Pastor Mark Driscoll #fundie

Pastor Mark Driscoll #fundie theresurgence.com

[Pastor Mark Driscoll's explanation of why Ted Haggard used crystal meth and had sex with a gay prostitute: his wife was too fat to satisfy him sexually!]

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.

78 comments

old comment by Nickel

Driscoll comes nowhere near fundamentalism and has never espoused views anywhere close to it. The lead-in to this quote is deliberately asinine and inaccurate; his website reads instead: "Therefore, as a means of encouragement, I would like to share some practical suggestions for fellow Christian leaders." Not only does the submitter apparently hate religion (as well as all forms of Christianity in general), but he's not even intellectually honest about it. And you share in that intellectual dishonesty by doing exactly what the fundies do: make fun of something about which you know nothing. You obviously didn't bother to check the facts of quote (very fundie), or you would have realized that the idiot who submitted this quote was intentionally being dishonest about it. Actually read it, and you find that Driscoll made no attempt to explain in the least Haggard's actions--he merely used the national news story to bring to bear items for thought for current pastors: "In the meantime, let us pray that his wife and five children will be loved and supported through this incredibly difficult time. The horror they must be experiencing is likely unbearable. // SEGUE // As every pastor knows, we are always at risk from the sin in us and the sinful temptations around us [. . .] Therefore..."
For goodness' sake, please. As a Christian, some of the stuff on this site is funny. Some of it is irritating. Most of what I find irritating is when you do stuff like this--completely missing the point and showing no admission that you're in the wrong... which is exactly what you make fun of at this site... which is extremely ironic.

old comment by David D.G.

Nickel: I see what you're getting at, but at the very least, Driscoll's last paragraph above shows that he is inclined to shove a lot of blame onto the shoulders of the wife for the sins of the wandering husband. While he doesn't try to pin all the blame on her, it's clear that he sees her as a factor in HIS dishonorable choice to commit adultery, which is bogus.
Whatever other problems a couple may or may not have, in this she is the VICTIM! He does NOT have to remain in a marriage with someone he does not love, and he DOES have the option (and the obligation!) to end the relationship honorably and honestly, by divorce, before going elsewhere for sex. I also note that Driscoll doesn't bother to consider the opposite view, concerning female ministers whose husbands "let themselves go." So even if he's not talking about Haggard specifically, Driscoll is making great leaps of illogic here, fueled in part by misogynistic double standards. ~David D.G.

old comment by Julian

Nah, 3rd time's a charm - then we write you off as officially fucktarded!
No, you called fluffy padding "context"... Learn to read! That does NOT justify or in any way at all mitigate what was said. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available ... Once again, to insinuate that, at heart all women are fat, lazy, slovenly and frigid and can only be motivated by fear of rejection or loss is absolutely adhorrent. Even he knew he was saying something offensive (that he invented on the spot) because he prefaced it how he did. Would you like some more help understanding this concept? Waaaaaaait. wot - if - I - say - it - slower? Wood - dat - help - yooo - enny?

old comment by Julian

So that would be "yes" then; you would you like some more help understanding this concept.
Why didn't you just say so instead of trying to lambaste 40 people who understand something you cannot? You might like to investigate this defensive side of your personality and belief system one day. Oh hang on, that's way to advanced for you right now. Disregard that for a few years. OK lets see... Please go and look up insinuate - it's indirect, when you understand this concept read on... He said Pastors wives have extra security that other women do not and many CONSCIOUSLY take advantage of this. This implies all women would like to behave like the Pastors Wives, but cannot - apparently for fear of their husband running off and sucking cocks while speeding. ........................... Can you answer a question since you love this man so much? Is he trying to defend Ted's actions (I assume no) or is he just using Ted's actions (You might like to investigate the last few "Vulture" awards) to push his own agenda to get Pastor's wives to lift their game a little? At the very least, he is massively objectifying women! Would you like a little help understanding that concept too?

