You are here

Home ›

Mark Driscoll and gay worship leaders...

by David and Tim Bayly on July 15, 2011 - 5:44pm

First, two of my favorites:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: That's NOT funny!

Q: How many worship leaders does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Does it HAVE to be a LIGHT BULB?

Yet again, my friend Mark Driscoll has been shamed into pulling in his horns. This time he committed the crime against hermanity of updating his FB status (did you join me in switching to Google + this past week?) with this question:

So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?

All the queens of Evangelicaldom had hissy-fits over Mark's sexism, so they called in the women who took a vote, and it was unanimous: Mark was to be conveyed in chains to the town square, then locked in stocks where the old maids would pelt him with zuchini and rotten tomatos.

One Denver Seminary prof in high dudgeon brought the weighty charge against Mark that...

he was "disempowering" women.

Then the prof added:

Driscoll has a macho swagger that is repulsive and un-Christ-like.

To which I commented:

To live today is to be effeminate. Men who abdicate their God-delegated authority and responsibility are the norm in Western culture. The biological and psychological and (especially) spiritual bifurcation of sex has been replaced with the infinite continuum of "gender," so who would even think to condemn womanly men or manly women? Although Scripture condemns men who are "women" (e.g. Nahum 3:13), we're quite precious in our conceit that we've arrived at a time and place when, finally, we've evolved to the point that we're less sexist and kinder than the Holy Spirit. We'd never be caught dead calling any man "womanly" or "effeminate!"

For two decades, now, I've kept track of the loss of 'effeminate' from contemporary English usage--not just the word, but more the concept. When men attack and destroy God's wonderful diversity; when men rebel against God's Creation Order by promoting androgyny; it becomes quite difficult for anyone to see that effeminate soldiers, professors, fathers, judges, presidents, worship leaders, elders, and pastors are God's curse. "O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths" (Isaiah 3:12).

Really, the failure of Pastor Driscoll was not his use of the BIblical concept of effeminacy, but that he neglected to point out that it is sin.

Go back a century or so, prior to our decadent time, and our fathers in the faith condemned womanly men all the time, often using the word 'effeminate." Here's one of my favorites:

Indeed it is appropriate to repeat here once again what I mentioned before, that fault must not always be found with the servants of Christ, if they are driven with violent force against professed enemies of sound doctrine, unless one is perhaps disposed to accuse the Holy Spirit of lack of moderation. ... the vehemence of holy zeal and of the Holy Spirit in the prophets was like that, and if soft, effeminate men think it stormy, they do not consider how dear and precious God's truth is to Him. - Calvin on Acts 13:10

So when Doug Groothuis smears Pastor Driscoll claiming he's a sinner who has "a macho swagger that is repulsive and un-Christ-like," what he really means to say is that he's a soft, effeminate man who thinks Pastor Driscoll "stormy."

(TB: By the way, I substituted "gay" for "effeminate" because "gay" often is used by high school jocks the way "effeminate" used to be employed.)

Tags: 
Evangelicalism
Feminism
Academia
Homosexuality
Gelded discourse

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Randall van der... on July 15, 2011 - 6:07pm

Does anybody really think Driscoll is that macho?

Also, note that the issue here isn't just effeminacy, but the quality of worship leaders. Most people complaining about that comment are talking about the former but not the latter.

The problem with Evangelicalism goes back generations before the invention of worship leaders. Church has become a nurturing place for needy women and their children. Men are to be dragged along, even if kicking and screaming.

Even those who want to fight feminism often use feminine tools. They want men to lead, but only within a revivalist culture of emotion and introspection. At best they want a sort of matriarchalism, where the church creates an atmosphere that focuses on women.

Submitted by Daniel Jarvis on July 15, 2011 - 6:20pm

I'm honestly a bit confused here. Can you explain a bit more fully what you see Driscoll did wrong here?

Thank you,
Daniel

Submitted by David & Tim Bayly on July 15, 2011 - 6:26pm

Mostly agree, Mr. van der Sterren, although the devil is in the details. For instance, I'm betting you consider Edwards a prime example of the error you mention.

I don't.

* * *

Daniel, really, I don't think Mark did anything wrong with his question. I was only thinking it might be worth mentioning that effeminacy is not simply disgusting, but sinful.

Love,

Submitted by mark on July 15, 2011 - 7:20pm

So where and when did Groothuis make this criticism of Driscoll? I assume sourcing does matter . . .

Submitted by David & Tim Bayly on July 15, 2011 - 7:50pm

Dear Mark,

The link is missing because I don't link to the site. Ever.

Resourceful men bypass my scruples...

Love,

Submitted by Joseph Bayly on July 16, 2011 - 9:39am

Isn't "macho" the closest word we have to the converse of "effeminate"? It's a derogatory term implying false masculinity exactly the way that effeminate implies false femininity?

