Talk:Mark Driscoll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Calvinism Portal
Mark Driscoll falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Notes

  • Just a request, if you add something specific regarding Driscoll's theological beliefs, please give a source for it; there is a lot of speculation regarding his beliefs floating around on blogs and the like that is passed off as truth when it is simply speculation.

Osmaker 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Is Mars Hill really the biggest church in WA right now? It's certainly the largest church that theological is evangelical Christian, but I do believe that there are other churches in WA with larger member numbers than Mars Hill.
  • Removed quote " Jesus Christ is a pacifist...He puts a boot to the head of his enemies and then there's peace.". No reference and couldn't find one.

[edit] Odd Link

Just wandering through and don't understand why the 'sky fairy' link (in the quotes section) points where it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

i changed the link to point to sky deity   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking "Emerging Church"

Note: there is a big difference between "emerging" church and "emergent" church! AFAIK Driscoll ascribes to one and not the other.

I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "Emergent Church," but I thought that the term was inextricably linked to post-modernism, something I thought that Mark Driscoll decries in his books and sermons. While Driscoll isn't a modernist, I would argue that he isn't a post-modernist either, and that linking Emerging Church is inaccurate.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to research and prove my point. However, I'd appreciate it if somebody else could concur and perhaps provide the necessary documentation (or, equally, prove me completely wrong.)

--Jamesreggio 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Driscoll is associated with the emergent church because he started with the group of people who are most commonly identified as the movers and shakers within the emergent church. In several of his sermons he makes reference to it and basically says he's stepped away from that group because of certain theological differences. --Anonymous guy who needs to get a login.

Currently, Driscoll's main method of distinction is couched in an distinction of [semantics].

--AnthonyMartin 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced quotes

I removed a bunch of quotes that an unnamed person added, as the source link provided went to the home page of www.evangelicalright.com which did not contain the quotes referenced. Also, it was fairly obvious that the quotes were specifically chosen to support a biased (negative) opinion of Mark Driscoll, which is not NPOV. I left the one quote that did properly link to its source (his blog). Squidge37 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the quote section yet again, as a (different?) unnamed person re-inserted the quotes without addressing the source issue here on the talk page. I'd like to avoid useless revert wars. If there's a source for your material, let's get it so we can keep this eneyclopedic. Squidge37 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point I don't think the heckler filling the quote section with biased quotes from a single source is reading the talk page, but just so there is a record of what I'm doing, I've changed the quote section to 1) correct the "God hates you" quote which was taken out of context, and I linked it directly to the sermon as the source, 2) removed a couple of the quotes from the Evangelical Right source since there should be a diversity of sources and not a bunch of quotes all from one source, and 3) added a couple other quotes from other sources to keep it diverse. The current version, at the time of writing this, contains article and quote sources from people who like Mark and people who don't. It's balanced and should stay balanced. NPOV needs to be maintained. Squidge37 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • As long as you have sources please keep posting a few more Driscoll quotes. These are great. Or maybe he needs a wikiquote page. Kategorian 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed quote sourced at EvangelicalRight.com which in turn isn't sourced Jmc41 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the quotes are taken out of context and fail to be a reliable source for his beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.70.156 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another revert war?

Rather than simply reverting someone's changes, how about using the talk page to come to an agreement? I removed an unsourced POV comment in the theology section from someone with an obvious axe to grind against Driscoll, suggesting that "many" evangelical leaders think his theology reduces women to sex objects. Without even getting into the discussion about the "sex object" accusation being straight out of nowhere, a statement that many evangelical leaders think this will need to come with some kind of source. Otherwise, it is not encyclopedic and will be removed. Also, there is no reason to truncate the quote being reverted, unless the intention is to take a snippet of a blog out of context to make someone look bad, which again is not encyclopedic. If you've got something against Driscoll, keep it in your blog. Wikipedia is not the place for POV. We need to remain balanced Squidge37 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examining Mark's Views

I'm surprised that a number of Mark's "fans" continue to delete properly attributed quotes and relevant information. These "fans" continue to delete information that is fully cited and in a majority of the cases are taken directly from Driscoll's blog. I understand the embarrassment and the need to hide his views, but Wikipedia is designed to give individuals an accurate portrayal of individuals and not a white washed version. KevinDLum 13:06, 13 November 2006

It's not that the quotes aren't properly sourced, (although I have had to deal with that a couple times); it's that they are carefully picked and isolated and grouped together with other tidbits in an attempt to portray a biased view and unbalanced picture of Mark Driscoll's character. It's not too hard to figure out that you don't like Mark, and that's fine, but what I'm doing here is trying to keep things balanced because this is an encyclopedia article. It's possible to take snippets and actual quotes to paint a picture that isn't entirely accurate, and that seems to be what's happening here. It's a straw man argument, trying to piece together a picture of someone that is fit to receive the types of shots you want to throw at him. Mark has serious quotes on Biblical theology, quotes in a sarcastic/joking tone, and quotes in the category of "controversial personal opinions that have biblical backup". If we're going to maintain this quote section, it should have a balanced amount of these different types, to portray an accurate and balanced picture of the person in question. And by the way, thanks for taking this to the talk page Squidge37 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this: it's obvious that Mark's strong view of male headship in the home and church is indeed important and bears mention in this article. At the same time, the over-abundance of quotes (regarding this and other views) in comparison to actual content simply makes for a low-quality, unencyclopedic article. If we could collaborate and improve the quality of the article, incorporating discussion of Driscoll's theology (including his view of gender roles) in the "meat" of the article, rather than just rattling off random quotes, everyone will be happy. What say you? raekwon 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. I'll try to add some stuff tomorrow. It has to be informative and non-biased, (meaning, it shouldn't say "...and this is right" or "...and this is wrong"), and it can't be full of other people's opinions and drawn conclusions (such as "he says ___ which of course leads to...") I mean, for goodness sakes, the internet is full of biased blogs on Mark Driscoll, either for him or against him. We don't need another one here. We need an encyclopedic article. Squidge37 04:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a techie and am just learning all of the different aspects of Wikipedia. My appologize for not bringing this issue to the talk board earlier. Like I said, I am not a techie, but I am a theologian by training. I understand Mark's views on woman fully. I understand the difference between what he believes to be a biblical view of complementarian relationships as opposed to what others view as an egalitarian view of relations. I get that. Complementarian theology was the accepted norm by most fundementalist and for a time by some evangelicals. I get that as well.

