Tuesday, September 29, 2015

HT Phoenix Preacher--Carl Trueman response to a Doug Wilson post on "why Christian women are prettier" Wilson presents himself as a prototype for the rhetorical style of Mark Driscoll 2000-2012

HT to Phoenix Preacher
Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2015 by Carl Trueman
Over at his blog, Douglas Wilson has an interesting post on why Christian women are prettier.  [that was Tuesday, September 22, 2015] I was particularly struck by this paragraph:
"Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about the fact that there even are any men."
So there you have it.  That is Mr Wilson's sophisticated take on the psychology of non-Christian women: they either aspire to be sex mad prostitutes or, failing that, turn into butch lesbians.
I guess he must be describing my mother because she is not a Christian -- but I am not sure at what point in her life she quite fitted this description.  I must have missed it.  When she married, still chaste, at 20?  Throughout her 46 years of faithful, devoted marriage to dad?  When she patiently and lovingly nursed him through his long, final, painful illness, administering his meds, lifting him on and off the toilet, attending to his most basic and undignified bodily needs? During the years since his death when she has been faithful to the memory of 'the only man I will ever love', to use her phrase?
To be sure, she is not a Christian.  She needs Jesus as her saviour.  But I suspect the reduction of non-Christian women to whores or lesbians says more about the psychology of the writer than it does about my mother.  And maybe other mothers too?
Wilson, for his part ...

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Well, you’ve gone and put your foot in it now, Wilson. Why, what have I done? It’s all very well to aspire to become the bad boy of Reformed letters, but there are supposed to be limits. But this piques my curiosity. To what might you be referring? Yes, you pretend to be ignorant, but you know very well what you have done. Well, yes, I actually do know. I did toss a cinder block into the goldfish bowl.

As I mount the gallows and look out over the crowd gathered for the festivities, the chaplain accompanying the hangman asks me if I ever thought it would end this way. Well, kinda, I did, but to be honest, I hadn’t anticipated that it would be for believing that Christian women were prettier.

Monday, September 28, 2015
The issue before us is a simple one. Does the Lordship of Jesus Christ extend over absolutely everything? And, if it does, does it make any difference to the good?

At this point the line of influence between Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll should be pretty easy to observe, even for those who don't want to observe it out of a sympathy for some of Doug Wilson's ideas.

The breezy tone, the jovial self-description of someone senselessly being set up for pot shots.  Boiling everything down in the wake of a provocative cyber-statement into a single question so abstracted from anything that was in the original statement it begs a person to agree with the initial statement by default.  Yes, it does seem as though its going to be fairly easy to observe the parallels between the Mark Driscoll rhetorical approach from 2000-2012 and the Doug Wilson approach that has taken shape before that.

I've said before that Mark Driscoll's views on sexuality and gender roles could be construed as taking the ideas of Doug Wilson on the same, pumping them full of steroids, and then sending them off to the gym.  Consider Mark Driscoll's official response to the kerfuffle at Liberty University from 2012.


Lately, I’ve been busy with something you may have heard of called Easter. So, I’ve not been on the Internet much but instead busy with church and family. However, rumor has it there is a bit of mushroom cloud of controversy over my planned trip. So, I asked our community relations manager, who gets to enjoy reading blogs about me while eating breakfast every day (it’s amazing he holds anything down), to give me a summary of this kerfuffle. (Henceforth, we will officially refer to this situation as “The Kerfuffle.”)

The trouble started with a Southern Baptist blogger . . . yes, you should have seen that one coming. Now, to be fair, the blogger quoted an anonymous “source.” And, we all know that almost everything bloggers say is true. But, when they have something as solid as an anonymous “source,” then you can rest assured that when Jesus talked about the truth over and over in John, this is precisely what he was referring to. I have a degree from Washington State’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication and worked professionally as a journalist, and I can assure you that The Kerfuffle is a very serious matter to be taken with the utmost sobriety and propriety. In fact, one anonymous “source” I spoke to said that Watergate pales in comparison.

Or consider "Pussified Nation".  We've discussed the influence of Wilson on Driscoll's ideas and style at some length.  To provide a parallel that's more recent than 2000 ...

This week the Christian blogosphere worked itself into a frenzy over a Facebook status posted by Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. The status, which was later removed, read, "So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you've ever personally witnessed?"
The Issue Under a Lot of Issues
Mark Driscoll

Gender. Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?