So we've come to the day where it's ok to shame men by calling them macho, but we can't shame them by calling them effeminate, which is actually far more shameful. What a world we live in.

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 16, 2011 - 5:00pm

Joseph, the lexicon available to us a wee bit larger.

"Macho" is applied to men, as is the word effeminate. I thought the converse of effeminate would be a term applied to women whose behavior is mannish. That term is "butch," originating in the gay culture itself. I'm not sure what the term for women is that corresponds to macho.

By the way, after comfering with my Hispanic family expert (future son-in-law), I learn from him that macho in Hispanic culture is not deragatory. Nor laudatory. It means "tough" or "blunt, rough masculinity." One could use it to describe someone unfavorably, but that would come from a larger context and a more elaborate description pointing to how un hombre macho relates to other people, men and/or women. After listening to my expert explain the term, I'd say that Hispanics would hear the word macho as the tee-totally opposite of our term metrosexual.

"Machista" on the other hand is a term for a man who thinks men are better than women and whose behavior exhibits this opinion overtly. In Columbia, machista is the term for a man who beats up women.

So far as I can tell, macho as a purely deragatory term lives in the feminist lexicon, the sort of feminism fostered by Kate Millet and her kind, to name the testosterone-charged masculinity which they hate and seek to destroy. I'm guessing you are familiar with the term from a Yankee university setting, where that kind of feminism is the default way of thinking and speaking about the universe.

Submitted by Eric Rasmusen on July 17, 2011 - 8:06am

I was thinking along similar lines as Fr. Bill-- What's wrong with being "macho"? I think the derogatory sense I've heard it used in is when someone is trying to be manly, but he is ordinarily so unmanly that it seems a little silly. Or, very similarly, when a woman wants to shame a man for acting like a man. Use of "Macho" and "effeminate" would both make great PhD topics.

It's also highly significant that there really is no analog for a woman who acts like a man. "Butch" isn't in ordinary use, except as applied to lesbian. Nobody would say of Mrs. Clinton, "What a butch woman!", would they?

Submitted by Joseph Bayly on July 17, 2011 - 12:51pm

If macho is used derogatorily of a man, which it certainly is in this case, then the equivalent derogative for women would probably be "submissive". That is certainly insulting to many women today.

So here's my case.

FOR MEN:
macho vs effeminate: Calling a man effeminate is somehow offensive to Womyn. But calling a man macho ought to show him what an idiot he is.

FOR WOMEN
submissive vs butch (or maybe femcho): Calling a woman butch is somehow offensive to Womyn. But calling a woman submissive ought to show her what an idiot she is.

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 17, 2011 - 8:04pm

Joseph,

I have no quarrel with your analysis. Within certain defined demographics, it would doubtless apply. In others, no. In Tex-Mex culture, according to my consultant, definately no.

And Hilary butch? I can't remember how many times I've run across exactly this word applied to her, they're so many!

Submitted by Joseph Bayly on July 18, 2011 - 5:20am

hmm... so butch isn't offensive to womyn. Well, that's where my analysis really falls apart then.

But the first point still stands: Here's a man insulting another man for being "macho" because he called other men "effeminate". Something's been truly reversed from what it should be.

Submitted by bert perry on July 18, 2011 - 6:29am

Rule of thumb; if you start humming the theme from "Robin Hood, men in tights" when the worship band gets up to sing, you probably have an effeminate worship leader.

Rule of thumb #2; if you start replaying scenes from "Monty Python's Holy Grail" when people start attacking Mark Driscoll.....oh never mind. My wasted youth bearing its fruit again! :^)

Submitted by Rae Whitlock on July 18, 2011 - 7:03am

The backlash against Driscoll was a bit ridiculous, but his question was at best ill-advised, and at worst sinful in that it could be seen as an invitation into gossip and self-righteousness. I'm glad he pulled it, but it's unfortunate that it took what it took for that to happen.

Submitted by College Jay on July 18, 2011 - 7:06am

I guess my question is what constitutes being "effeminate." As a teacher, I've seen kids who excelled at sports be blasted as "effeminate" simply because they had high-pitched voices or weren't as physically strong as other guys.

Same goes for godly husbands and fathers. I have seen men be bullied by other adults -- despite no wrongdoing on their part -- simply because they were short in stature, or small in their frame, or with a voice that was high and reedy -- be called "effeminate" because of those things.

If we're calling men who are spineless in their convictions and wishy-washy about their God-given roles in the church and family "effeminate," fine. But I think a lot of what Driscoll is getting heat for is because he bullies guys who may be totally masculine in their views, convictions and behavior, but who might be smaller in stature, not good at or interested in sports, might have a voice a little higher than other men... And I don't think those immutable surface attributes have anything to do with masculinity or femininity.

