Tuesday, September 23, 2014

So William Wallace II was a "character" but where did Driscoll get particular themes and background for the character?

One of the many things that Driscoll has said was that he was sorry he wrote as William Wallace II and that the php discussion board was a bad idea to begin with but that writing under the pen name was a worse idea.  One of the things previously discussed by Wenatchee The Hatchet is that if you read Driscoll's description of William Wallace II from his 2006 book it reads as though he were attacking liberals and emergent Christians who questioned the authority and veracity of Scripture and of core doctrines of the Christian faith.  However, anyone who actually read "Pussified Nation" could see for themselves the most damning statements seemed to be reserved for James Dobson and Promise Keepers and Gary Smalley and other similar evangelical persons and groups that most people would consider anywhere between moderate to very conservative.

In other words, the reason a careful reader should not be too swift to assume Mark Driscoll apologized for the substance of what he wrote as William Wallace II is simply because the 2006 account of what WW2 was doing doesn't quite line up with what is now available to read.  There's a partial overlap, to be sure, but not a complete one--Driscoll seemed to be venting at evangelicals who had sacrificed something core he felt was necessary to authentic masculinity more than he was venting about liberals who he may have regarded as having no hope of truly following Jesus, if you will.

So, as has been noted earlier, there's breaks in these blog posts that require collapsing calendar listings on the right side because it's easier to publish as-is jpeg files of some of these images.  After the break you'll get to revisit the post where Driscoll announced he was William Wallace II.
ESTABLISHING THE ORIGINATOR OF THE CHARACTER



So, the character.  But something that has not been asked by anyone at all that Wenatchee The Hatchet is aware of, is "If Mark Driscoll was playing a character" what did he draw upon for playing that character?"

PUNCHES AS BROTHERLY AFFECTION

Let's take a very specific for instance.
publisher earlier over here
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/07/pussfied-nation-page-7.html
William Wallace II
Member    posted 01-08-2001 10:11 PM    


The world is filled with a great number of churches and ministries sensitve to feminine (read pussified) men. These men can go there. They can read Gary Smalley and James Dobson. They can go to Promise Keepers. They can hang with Exodus International if they are gay. They can go to most any Christian bookstore and get men's devotional books with really moving stories. They can listen to Christian radio and hear men drone about how they feel. We sit on the other end of the teeter-totter. We don't like those guys, though in Christ we still love them. We don't want to sing their songs, read their books, or cry with them. We think the best place for a gay guy may be with straight guys. He may feel odd, because he is odd. That does not mean that he's not loved. He may just be experiencing male love for the first time. When my little brothers punched me growing up I did not cry and ask why they hated me. I would then punch them back knowing that it was our own little secret language of male affection. Tell your buddy if he got a punch, it might mean he's just a brother. 

So if punching was a form of brotherly affection in the family of the fantasy character William Wallace II what was Mark Driscoll drawing on for that?

"BUMMER FOR THAT GUY."

Or let's take an extended set of passages from "Using Your Penis", published at Wenatchee The Hatchet over here.

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-raw-text-no-pun-intended-of-william.html
William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:13 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian pornography. Christian phone sex. Christian cyber-sex. Christian lap dances.
Someone recently asked me about these issues. And, they are quite valid.

The problem with many unfaithful unmanly unmen is that they have heads filled with desires and dreams, but they marry a Christian women raised on a steady diet of gnosticism (so she hates her body) psychology (so she thinks too much before she climbs into bed) and guilt ridden don't have sex because it's a dirty nasty thing that God hates and makes you a slut youth group propaganda from hell/Family Books.

So the poor guy is like a starving man who is told he can only eat once ever couple weeks and his restaurant only has one crummy unspiced bland item on the menu and he either eats it or starves to death.

Bummer for that guy.

What the guy wants is to see a stripper, a porno, and have some phone and cyber sex. What the guy needs is a good Christian woman. The kind of woman who knows that men like unclothed and sexually aggressive women. Why? Because they are breathing. As long as a man is alive he is ready for sex every minute of every day.

