I see exactly what Mark is talking about, and I understand how some people misunderstand what he is trying to say. For one thing, there is rampant emasculation of men within the church, mostly because church itself, sociologically, has a more feminine appeal. The more “Macho” men would rather be out rock climbing or bear hunting with a stick than sitting in a well-landscaped church with flowers and soft hymns.

Now notice how he says the church is not being innovative because “all the innovative dudes” are out doing more masculine things. He’s not saying that all guys have to go shoot guns and eat raw meat in order to be innovative. He’s not saying that only men are innovative. He’s not saying that less masculine men aren’t innovative. He IS saying that the people who have the horsepower and drive to change cultures and organizations are drawn to things other than church, and it’s a legitimate problem.

I can see why this clip has fueled some serious backlash, but the man is simply frustrated with the emasculation of Christianity. If you think he’s a bigot, check out his church- It’s full of artsy, skinny-jeaned guys in V-necks as well as dirt bikers. It’s balanced, diverse, and very culturally liberal. And it appeals to them all, not just the “seafoam green” crowd.

And yes, Jesus cried, he held kids, he hugged his brothers, showed emotion. He also threw tables in the temple and walked on water in the middle of a storm. It’s not about being a “macho” or a “softy”. It’s both. But the church is too often just soft. Way too often.

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…

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.

great thoughts…. i agree 100%

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

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.