Driscoll on Hell and a Manly God
Here is a part of Mark Driscoll's now infamous interview with Justin Brierly on Premier Radio. They were in the process of discussing women in church leadership.
The whole final section of the interview was not Mark Driscoll's finest hour. Most of the online discussion since has been on his macho view of men and women and his insight into modern British preachers (i.e., there are no courageous young preachers in Britain — they are all cowards: girly men not manly men). I won't comment on those issues (though I could!)
The following little comment did surprise me a little:
I beg your pardon!
If tormenting people forever and ever is a "masculine" way to behave then I am very concerned for what Driscoll thinks it is for "men to be men." It sounds like being masculine is about being a violent brute!
But perhaps that's not fair. Driscoll goes on to explain that the reason why a manly God torments sinners forever is that he is a "father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines." Now I am much more sympathetic to "masculine" understood in these ways.
Oh . . . hold on . . . now I'm confused.
God torments sinners in hell because he is protecting them? eh?
Defending them? huh?
Disciplining them? urm? Disciplining them . . . forever . . . with no chance to improve? How is this discipline?
I think — I hope — that Mark Driscoll has not thought this through clearly and that it was simply an offhand remark; that he put the phone down and thought, "Man! Why did I say that dumb stuff!"
As a theological argument it is vacuous. If Mark would prefer that in more manly terms: it's utter bollocks!
The whole final section of the interview was not Mark Driscoll's finest hour. Most of the online discussion since has been on his macho view of men and women and his insight into modern British preachers (i.e., there are no courageous young preachers in Britain — they are all cowards: girly men not manly men). I won't comment on those issues (though I could!)
The following little comment did surprise me a little:
Driscoll: Do you believe in a conscious literal eternal torment of hell?Mark Driscoll has a manly God not a girly God. Apparently, if one thinks of God in "masculine" ways (as opposed to pink and girly ways) then you must believe in eternal, conscious torment.
Brierley: What has that got to do with the issue of women in leadership, if you don’t mind me asking?
Driscoll: It does. It depends on your view of God. Is God like a mom who just embraces everyone? Or is he like a father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines? If you won’t answer the question, I think I know the answer.
I beg your pardon!
If tormenting people forever and ever is a "masculine" way to behave then I am very concerned for what Driscoll thinks it is for "men to be men." It sounds like being masculine is about being a violent brute!
But perhaps that's not fair. Driscoll goes on to explain that the reason why a manly God torments sinners forever is that he is a "father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines." Now I am much more sympathetic to "masculine" understood in these ways.
Oh . . . hold on . . . now I'm confused.
God torments sinners in hell because he is protecting them? eh?
Defending them? huh?
Disciplining them? urm? Disciplining them . . . forever . . . with no chance to improve? How is this discipline?
I think — I hope — that Mark Driscoll has not thought this through clearly and that it was simply an offhand remark; that he put the phone down and thought, "Man! Why did I say that dumb stuff!"
As a theological argument it is vacuous. If Mark would prefer that in more manly terms: it's utter bollocks!
Comments
No only that but Driscoll in the blog post says, "please do not deny the reality of a literal, conscious, eternal torment in hell, because people are going there and lying to them it not loving them!" Lying!?
It sounds like M Driscol is part of the American "Evangelical Complimentarian" idea.
As Roger E Olson says:
...“evangelical complementarianism” holds that women, though created in God’s image, are meant by God to be permanently subordinate to men at least in the church and the family. From there complementarians go off in somewhat different directions, but on that they all agree. (Personally, I think “complementarian” is a misnomer because it does not sufficiently describe what these people really believe. The emphasis is not on males and females complementing each other but on females being submissive to males. Therefore, whenever I hear the label “complementarian” in an evangelical context I think of it as an example of “newspeak” as in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
At least his blog post showed a more considered understanding (of why British ministries struggle more than American ones) than the radio interview did. To some extent his comments were not thought out and were his frustration talking rather than his reason. His objections were really off target. I think he'd be less off target if he offerent a more prepared comment.
This is me trying to be sympathetic . . .
Oh well, I'd just like to say that my wife (who is definitely a woman) believes firmly in ECT. I am, in fact, a convinced Universalist. So there's that. Not all men get off on the idea of Calvinist notion of cosmic justice.
That is very interesting.
I should also add that Driscoll's reasoning in defence of ECT is primarily that he thinks the Bible teaches it. The argument presented here is not his main argument. So we ought to appreciate that this was a single off-hand comment, spoken in frustration.
I have no doubt that he believes that the drift towards feminizing God is connected to the drift away from ECT, and perhaps he could build a better version of this argument here. It would still be a poor argument but I can imagine less poor versions of it.
Um... can't God be both? Does he have to be characterized as a man or a woman, by our blinkered understanding of what those terms mean? I thought he created both men and women in his image and so he has both masculine and feminine qualities.