old comment by Nickel

Sorry. Forgive my rude demeanor.
"Once again, to insinuate that, at heart all women are fat, lazy, slovenly and frigid and can only be motivated by fear of rejection or loss is absolutely adhorrent." This was your original quote. And then you explained it: "He said Pastors wives have extra security that other women do not and many take advantage of this[1]. This implies all women would like to behave like the Pastors Wives[2], but cannot - apparently for fear of their husband running off and sucking cocks while speeding[3]." [1] But he condemns this. [2] I'm sorry, but I just don't see him addressing anyone but pastors' wives in this section. It seems he is addressing those pastors' wives who definitely ARE fat, lazy, and everything else you mentioned, but is not saying that all wives would like to be this way at heart. Why would they? I think you're reading too much into what's there, i.e., misogyny is way too far. If anything, I read it as him warning against the fear of becoming stagnant in "sexual conversations" with their wives--and that's not even a strictly Christian concept. [3] He bookends the paragraph, however, with exhortation between husband and wife for vital, healthy sexuality; sexuality obviously doesn't involve just one person, so I think Mark had no choice but to address the other partner at least in some respect--and in this case, if one sentence in some way makes the other partner a factor in the decline of "sexual conversation" (and why couldn't he or she be?), the twelve other paragraphs more than make the point that pastors who are unfaithful to their wives are certainly to blame themselves.

old comment by Julian

Thank you! About time we had you admitting you agreed with the mysogyny that is being spouted and this is why you're having trouble understanding this!
[1] - PRECISELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He condemns it. That is the problem. 1. Firstly he says it exists and is PREVALENT. Something he made up is now fact! Not only that, but he invents why it happens. No, it couldn't possibly be natural changes in a metabolism or any other factor, it must be them wanting a free ride. "I don't have to do all these horrible things like sex and exercise, he's stuck with me now." (All of this coming from a Pastor, perhaps you'd care to ask him exactly how trapped he feels) 2. How exactly is this a problem? What part of 'for better or worse' does he have a problem with? The selfish bitches are getting older too - how dare they. Some of them might already be infertile, what possible use would they be then? [2] - Once again... We see he's attacking a particular group that directly affects him. But, and AGAIN I am repeating myself - women are women. Pastor's Wives, are women. To say they do these things because they can, implies all other women also want to do these things, but can't. Are you still keeping up here? THerefore he implies "at heart all women are fat, lazy, slovenly and frigid and can only be motivated by fear of rejection or loss" because once that fear goes, so does all motivation. All of which is absolute rubbish, and once again goes back to Mark feeling trapped or believing this is exactly how women think - how truly simple minded he must believe them to be to all fit into this simple rule of cause and effect that he outlined. Exactly how much does this need to be spelled out to you? Are you married? Do you feel you wife is fat and lazy and trapping you? If she was, would you be off looking for sailors? A standard heterosexual relationship is a journey with two people and really should be defined by more than how often one lets the lets the other squeeze her mammary glands. [3] And here we get into objectification. All he mentions about women and their relationships is they should look good and put out.

old comment by Julian

@Nickel

Trying to get pastors' wives to lift their game a little? I don't think so. Like I said in my last comment, I don't think it's him trying to make wives go above and beyond for their husbands--it's him encouraging them to not be careless about the health of the relationship because they feel like they've got their husbands "trapped."

Ooooooooooops. And now you're contradicting yourself. You said "he is addressing those pastors' wives who definitely ARE fat, lazy, and everything else you mentioned" What, so they don't have to life their game? Oh, OK is he only addressing the fit young ones, because the FAT ones are past redemption and beneath his notice? Boy, send that man a treadmill and tapes of the Biggest Loser. But you said he was talking to the fat lazy ones? Of course the really cute bit is the 'above and beyond'... Please tell me what your particular church sanctions as acceptable. Is it dictated in doctrine? At least once, but no more than three times a day? Help me out here? Is anal 'above and beyond'? I've been rather tempted to bring Catholicism in as another equally fucked up viewpoint to see how on Earth he and you would reconcile that. Exactly how much crap from Timothy and Corinthians does this guy throw at you? Are single people evil? Are gays? Is divorce?