Ladies, listen closely. The guy will never get the big dreams out of his head. He can either explore them with his wife, become bitter and sexually repressed, or sneak off to Deja Vu or log on to the net and escape in a moment of adventure. Birds fly, ducks float, dogs bark, and men think about sex every minute of every day because they have a magical ability to continually think of two things at one time, one of which is always sex. Any man who denies this is a liar or has broken plumbing.
So it would behoove a good godly woman to learn how to strip for her husband. Some nice music, a couple of drinks, candlight and a wife who has thrown her youth group devotionals to the wind would be nice. Most women do not do this because they are uncomfortable with their bodies. Know that for a man there are two variables with a woman's body. One, what does she have to work with? Two, how does she use it? Now I will tell you a secret, number two is the most important.

How about a Christian guy who wants to watch porno? Maybe his wife should get a Polaroid and snap a few shots of her in various states of marital undress and bliss and sneak them into his Bible so that when the guy sits down to eat his lunch at work and read some Scripture he has reasons to praise God. Or, maybe if the lady would plug in a camcorder and secretly film herself showering, undressing, making love to her husband etc. she could give it to him when he's on the road for weeks at a time, or maybe just so the poor guy can see his wife as some undressed passionate goddess. I have yet to find a wife take me up on this be rebuked by her husband.

And what guy breaking his stones on the job every day wouldn't like a hot phone call from his wife now and then telling him in great detail what awaits him when he gets home. Or how about the occasional instant explicit message from his wife rolling across his screen giving him some reasons to expect that dessert will precede dinner that night.

Do you know why the adult entertainment industry is raking in billions of dollars? Because people like to have sex and have fun. Does it lead to sin? Yes. Can it lead to worship. Of course. If you resist this message, please stay single until you get your head straightened out. If you are married and fully constipated, bummer for you and your upcoming divorce.

IP: Logged

William Wallace II
Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:27 AM             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guy asked me, so what about when my wife has her cycle, has physical problems, or is recovering from a birth?

Husbands, you need to talk about this with your wife. The average Christian wife does not know that just because she's on the bench that a game cannot be played.

Think about it. It is mean and cruel to let a guy run wild three weeks a month, and then set him on the bench for a week.

I had a wife ask me if it was okay for her to find alternate ways to please her husband when she had her cycle and/or when pregnancy prevented regular intercourse.

Okay?

Uh. Duh.

A woman has a mouth, breasts, a bum, hands and other parts that when properly used can and do serve quite nicely for the full menu of intimate options. And, a woman who explores all her options and uses them well will likely find that her husband is a nice guy every week of the month every month of the year and really appreciates a woman who knows how to take care of her man.
And, he will most appreciate a woman who allows him to explore ALL of her body with her so that he can learn how to please her and cause her to be deeply satisfied and loved with the body God has given him to give to her.

So, men, you cannot be a coward and a good lover. You cannot lie there and assume that the woman is Being John Malkovich and climbing in your head to read your mind and see your desires. You have to lead her. You need to speak with her lovingly, frankly, and openly. And you need to encourage her to speak to you about her fears and her dreams.

And, you need to lead her into the land of promise. I know this may take years. You will try positions and parts that don't work well for you. But, if at first you don't succeed...
IP: Logged

So is there any potential overlap between this "character" and anything Mark Driscoll may have said under his own name?

How about this?


i.e., since robots.txt makes this link dead ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010429061839/http://www.marshill.fm/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000004.html
In all honesty, I think the biggest waste of time for a church planter is training leaders. Leaders cannot be trained. Leadership is a spiritual [sic] gift. Leaders can be encouraged and helped to grow, but sitting around talking about leadership is like phone sex where the talk is good but the action is missing. [emphasis added] Anyone who has planted knows that most of your original core disappears before the launch for various reasons (they are flaky, they don't get their way, the vision varies from theirs, they move away, they are lazy etc. etc.). Then, another core emerges to launch the church. Then, around six months to one year after the launch, the skill set needed requires a whole new core and with the launch team getting tired you get your third set of leaders. So, leadership development is something done every day rather than up front with the anticipation that those people will actually be there in five years still going strong.

So, the best way to see who is a leader is to lead. Those who keep up with you and drag others behind them are leaders. Most leaders seem to learn better from modelling than teaching and need to be in the mess of the details to get any inspiration.

