« Emerging pulses and orthodoxy... | Main | Book Review... »
August 16, 2006
come on' Driscoll....
I like Mark Driscoll, and I read his blog, and other things on him, but sometimes I can't tell how much of what he says is just said to get people worked up, for shock value, etc. This clip about church innovation is a case in point. The issue is church innovation and the involvement, or lack of involvement of young men. Driscoll says:
"The problem in the church today is just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickafied church boys. 60% of Christians are chicks and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of...chicks. It's just sad."
I've blogged before on what others seem to view as the feminization of the church, here and here.
But it just seems to me to continue to point fingers at what some see as the "feminizing" of the church, or "girlie love songs to God", etc. is a very oversimplistic view/or not a very helpful view of something that is much deeper. I guess I'm just wondering, do these 60% "chickafied church boys" that Driscoll talks about, and the 40% of dudes that are still, "sort of chicks" have to be convinced only to come to church if we start playing football games on the big screen during services, and hand out swords to them instead of bulletins...you get the point.
I agree. Young men aren't exactly coming in droves to church. I see this at my church and in the ministry I oversee. But is that because it's too feminine? And are the guys who are coming and who are pursuing Christ faithfully and serving, are they "chickafied?"
I guess that what I'm more concerned about is that this issue is rooted more deeply in preconceived steretoypes of what it means to be masculine and feminine. This is not to say men and women are not different. But unfortunately, it seems that many of those views are still rooted somewhere in the Middle Ages. Do I need to send my men out to a Wild at Heart weekend to de-chickafy them?
And what of the men in church who have a different personality and demeanor? Who don't work on cars, and don't watch football, and like the music that is played? Somehow they don't seem to fit into what Driscoll is hoping for, for men in the church.
Women seem to have always been a part of the church life, whether it was hundreds of years ago, or today. And I don't remember the women not showing up because the church at one time or another was too masculine.
I'm done.
Posted by rhett at August 16, 2006 10:52 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/516
Comments
I think that he has a point, but I don't think this is just a problem within the church. I've noticed an increasing femininization of men across the board. With the increasing number of "metrosexual" men, it's hard to find a man anywhere who hasn't been "chickafied." And maybe that's the point that needs to be made. This isn't a church problem...it's a cultural problem that's affecting the church.
Posted by: Amanda ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rhettsmith.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 17, 2006 08:04 AM
Hi Rhett--I think the shock value thing is pretty much a tactic this guy employs. But, some people really think the way he does and some churches are indeed targeting men. What this means is all over the map. I think it is not because church is sissy, but I think it is because we are so verbal rather than visual in our communication. Men love action, story and adventure. Women love lectures and oratorical mastery. Guys like the facts, girls like the talking part. So, my two cents is that really seminaries need to teach pastors how to REALLY tell stories and mythology. Star Wars is not football, but certainly connects to a lot of guys. Why...the myth of the hero and more. We have a lot to learn. And,it is not a simple as Driscol is making it out to be.
Posted by: Rich Kirkpatrick at August 17, 2006 08:13 AM
Here's my take on Driscoll
http://frombelow.wordpress.com/2006/08/17/god-in-his-own-image-mark-driscoll-and-the-macho-jesus/
Posted by: Luthsem at August 17, 2006 09:56 AM
Silly Driscoll. Well Rhett, this is something that does bother me. I am a man and am not a football nut, more like a relationship guy who likes football in the playoffs only. I don't think that Driscoll means most of what he says, I just think that he pushes buttons and tries to get people, mostly men, to become people of God, to provoke them. Most of the time he is doing this by being offensive though, but that seems to be his style.
Posted by: philter at August 17, 2006 01:23 PM
So Driscoll has always come off that way to me. I think that the idea of a bunch of burly men marching into battle ready to rip peoples heads off is also whack. So yea. Maybe the church has softened some men for the sake of "Christianity". And that's not legit. But to make a point that the church will suffer because of "in touch" men is a joke. Put it this way. I get facials. And I'll kick Driscoll's tail as well. But I am ruining The Bride because I like to be the peacemaker? I don't think so. Thanks for the post.
Los
Posted by: carlos whittaker at August 17, 2006 11:15 PM
wow, yet another reason to totally ignore this guy.
Posted by: Zach at August 18, 2006 04:56 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