old comment by Nickel

__________________________________________________
Thank you! About time we had you admitting you agreed with the mysogyny that is being spouted and this is why you're having trouble understanding this! __________________________________________________ ...Ooooooooohhh... I think I know what you're getting at now. At first, I read that, and I couldn't figure out whatsoever: "...WHAT? Why in the world is he saying that I agree with misogyny?!" And then when I said, "He condemns it," I didn't think it needed any clarification until you said: __________________________________________________ [1] - PRECISELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He condemns it. That is the problem. __________________________________________________ Not because you're saying that misogyny is not bad, but because you're saying that exhorting wives to not be fat, lazy, etc., is inherently misogynistic. Julian, you and I are looking at this from two different perspectives, and that's what's causing confusion. I'm not saying women shouldn't be fat or la-- well, they shouldn't be lazy--really, no one should. But being fat can be genetic. It can also be a result of lack of proper nutritional habits and lack of sufficient exercise. But what Mark attacks in this short paragraph is not women who are not beautiful or who are not thin or who are not whatever else. He attacks (okay, I'm using "attack" in a very broad sense, but just because you used it first) Christian women who are selfish in the marriage, who couldn't care less what the husband thinks. That is not condusive to any good marriage. In essence, he's attacking those who don't care about the health of the relationship (the woman just happens to be featured in only one of the thirteen paragraphs, the other twelve being about the man). I see what you're getting at with the rest of what you've said, and it's nowhere near where I was going with the topic. The main thing I think we disagree on is Mark's intent in writing what he did in this paragraph. I view as nothing more than this: That pastors are not to go alone bearing the burden of keeping a marriage relationship healthy on account of just being a pastor, and that their wives should be equally concerned about having "satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties"--and not to be careless or selfish about it or despise such with their husbands. Whereas I gather from what you wrote that you view it as nothing more than this: That Mark views women who decide to be less than in their prime for their husbands as objects for nothing more than the pleasure of their husbands and that the woman ought to be partially to blame for the man leaving her on account of her not staying sexually pleasing to him--that women stay beautiful out of fear that the man will be justified in leaving her. Am I accurate in my conclusion? If what I said is accurate, then you would be right if Mark were not a Christian. As I said in his defense earlier, Mark is clearly not the definition of fundamentalist, and he's more honest than to insert some deception in his writing. In other words, if you're reading misogyny in his writing, I'd say you're looking too hard to find it. I'll answer one last objection, which sums up my point of this comment: __________________________________________________ [3] And here we get into objectification. All he mentions about women and their relationships is they should look good and put out. __________________________________________________ Not that they should look good and put out, out of fear for the relationship being terminated--but that they should not look bad out of laziness and selfishness on anyone's part. Yes, I avoided saying "woman's" part, because taking care of the relationship is the duty of both the husband and wife. If genders were switched as far as what happened in the national news story, I could likely offer a guarantee that Mark would have written a similar article, because the principle still remains. It's quarter past 1 in the morning, and I'm tired. I'd rather not go into more of this, if it's all right with you, because I don't think much more can be accomplished. That is, I've said all I determined to say regarding this quote--that being that it was not submitted with the most honest of intentions, instead being seen as an opportunity to slander someone's good name and good intentions on what I viewed as dishonest grounds.

old comment by Julian

Sorry Nope, you're still missing it entirely and really just took a turn for the bizarre. Everything you claimed I said is not the case. There's two layers you're combining here.
1. Where you're at least partially agreeing with what he says, we'll get to that later - if you like. Now, look once again at what he said. 2. He sees a series of women, and not only does he assume that: a. They're currently undesirable, unsexy, ugly, not sexually active or interested their husband or vice versa - NONE of which he could know. NONE! but b. They've wilfully let themselves go, when they probably haven't and in fact their relationship with their husbands may well be at's it's peak as it should be. c. He really loses the plot, when not only does he judge them for it, but he then believes their motives can only be pure unilateral opportunism and they're taking advantage of their husband's position in the community. No one could possibly think this way, yet he thinks they do. He thinks women are just there to trap their men and then make their life a misery. He really does believe women act, feel and think that way. ...and he knew that he was going to get called on it. "At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am" ...and he said it anyway. Can you understand how appallingly mysogynistic (and narcissistic) this is? You claim I claim he's mysogynistic because he called them fat. No. Mysogyny is hating or descriminiating against women. He's an ignorant, insensitive, sexist pig because he called them fat. He's a mysogynist because of the reasons listed above. OK?

