ChristiansUnite Forums

Pastor Mark Driscoll, who founded Mars Hill Church, issued a statement on his Web site saying he hasn't changed his philosophy about women's roles, but he was "sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked."

Driscoll made the statement after meeting Thursday with his critics to negotiate a truce of sorts.

The group had organized a protest at the church's Ballard site to call wider public attention to Driscoll.

Protest organizer Paul Chapman, who also founded a group called People Against Fundamentalism, said he and others in his camp considered some of Driscoll's rhetoric "demeaning and pejorative" against women.

"I found it degrading and completely against what's taught in the Bible" -- that people should love and respect all others, said Amelia Pitts, one of a group of about 20 who showed up for the scheduled protest Sunday before it was canceled.

In particular, Chapman and his supporters mentioned earlier entries from Driscoll's blog, one of which suggested to some that the wife of evangelical leader Ted Haggard was partly to blame for his contacts with a gay prostitute.

"A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him, either," Driscoll wrote.

In another blog entry, Driscoll reinforced the concept of a Holy Trinity - "Father, Son and Spirit. But some chicks and some chickified dudes with limp wrists and minors in 'women's studies' are not happy because two persons of the trinity have a dude-ish ring."

In another entry, Driscoll expounded on the recent appointment of a woman as an Episcopalian bishop, saying that "if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God's men."

Former divinity student Lindell Alderman said others who called for the protest were concerned that Driscoll's influence had spread to a congregation of several thousand and to a popular podcast.

The anti-fundamentalist group took issue with Driscoll online with three specific goals: to call mass attention to Driscoll's statements and philosophy; to get him dropped as a popular newspaper religion columnist; and to get a sincere apology from Driscoll himself.

Alderman said he hopes Driscoll's subsequent apology leads to portraying Christianity as "more inclusive."

The group said it had about 50 people interested in demonstrating at the Ballard church but called off the protest after Driscoll appeared to apologize. They showed up to let others know it was off and held up a banner thanking Driscoll for his apology.

The Seattle Times dropped a weekly column Driscoll had written for two years from its religion pages, announcing that it was searching for another evangelical Christian columnist.

"The decision to discontinue Pastor Driscoll's participation was part of a review that was under way before we knew of any protest against him," Times Executive Editor David Boardman said.

Chapman said his group's goals have been met.

Driscoll said the blog item about Haggard was meant to discourage young pastors from similar "disqualifying sin," but he was upset to learn how his statement was interpreted to reflect on Haggard's wife, "which I did not intend to have happen in any way." He said a relative of Haggard's assured Driscoll they did not take his original writing personally.

Driscoll, preaching at several church sites Sunday, could not be reached for comment. Several people attending Sunday services voiced support for Driscoll's philosophy on women's roles, though church officials had advised them against talking to reporters. A half-dozen security guards were posted at the Ballard church and a video camera was aimed at the protesters from the building roof. There were no incidents.

Members said the church does not have female elders but has elevated them to deacon. Members and attendees Sunday, including women, were strongly supportive of Driscoll's preaching. They said Driscoll teaches the Biblical scripture that makes a man the head of a household but also responsible for loving and protecting his wife. Several said Driscoll does not demean women.

"I believe he has a high regard for wives, family and community," said one member, Kristy Kight.

"We hold (women) in high esteem," said another member, Joel Braun. "You can ask my wife."

Other church pastors declined to comment, though one, Paul Petry, said Driscoll teaches respect for women, including that a man "lay down his life for his wife the way Christ laid down his life for the church."

In his blog, Driscoll called the hours-long meeting with his critics "honest, respectful and helpful." He said his convictions remain "as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back."

In the blog Driscoll did not elaborate. "I have been made aware of where God is inviting me to work with Him for maturity," he wrote.

This new group that calls themselves "People Against Fundamentalism" claims to be Christians. The following are statements from their blog site:


And:




This is a Pastors wife that is against the teachings of the Bible and giving an open invitation to non-Christians to join her in the fight against the fundamental teachings of the Bible? I could see this if she were protesting against the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church but Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church a fundamentalist (the WBC are not fundamentalists either) ? The following is taken from the Churches web site:

WOW I just do not know what to say.

On one hand I am a fundamentalist...we were discussing this on another thread...and this is a case to show where people put negative mind sets with the words fundamental.  HOwever if being fundamental means being right and truthful to God then I gladly hang on to it.

I can name a few people who were fundamental's and held onto their beliefs unto death.  Paul, Stephen, Jesus are but 3.  We call them martyrs today and we have very few martyrs to look up to.  In todays world we bow to the petty whims of those that whine and cry.

The PAF group may claim to be Christian but are all young in their faith if they truly have any.  For to follow Christ there is nothing but fundamental tenants.  They open the door to invite people of non-faith to stand with them in their stance against what?  Other brothers and sisters.  The Bible clearly teaches us two different things about this.  One is that we are to not count ourselves amongst the people of the world.  Invitation of the secular world to join in a stance of a spiritual nature is going agianst this idea.  Another is that if there is a dispute between brothers and sisters it is not to be fought in a public forum.  This applies not only to me and Jimbob within my church building but also betwen denominations or any body of Christ.  If PAF has a problem with Mars Hill or Driscoll then they should go to him one on one, two or three on one, then still the church before him.  It should not be taken to the public.  And what they are doing by inviting the world to join them is inviting Satan to control it.  Satan will take this opportunity to continue to make Christians look bad and thus the Gentiles will blaspheme the name of God.

As far as the Mars Hill site and the references you pulled PR....that makes me just as scared.
One thing to note is that the Bible is not silent on any matter.  For it has the broad sweeping scope of taking all things to God in prayer.  And that we are to do His will.  And that if at anytime we are doing something that we have decided is OK and not God deciding it is OK then it is automatically not OK, and thus a sin. 

The next bit also gets me where they state they enjoy good beer.  Let me state I have wrestled with that beast before as well.  As a recovered Navy sailor...and a very stereotypical one at that.  I enjoyed the beer, liquor, and anything else I could drink.  And I would not put anywhere as mainstream doctrinal point that "we support your drinking"  even with the coin phrase of in moderation...that is a weak arguement for support alchoholism.  For what is moderation for you is not moderation for me and so forth.  The Bible makes it clear that when we drink we lose control of ourselves.  And when we do that we are apt to not put God first.  And when God is not first then we are sinning.  Thus if we drink we are sinning. 

But along with that sentence they mention that Jesus had a tattoo?  Maybe one of you more enlightened folks can point that one out to me because I do not ever remember Jesus having a tattoo.  Was it a cross that had 'MOM' on it?

Again call me a fundamentalist and I will say yes and proud of it

Amen brother my exact sentiments.

Those that claim that Jesus had a tattoo are referring to:

Rev 19:16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.


It is just one more interpretation in order to sanctify there being able to do those things of the world.

Even if that were a Tat...that is in Rev and future times...So correctly it would be that Jesus gets a tat...not that He has a tat :D