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 18, 2011 - 7:30am

Back to the gravitas for a moment ...

Modern gender sensibilities seem peculiarly insensate to the overwhelmingly masculine qualities of worship as it is set before us in both Old and New Testaments. Music in particular, since that feature of worship has become virtually identified with and synonymous with "worship" in the modern context, is a man's affair in the courts of the Lord. No wonder, since it was always to have been an earthly analog to the worship going on in the courts of Heaven, both before and after the Ascension of our Lord (i.e. no feminine angels up there).

So, the Levitical choirs are all male. So, the subject matter, not to mention the "style" of the Psalter, is dripping with masculine themes, styles, and topics (i.e. no walking through the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses, with sweet, sweet YHWH whispering in my ear that I am His own). So, in the New Testament , not only leadership of the Church (I Timothy 2-3) but leadership of its worship is marked by male headship and female submissiveness (1 Cor. 11:1-16).

"But Paul says women can prophesy during worship! Women can pray during worship!!"

So, what?

They did so in the Old Testament as well. Under both Old and New Covenants women could always ~participate~ in worship, they could always offer their praises, petitions, confessions of faith, confessions of sin, their sacrifices, their offerings, and the payment of their vows before the great assembly. That is a wholely different matter than leading the corporate worship of God by His people so assembled for that purpose.

For the record, at St. Athanasius Anglican Church women audibly confess their sins, audibly sing hymns and Psalms and Canticles, audibly confess their faith through the ecumenical creeds, audibly speak their petitions -- individually at the appointed times during the liturgy, audibly speak their thanksgivings for the Lord's recent blessings vouchsafed to them -- again at the time appointed in the liturgy for anyone to glorify God by thanking Him before His people. And, in all this speaking with and before the assembled parish, they are covered in compliance with Christ's directive through his servant Paul.

Again, in compliance with Paul's instruction, women do not preach or teach men (they do teach other women), they do not offciate or otherwise perform actions or speak words intended to direct the words and/or actions of the assembled worshipers when those worshipers include both men and women.

Effiminate men leading worship are revolting, and they richly deserve the cornful derision with which Mark Driscoll zinged them. But, women leading a group of men and women assembled for Lord's Day worship is the same sort of perversity as gay "marriage."

Submitted by College Jay on July 18, 2011 - 7:37am

"Effiminate men leading worship are revolting, and they richly deserve the cornful derision with which Mark Driscoll zinged them."

Although I think we can agree that putting up an all-call for people to gossip about other people they know steps over a line, doesn't it? Also, I still need a description of "effeminate men leading worship." I don't know if I've ever really seen any, but again, I don't know what definition of "effeminate" people are operating under.

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 18, 2011 - 7:45am

First, a correction: "cornful" should be "scornful," though the original word may be even better, if it suggests throwing corncobs toward the purported worship leader.

Jay, you raise a valid issue and one that needs a far more comprehensive answer than anyone might give in a blog comment (I am interested to hear what Pr. Tim might say in response to your comment).

For now, all I'll say is that the wholesome, the Biblical, conception of manhood and masculinity is a far richer, more diverse, more complex sort of thing than anything the world today can serve up. And, since the Church seems bent on taking its cues for so many things -- including whatever masculinity is supposed to look like -- the Churcch's notions of manliness is pathetically impoverished, relying on all sorts of silly stereotypes which effectively consign all kinds of authentically masculine men beyond the pale of manliness.

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on July 18, 2011 - 8:22am

Fr. Bill,
Being from Indiana, when you said "cornful" I knew exactly what you meant (though I hadn't heard the term before :)

Submitted by College Jay on July 18, 2011 - 9:24am

Thanks for the reply, Fr. Bill. And I definitely agree. Also, I totally understood "cornful." Haha.

Submitted by Roger on July 18, 2011 - 12:49pm

I'd second the notion that we should define "effeminate." We like to throw that word around a lot, in pretty condemnatory terms, and while I'd say we do it justly, there have been times reading conversations like these where I start to think that we should define terms that we use so potently.

That said, it's easy to sidetrack the main issue by quibbling about a thousand details- is this effeminate, is that, is the other thing- and forget that we'll never have a 100% agreed upon definition, but we can agree on the principle that men need to act like men. It reminds me of the shibboleths we hear uttered about abortion- the culture spends 95% of its abortion discussion on the 1% of abortions that may be ethical under someone's standards of rightness, totally getting away from the fact that 99% of them are horrifying. Just as I can't let a discussion about a situation where the mother's life is in danger and the child is almost certainly dead anyway etc. distract me from the fact that 99% of abortions are not like that at all and are unequivocally wrong, I can't let an argument over whether this behavior or that is really effeminate distract me from the fundamental truth that men should generally act like what the church says men should act like.