That’s a significant question, and how you answer it has massive implications. The question of gender underlies many current cultural conflicts and theological controversies that go beyond even the long standing debates about whether or not a woman can be a pastor and whether or not a man is to function as the head of his home. ...
By now it's going to be difficult for admirers of Doug Wilson to not see a direct and substantial influence by Wilson on both the style and substance of Mark Driscoll's history of talking about sexuality and gender roles.  Whereas Mark Driscoll, once his writings as William Wallace II were brought back into public view, issued an apology for them and repeated that he came to regret what he said under that pen name, Doug Wilson's approach seems to not merely be doubling down on what he said and how he said it, but to playfully present himself as being brought up to the gallows via social media for just saying stuff.  He brings things back to it being about some foundational basic question of an idea within Christian thought reduced to such a basic level you couldn't possibly object to such a generalization. 

What's striking about all this breezy writing from Wilson is that it was up days after ...

Leithart's public apology regarding his role in the case of a pedophile who was greenlit to marry ...

Now might not be the greatest or wisest time to even bother with the assertion that Christian women are prettier to begin with, let alone providing a case study in how Doug Wilson's style and substance could be construed as paradigmatic for Mark Driscoll's public persona in the last fifteen years. 

But, hey, Doug Wilson can publish what he wants.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Mark Driscoll shares how he's learned more about love, life and leadership [since he quit Mars Hill] than any season in his life.

In recent months, I’ve learned more about love, life, and leadership than any season of my life. God is a great Father who has proven incredibly faithful to my family and me. On a few occasions this week, Grace and I became teary as we recounted the ways God has been so good to us lately, including some wonderful people he has brought into our lives.
Mark Driscoll has learned more about leadership in recent months (since he quit being a pastor last year) than any season of his life? It sounds like quitting Mars Hill was the greatest thing that ever happened to Mark Driscoll when he puts it like that.

Throckmorton: Robert Morris calls blogs Satan's hit list

So ...
Transcript of Robert Morris and Mark Driscoll from the Gateway Leadership + Worship Conference
on the evening of Monday, October 20, 2014, as broadcast live via DayStar Television:
Robert Morris:
 Uh, it was publicized that we cancelled him; that’s not true, we did not cancel. I’m speaking of Mark Driscoll. We did not cancel him. He and I decided together uh that he was going to step out of ministry for a season and get some healing. [emphasis added]

remember the guy who said last year that he and Mark Driscoll agreed he ought to step aside from ministry for a season has lately declared blogs that mention Christian leaders are somehow "Satan's hit list".


But, but I have to say this, um, I’m really concerned about how much time people spend on the Internet. I’m extremely concerned about it. Extremely concerned about it; here’s one thing, just even the blogs that mention Christian leaders, and I’m one of ‘em. Praise the Lord, I’ve made the Satan, Satan’s hit list now you know, but here’s what blows me away.

You wouldn’t listen to gossip, but you’ll read it. I mean, I have a friend of mine, that made a comment a while back, and it just blew up on the Internet. It blew up. Like he was “changing” his theological position. And really he was saying, ‘our methods are evolving’ but he had to clarify later, ‘my theological position’s not evolving on this issue, but our methods in dealing with people who are in bondage to sin, those are evolving, we’re trying to learn to deal with people who-who suffer with this’.

But on the Internet, everybody had already judged him. And he’s a pastor and he’s a friend of mine. And what upsets me is Christians read filth on the Internet. And they believe it.
And, I, um, you can’t imagine how many people have told me, that ‘this is true,’ “How ya know it’s true? ‘Read it on the Internet’

Anybody can write on the Internet. And the people who write on the Internet are people who would not have a platform, unless they put my name, or Bill Hybels’ name, or T.D. Jakes’ name in it, they wouldn’t have a platform, if they didn’t put someone’s name who already had a platform. Boy, I’m just fired up, I’m telling ya.

People who write on the internet are people who would not have a platform unless they put Robert Morris or Bill Hybels or T. D. Jakes by name on something?

What about Warren Throckmorton?  What about Tony Jones? What about anyone who has a blog where they can put their own name on it and say whatever they want because they can pay for their own internet access and have a modicum of assurance that there's this thing called the First Amendment? What does Robert Morris mean by a "platform"?

blogs as Satan's hit list ... and here I was thinking this week of writing about how there's a case to be made from the writings of Henrich Bullinger on the office and activity of the prophet for a legitimate place for what some people call watchblogging.  But who cares who Bullinger was or what influence he may have had on the Reformation, eh?

if you have leads for full time work or more clients ... Justin Dean's looking for that and has mentioned it on Twitter

I'm in need of full time work and/or new clients. If you have any solid leads I'd appreciate the help.
for an overview of what Dean's been up to this year, you can follow up on posts with the tag "Justin dean".