistance to that? We need fighters and leaders as much as we need “guys wearing sweater vests and singing love songs to Jesus”, the problem is that there is a horrendous imbalance and the Church suffers for want of it.

By: .orphan.leper.sinner. » Blog Archive » Act Like A Man On The Internet

.orphan.leper.sinner. » Blog Archive » Act Like A Man On The Internet — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:52 +0000

[...] i remembered today that i wanted to post this little talk because one of the blogs i read had a video of mark driscoll’s definition of ‘manliness’ and a discussion afterward. in june we had a mini-men’s conference here at church. the title of our morning was Act [...]

By: brodyharper

brodyharper — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:20:43 +0000

gene…

great thoughts…. i agree 100%

By: gene pensiero jr

gene pensiero jr — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:12:34 +0000

–
most of these things have already been said…but…i just don’t see how we (any rational person included) can defend mr. driscoll’s statements. he meant them to be clear, so he made them clear. he meant to make generalizations, so he made them.

now, if we look at the things that mr. driscoll is applauding in this video we can make some fair criticisms. for example, somehow, i don’t think God is disappointed that none of we american christian men are ‘known for our ability to slaughter other men.’

in all of these types of discussion (if we must have them) it is best (i think) to take it to its logical conclusion…because…if this is the portrait of biblical manliness, then according to mr. driscoll, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ wouldn’t really fit into the mold.

maybe our Pacific Northwestern friend has a special biblical translation where Jesus did NOT do these things:

- weep over the city of Jerusalem
- weep for his friend, Lazarus
- reach out and show kind affection to beggars and lepers
- allow children to play on His lap
and my personal favorite…
- have other grown men lay on His bosom (john 13.23)

so…my question, mr. driscoll…do those things make Jesus Christ an effeminate homosexual? or…i’ll meet you half way, does that make Jesus an undesirable man for the ’21st Century Church’?

i don’t want to deride the man, but these views are undeniably antagonistic. a brief survey of mark’s ministry and teachings reveal that his plan is to shock, provoke and antagonize in the name of Jesus.

i guess, in the case of mr. driscoll, i’m left wondering: would Jesus say the things he says?

blessings

By: brodyharper

brodyharper — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:47:21 +0000

Luis.
You said:
“The Church needs men to stand up and serve and take action”

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I like the way you said that and even the words that you chose. Unfortunately Driscoll didn’t use any of those words. He didn’t even allude to any of those words. What Driscoll said was that “all the innovators (men) were home watching football”, and all the men in the church were still kinda like “chicks”….

It’s tough to translate what he said into what you said, but thanks for giving it a shot.

By: Luis

Luis — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:13:30 +0000

Please slow down long enough to take in what he is saying. Men are drawn to action and the Church needs the men to stand up and serve and take action. Read Romans it is about putting our faith to action. Church has become Safe, secure & Predictable. Men need to feel a sense of risk and that what they are a part of cost them something. This may not be true of all men but we must agree that it is of the majority.