The sooner you can transition to some larger event the better because most new people want to come through a front door that is large and public and enables them to check things out without getting a full body cavity search. I have yet had a new person enter our church through a Bible study or other cell. They always come to the service and once they trust us then they connect in a smaller community.

Going into someone's home with a small group of people who know each other is about the most terrifying thing a stranger could do. The only people who generally do this are the "What About Bob" types who have bizarre social reasoning, no social framework, and need lots of attention. Or, horny young men sizing up the draft board.

Lastly, you'll be lucky to find strong young alpha male leader types who connect first to a cell. Why? Because a lot of small groups philosophy feels pretty queer to a young guy who's wary of sitting in a group and sharing his feelings. Anyone who's seen Fight Club can relate.

That's way back from 2001 but let's consider whether or not the 2012 book sheds any potential light on some of what Mark Driscoll wrote under the pen name William Wallace II.  He simply could not have gotten all of this material out of nowhere, it didn't develop in a vacuum, whether we're discussing a passing references to his younger brothers punching him (in character, of course) or "bummer for that guy". 

Real Marriage
Mark and Grace Driscoll
Copyright (c) 2012 by On Mission, LLC
Thomas Nelson
ISBN 978-1-4002-0383-3
ISBN 978-1-4041-8352-0 (IE)

page 9-10
To be honest, fornicating was fun. I liked fornicating. To stop fornicating was not fun. But eventually Grace and I stopped fornicating, got engaged, and were married between our junior and senior years of college.

I assumed that once we were married we would simply pick up where we left off sexually and make up for last time. After all, we were committed Christians with a relationship done God's way.
But God's way was a total bummer. My previously free and fun girlfriend was suddenly my frigid and fearful wife. She did not undress in front of me, required the lights to be off on the rare occasions we were intimate, checked out during sex, and experienced a lot of physical discomfort because she was tense.


Before long I was bitter against God and Grace. It seemed to me as if they had conspired to trap me. I had always been the "good guy" who turned down women for sex. In my twisted logic, I had been holy enough, and god owed me. I felt God had conned me by telling me to marry Grace, and allowed Grace to rule over me since she was controlling our sex life.  I loved Grace, but in the bedroom I did not enjoy her and wondered how many years I could white-knuckle fidelity. ... We desperately needed help but didn't know where to turn. Bitterness and condemnation worsened.

page 14
I grew more chauvinistic. I had never cheated on a girlfriend, but I never had a girlfriend who did not cheat on me. And now I knew that included my own wife. So I started to distrust women in general, including Grace. This affected my tone in preaching for a season, something I will always regret.


One of the more salient details about "Using Your Penis" was that though it was started by William Wallace II Mark Driscoll transitioned into "Pastor Mark" as though no shift in tone or alteration of character had actually transpired.  One of the reasons the thin line between fantasy and reality seemed so thoroughly permeable was that the character of William Wallace II seemed truly difficult to distinguish from the public persona Mark Driscoll may have cultivated in other media contexts such as his quote about not being a "pansy-ass therapist" in Mother Jones.

For the rather inevitable "so what?" that may be asked, the reason it matters where Driscoll may have drawn things such as younger brothers punching William Wallace II and William Wallace II identifying physical aggression among brothers as a part of legitimate play and brotherly love, or where Driscoll may have drawn upon in his riff on the sexually constipated wife who grew up in some kid of sex-negative culture or family is because his protestations to the contrary, William Wallace II may not necessarily have always been Mark Driscoll playing a character that was wholly imaginary so much as letting some bits of his real self out into the light under a pseudonym.  Given that Mark Driscoll described being bitter and resentful toward Grace because she turned out to be his frigid and fearful wife who was controlling the sexual relationship it's not entirely clear that Real Marriage and the writings of William Wallace II don't reinforce what was prior to 2012 a never-officially disclosed narrative of what was going on in the Driscoll marriage.  Of course one can't be entirely certain but it does seem like it matters upon what Mark Driscoll was drawing to create the "character" of William Wallace II because it seems to be a character that shares many things in common with the public persona that has been Mark Driscoll, neither of which may necessarily reveal that much that is particularly illuminating about the actual human being by themselves. 
asf

No comments: