UKcontributor

by: csquared78 01-25-2012 @ 1:55am

I would say the same things if I was standing in front of Mr. Vanderveen without my computer. I am not afraid of a good fight and believe when other supposed believers attack my other fellow believers, I am required to stand up on their behalf. I do not back down and I even use my Bible when necessary. I'll even admit I am wrong if need be.

--

This is the problem that you see this as a fight and that you regard the Internet as an appropriate medium to carry out that fight. The things you said to the Vanderveens might be appropriate in the context of a relationship you two (three) shared. However, the relationship is non-existent and as such you saying these things would only be appropriate if in fact you were standing in "in front of Mr. Vanderveen". A similar thing applies to your most recent comments about their 'supposed' belief - God calls you to respect your fellow believers even when you disagree with them; not let the disagreement be ground for a judgement only He can make.

Similarly I think the parts of the article which have attracted criticism only have the right to exist in a relationship between the Vanderveens and Driscoll. If they are of the opinion that Driscoll has a sexual issue, then surely it should be discussed with Driscoll rather than hypothesised upon in front of a global audience.

So in those respects I -humbly- think your offer of an apology would be welcomed by most people who signed up to the Sojourners code of conduct and regard them as valuable and strive to abide by them. And again I would -humbly- suggest some of the Vanderveens' more personal remarks about Driscoll deserve an apology/correction.

However, beyond those slightly personal comments, I actually believe there is a deeper issue with letting a personal attack on Driscoll cloud a constructive review of the actual theology behind this: it is the individualistic focus which inherently prevails when this happens.

I am not saying Driscoll has no agency to exert, but like all of us, Driscoll is woven in an intricate web of cultural, religious, social and political realities. Within the Calvinist school of thinking especially and moreso within the strong level of control which is often found within these communities, the emphasis often lies on the religious realities. Having grown up in a strong reformed, Calvinist church environment myself I recognise many of the things from the 'church discipline contract' to which a link was posted; although even I was amazed at how far it was taken.

Meyhrar (1984) infers in his psychological research on poverty that an individualistic focus in psychology results in the focus being taken away from the system which constrains and instead pathologises the individual within this system. I think a similar thing applies here. This is what happens when we focus too much on Driscoll....we pathologise him, rather than looking beyond the individual to a religious system which constrains and is the cause of some of the views Driscoll holds.

From my own experience, Calvinist tradition has a very unhealthy sexual theology with a big emphasis on sexual sin. In fact it is regarded as worse than most other sins, although official doctrine such as the catechism are ideal for the defence that all sin is the same and all have fallen short - in practice, from the examples of how they deal with sexual sin one can infer that believe is not put into practice.

As such there is another point there; their obsession with sexual sin in fact idolises sex more than those who would regard 'all sin the same'.

So to finish my short epistle (apologies) the danger of not being salt and light is something we all face - whether through expressing criticism which satisfies the Western ideal of individualism or whether aligining our attitude to sex to the Western idolisation of sexuality.

I don't think there is necessary confusion with everyone regarding the same thing. Yes, some have clearly spoken out in favour of Mark Driscoll, his style of managing and teaching and yes, I don't agree.

I think what many are confused about is why you and Sarah weaken the core of your good message regarding this book (like I pointed out earlier) by making statements such as:

"Real Marriage for me wasn’t about marriage relationships at all. It was a cry for help."

"pastor who I believe is struggling with his own sexuality and sense of self-worth. "

I think reading the rest of the article again, what strikes me and clearly others is the tone of your article where you border on ridicule and rudeness (note I said 'border'). I don't think that whatever subject you write upon, bordering on those things strengthen an argument.

I don't question your authority as an editor, I share your view on church life and the role of a pastor and if you read my previous comment well, you would see that I was merely attempting to create a polite and balanced response forward to both this article and the more unbalanced comments previously....as such I'm surprised at my current -1 rating?