Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Thoughts on Mark Driscoll and Tony Soprano

And no, these aren't connected.

Mark Driscoll is back on a lot of blogs after making a mountain out of a molehill with Bill Hybels. Driscoll is pastor of the 5000! 5000! 5000! - member Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Hybels the pastor of Willow Creek in Chicago. Here's the short version: at a church-planting conference, Driscoll and his crew contributed a video talking about what church-planters need to do and who they need to be. One of his main points is essentially "no chicks allowed." Right after this video was shown, Hybels got up to speak and began by saying, "After that video i would like to acknowledge that there are women in this room and they have spiritual gifts." Source from a guy who was there is here.

And if you can stand it, you can watch the video yourself here. Lowlights include men being able to have sex with their wives at least once a day, Jesus is not a gay hippy in a dress (seriously...who believes that?), and guys "we" have to reach are less concerned with church and more concerned with putting subwoofers in their "retarded" cars. I've been reading reactions around the blogosphere to this video and have seen no one pick up on the use of that word. I just found that point interesting.

Anyway, Mark's version is that Hybels had attacked him and his ministry and had banned the video from being distributed afterward, none of which is true. What Hybels said is above. Elsewhere, people testify to seeing people distributing the video at the door. Does Driscoll believe his hype that much nowadays?

Why'd I even mention this? I like writing responses to Driscoll's rants on occasion just to sharpen my own sword, so to speak. And here, I was amazed that such a view on marital sex is being propped up by such an influential pastor (who IS, I acknowledge, reaching a lot of young guys...if not with a limited view of gender roles and "acceptable manly behavior"). If there are married couples with such a sexual relationship out there, I applaud them. But statements like this have the potential to first set up false hopes and in extreme cases lead to abuse if a woman isn't "fulfilling her role." It's a terrible view of sex besides...in iMonk's critique, he calls it "sex as servicing the man." That ain't right, man.

Switching gears, Chris T. quotes an excellent article on the spiritual themes of The Sopranos.

There have been pop-culture portraits of mob kingpins descending into hell before, of course—think of Michael Corleone fading into shadow at the end of Godfather II. But the artistic temptation is always to make this fall splendid and Miltonic, a matter of a few grand and tragic choices rather than the steady accretion of small-time compromises, petty sins, and tiny steps downward that usually define damnation.

The Sopranos dares instead to explore the terrible banality of evil, depicting ordinary people held prisoner by their habits and appetites who choose hell instead of heaven over and over again, not with a satanic flourish but with an all-American sense of entitlement. Sin is never glamorized or aestheticized: The violence is brutal rather than operatic, the fornications and adulteries are panting and gross rather than titillating. The characters’ sins breed even physical dissolution: obesity, ulcers, hemorrhoids, constipation, cancer. The show offers a vision of hell as repetition, ultimately, in which the same pattern of choices (to take drugs, to eat and drink to excess, to rob and steal and bully and murder) always reasserts itself, and the chain mail of damnation—in which no sin is an island, and gluttony is linked to violence, sloth to greed, and so on slowly forges itself around the characters’ souls.

I love the above quote because it rightly observes that the show tends not to dramatize or add a nice glossy shine to its more violent and sexual aspects. There's no crescendo of music during a murder scene, no pretty tasteful slow-motion love scenes. Likewise there's no buildup of karma...someone finally catches some bad luck or makes a bad choice, but it's because the road they travel has always held that risk.

Take this past week's episode, which deals with Tony's gambling. He rides a stroke of good luck until it turns on him. At that point, he can't seem to get back on track, but at the same time he can't stop. It doesn't really occur to him that maybe giving up gambling might help him not lose money. No, his lifestyle can't allow him to stop.

Or take Little Vito's reaction to his dad's death. He turns goth, acts out in school. Both Phil and Tony try to sit him down and think that just telling him to "straighten up and be a man" will be enough. Lo and behold, it isn't because there are deeper-seeded emotional issues working that their culture's view of "manliness" chooses to ignore (hardcore Driscoll supporters, take note), i.e., it's just a matter of making threats and sending the kid to a boot camp. Never mind that Little Vito's problems all started because of other characters' homophobia and murder. Nothing changes because the real problem isn't dealt with.

I guess I was able to make a connection between these two subjects after all.

4 comments:

grace said...

Hello,
I've been following this also. It has amazed me how many blogs posted Mark's version of what happened as fact. I am curious if Mark will print a retraction or apology.

As to the content, I intentionally chose not to address it because I wanted to focus on the distortion in his post.

One of my commentors did refer to his use of the word retarded as offensive (among others). For some
reason Mark gets to be offensive and many people think it's okay.

I believe his content is worth addressing, but I'm just not willing to take it on. You did a great job here.

LayGuy said...

Hi,

I'm a big Driscoll fan and find it really interesting to see how the blog world responds to his comments.

Most of his comments by which people are offended by are laid to rest if you get to know him through listening to his podcast.

I must admit, the first time I listened to him, I was blown away. then I got to like his style as I got to know the heart of the man.

Jim said...

The guy's idiocy doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that it gets attention. He's become the church's Jerry Springer.

I'm not sure why we in the body continue to give Driscoll the time of day, other than maybe to share the Gospel with him since he so obviously needs to hear it again for the first time.

People of influence (like Hybels) need to start questioning his supposed faith. And they certainly shouldn't continue to allow him to distribute his misogynistic, bigoted propaganda at their events. I'm not seriously suggesting that the guy isn't a believer, but from his tone and the language he uses, one could be forgiven for thinking that.

Bill Hybels is often derided for his ministry and its size, but that guy, unlike Mark Driscoll, is the real deal. I'll take him as a pastor over Driscoll any day of the week.

P.o.C. said...

Grace, I've been amazed by that as well. Some bloggers seem only to have read his take and even ignore commenters' accounts to the contrary.

Layguy, I've only listened to part of a Driscoll podcast, but I have read his Reformission Rev book. I do find his points about church-planting helpful, but I've never found his constant use of hyperbole, especially when deriding woman pastors, "girly men," homosexuals, and "liberal" Christians helpful. Listening and reading more of his stuff tends not to help clarify his heart or put him in a more positive light either...it just reinforces the views of people who can't stomach the insults and offensive language.

Suggesting that husbands are entitled to daily sex and presenting a patently false account of what happened at this conference doesn't help, either. The former as I've said is a horrendous view of marital intimacy. The latter is bearing false witness.