Submitted by Roger on July 18, 2011 - 12:51pm

or perhaps we should just look at scripture for examples of what men should and should not do, and if we're OK under those guidelines, we should quit worrying about whether the worship leader has a high voice, a highfalutin' fancy haircut, or uses an excessively fragrant shampoo.

Submitted by David Abu-Sara on July 18, 2011 - 12:52pm

I first typed "insensate" into my dictionary and learned a new word. Then I typed "cornful" into my dictionary and like me, it had no clue either. Thanks for the correction.

Submitted by bert perry on July 18, 2011 - 2:47pm

Trying to be serious, I'd like to try and answer about what it is that makes a worship leader effeminate. Or one example. A dear brother of mine--a guy I helped lead to Christ--mentioned a song he just couldn't sing with. He thought it was his fault--somehow he wasn't spiritual enough.

I looked at the song--six lines, about 45 syllables, six minutes, repetitio ad repetitio. OK, this is a teenage girl's puppy love, and grown men are singing it. Nicely feminine, but a guy is singing it.

Another example might be a man who is aping the fashions of Hollywood constantly, trying to fit in--just not comfortable in his own skin.

Or, it might be something a lot more subtle; a man who sees something untoward in songleading, and doesn't speak up. Seen a lot of that.

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on July 19, 2011 - 3:37am

We would call most of the faithful prophets of the Lord revolting, and stinky, and macho, and arrogant, and unchristian, wouldn't we? Imagine John the Baptist, with bad breath, wild hair and a hair shirt, coming to the pulpit and putting it all out there to bring the Father's loving rebuke to the flock, bellowing "Repent!" How would our reaction in the church be any different than Mark Driscoll's work to bring a proper shame back for effeminacy of worship leaders? Our definition of godliness does not come from the Scriptures. Our definition of godliness is wrong.

"Quit you like men." - 1 Cor. 16:13

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on July 19, 2011 - 3:37am

...be any different from *our reaction to* Mark Driscoll's work...

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 19, 2011 - 4:46am

Daniel,

Your comment made me think of this report in Luke's gospel at 7:24-26 (also found in Matt. 11:7ff):

24 When the messengers of John had departed, [Jesus]began to speak to the multitudes concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings’ courts. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet."

I'm guessing that effiminacy among the Jews was suffiently "owned" by the decadent Romans and Greeks that Jesus' reference to a reed shaken by the wind cannot reasonably refer to effiminacy in Israel (I might be mistaken here; someone with better credentials in cultural history may wish to chime in). Still, the notion that it refers to effiminacy is appealing in the overall context of Jesus' cchallenge to the crowds regarding their perceptions of John the Baptist.

Jesus' reference to soft robes is, by our Lord's elaboration, a reference to unseemly indulgence in the luxuries of wealth. But here's the main point:

~Both~ impuissance (whether tinged with sexual ambiguity or not) and voluptuousness are unmanly when measured against the macho (!) qualities of John the Baptist in his ministry as a prophet.

This is not to say that ministers of the Word and Sacrament today are supposed to have BO, to dress in animal skins, or to restrict their diets to honey and locusts. Our Lord, however, most certainly praises the ascetic features of John's lifestyle and the blunt candor of his preaching, setting both features in sharp contrast to the unmanliness of reeds and revelers.

Submitted by Fr. Bill on July 19, 2011 - 4:50am

Please, if you will, forgive the lamentable typos above. My damaged vision, only partly aided by great magnification of the image in my browser, keeps me from detecting many of them.

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on July 21, 2011 - 6:22am

Mrs. Evans pulls out all the stops to shame Pastor Driscoll: How DARE you attach shame to effeminacy?

http://rachelheldevans.com/mark-driscoll-bully

Shame!
Shame!
Shame!
Shame!
Shame!
For daring to attach shame to something.

Now, Pastor Driscoll did it clumsily.
He could have provided better context.
He could have phrased it better.

But is the important thing really that the sin of effeminacy have no shame attached to it? Is this how we love our brothers and the church?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB

Just think if Pastor Driscoll's post had been 1/10 as scathing as Mrs. Evans' retort. (Then maybe he'd have had people stopping their ears and rushing at him to push him off the cliff.)

Submitted by Kamilla on July 21, 2011 - 8:04am

Daniel,

I went to look at Evans's post. I've been avoiding it because she generally makes my teeth hurt. Did you notice her solution to Driscoll's bullying?

Counseling.

Heh,

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on July 22, 2011 - 3:19am

>> Counseling.

Which is generally humanistic rather than Scripture-based, you mean? (Which wouldn't tend toward encouraging Pastor Driscoll to greater faithfulness and courage in battle)

Submitted by Sergius Martin-... on November 5, 2011 - 7:01pm

Is it possible to agree with Driscoll on effeminate worship leaders and still be concerned about the excesses of his bad-ass persona?

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design