What I don't get, is the degrading view of woman I sense from Driscoll. I encourage you to read his full blog from which the quotes are lifted. He begins by saying luckily his wife his beautiful and then talks about times he could have been unfaithful. He basically says, "If my wife was not beautiful, these temptations may have been a reality." This interpretation follows the logic of the article. He then continues to say that woman need to fix themselves up for their husbands. This is sick! It's not a complementarian view of theology, but reduces woman to nothing more than sex objects. I appreciate it when my wife fixes herself up, but it is by no means expected, and further more is degrading to require woman to fit certain societal norms (which is how beauty is determined). Therefore these quotes are vital to understand Driscoll. It goes much further than a biblical view, but is a view that is completely distorted by a culture that glorifies beauty.

I am sometimes shocked that Mark(who is a smart guy) fails to see that his ideas about feminity and masculinity are culturally shaped. His idea of a man's man is completely based upon an American midset of what a man is and should be. A male from Europe or Africa would look very different. To make his views biblical is to do injustice to scripture and its conter-cutlural message. But I have digressed long enough.

In regards to the misogyny. I have no idea whether Driscoll is a misogynist, but I do know that a growing number of people feel that he is. This is important again for understanding both who Driscoll is and how his teachings are perceived. Therefore I would hope the quotes and the line about misogyny will be left as is. [User:KevinDLum|KevinDLum]] 6:06, 14 November 2006

RE: charges of misogyny and/or a degrading view of women -- I have read the blog posts in question, and I listen to Driscoll's sermons weekly. Having this larger view of how he views gender, I have a really hard time agreeing with those who want to charge him with misogyny or having a low view of women. At the same time, though, I can understand why some might think so if they've only heard soundbites, or have only read a blog post or two, etc. Also, while there are many who disagree with Driscoll's theology on this matter, not all of those people would say that he (or any other completmentarian) is necessarily a misogynist. This is why it's important to have a balanced, neutral view of Mark's viewpoints in this article. raekwon 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: charges of misogyny / degrading women -- there is a good article on CT about Driscoll which addresses this controversy - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/30.44.html - apparently the main thing was one comment he made in giving tips to pastors about not taking fidelity for granted. I don't think you can take this comment as just a general "women always have to fix themselves up for their husbands" - he was talking about women who "let themselves go," which men sometimes do too, which can also prompt women to talk about finding something with less of a beerbelly or less haggard. The issue was particularly with regarding to pastors' wives, who are probably more likely to feel pressure from other women to show their "spirituality" by not tending to the "physical" - basically gnosticism. So the point wasn't to encourage fixing up, but rather to counter a different, and unsettling trend amongst certain Evangelicals. Jmc41 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
raekwon, thanks for the cleanup and expansion. You beat me to it ;) It looks really good right now, with a neutral viewpoint and a clearly stated section about complementarianism, with brief mention of how some others respond to his views on it. This is much more informative than a slew of quote snippets. Squidge37 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. If you see room for improvement, feel free to edit my changes. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all. I'd like to expand this article some more. There's more to this guy, his background, and his theology than his views on gender. raekwon 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job! Well balanced. [User:KevinDLum|KevinDLum]] 7:06, 15 November 2006

RE: charges of misogyny and/or a degrading view of women -- Raekwon's comments on 5 November 2006are absolutely correct. The signs of misogyny are unfounded and subjective. Driscoll's opinions about Mars hill permitting only men as pastors could be argued as subjugating women but his sermons consistently stress the importance of woman in churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books in Progress

Driscoll has mentioned at various conferences (Resurgence in particular) that he is writing a book on the atonement with the working title of "Death by Love" that will be published by Zondervan. Should this be included in the Bibliography section?

Just source it. CyberAnth 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Using Your Quote

I've copied your quote from Driscoll about his involvement in the emerging church movement and am pasting it into the Emerging church movement article. I know this is not plagiarism but it still somehow feels like cheating. I think the editors working on this article have done a great job. Thanks for the quote!Will3935 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complementarianism

I have no references to back this up, but I am sure that many Biblical complementarianists would disagree with Driscoll's beliefs about gender and gender roles. This article seems to paint him as exemplifying complementarian beliefs. The term complementarian has a very broad scope. It would be more appropriate to say that Driscoll labels himself as complementarian, and then to describe his beliefs on this (especially if it is its own section then there is room). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.175.184 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Weasel words

A potentially good article which could be better by slightly modifying this: "... provide a good understanding of what he believes. Furthermore, it can be inferred that the doctrinal statement of the church planting network he co-founded, [1], is a reliable overview of his beliefs"

Probably true, but it's really impossible to prove that what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

if it's impossible to prove that "what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe", then i can't even be sure you believe that "it's really impossible to prove what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe", and therefore, why take you seriously, Pgagnon999? (your statement seems to be self defeating and postmodernistic)

[edit] Added Jesus in Scientology to See also links

Because the author has written upon that subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Driscoll has written on a myriad of subjects, and this one is not one for which he is particularly notable. Linking it makes no sense, and seems to be more of a coatrack than a legitimate connection.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)