old comment by Nickel

Thanks for the explanation. I see what you're saying now, I'm pretty sure, BUT I think you are taking the same road you're saying he is:
__________________________________________________ 2. He sees a series of women, and not only does he assume that: __________________________________________________ You say this as though he did not say: "Most pastors I know," but rather, "All pastors in the world." He's limiting this paragraph to his experience. There's no reason to believe that he merely assumed: __________________________________________________ a. They're currently undesirable, unsexy, ugly, not sexually active or interested their husband or vice versa - NONE of which he could know. NONE! __________________________________________________ That is, there's no reason to believe that he hadn't talked with those husbands who very well might have expressed to Mark that they feel trapped because of their position as pastor. I think you're assuming that Mark is just pulling this out of thin air. I doubt this is the case. A good writer would draw upon other experiences to flesh out the content of the article: he talks further in the article about pastors being prudent about giving out their cell phone number, for instance--would you assume he's just making that up? Or could it be that he has had people in his congregation or heard of other pastors' congregations who abused the privilege of having access to their pastor's private cell phone number (e.g., 2 a.m. calls every night "because he's a pastor and he'll understand")? I would say that it's not true that he could not know any of this, because he specifically mentions only "pastors he knows," and them being pastors he knows, he would talk to them, and concerns over feeling like their marriage is selfishly being taken advantage of by their wives might very well have been raised. __________________________________________________ b. They've wilfully let themselves go, when they probably haven't and in fact their relationship with their husbands may well be at's it's peak as it should be. __________________________________________________ But it's a really sour thing to believe that he would deliberately lie about this! Women having "let themselves go" or not, if the husband pastor said he feels his marriage is at its peak, Mark wouldn't say it's not because of how the woman looks. That's just misrepresenting what the other pastor would have said. Well, not misrepresenting--just lying. __________________________________________________ c. He really loses the plot, when not only does he judge them for it, but he then believes their motives can only be pure unilateral opportunism and they're taking advantage of their husband's position in the community. No one could possibly think this way, yet he thinks they do. He thinks women are just there to trap their men and then make their life a misery. __________________________________________________ Now you're the one who is assuming. Have you seen the prelude of events leading up to a divorce? Have you seen a marriage fall through in divorce? It doesn't bring out the nicest in people. Maybe it is possible to bring out the nicest in people, but I have witnessed and can attest to the absolute childishness and selfishness and malice that comes out in people who are dead-set at ending their marriage in what turns out to be the most painful way possible for themselves and their children. People can think that way, Julian. Women can think that way. There's no reason to think that none ever do! And I think he rightfully condemns this manner of thinking if they do it. __________________________________________________ He really does believe women act, feel and think that way. __________________________________________________ By the same token, do you really believe women never act, feel, and think that way? Why are you making claims about what no one could possibly ever think? You could go on with things that are just as bad: "No leader of a nation could possibly ever say or think or feel that Jews are dogs, that blacks are meant to be used as slaves, that women are second-class citizens," etc. Yet we've seen it happen. If you think it is mysoginistic to believe that women are capable of being total jerks, then fine, you may label me a mysoginist in your eyes.

old comment by Julian

OK, you're officially putrid now!
You've had his issues of how he perceives women pointed out to you in NO uncertain terms, and why they are unacceptable, and the fundamental flaws in his reasoning (imagination) and why he has been submitted here, and not only do you take great lengths to twist everything he says and I have said, nicely contradicting yourself on numerous occasions along the way in desperate attempts to sort of, maybe, perhaps in a certain light appear reasonable. (You failed, just quietly). Yet you admit to fundamentally holding the same absurd, inhumane, bigoted viewpoint, and seem to just be feebly arguing about the breadth of this! He implied all women thought this way - you're current defense is, one or two might, and get fucking real! Women do NOT think that way. "Oh what should I do today, hey I know, I'll get fat and ugly, that sounds like fun. I've always wanted to do that." He is a mysogynist as explained earlier! "I'm married to a Pastor," is not the reason, and is not even a reason, and it's insanely self absorbed to think it even might come close to one. You are a misogynist because you cannot understand this concept! He directedly insulted a group of women, he indirectly insulted all women as explained earlier, and quite frankly he insulted men by inferring that they are influenced by that. If you love a person, physical appearance is not important. You have had your free clues, Good day! (unless you'd like to talk about your own embittered persepctives, (and failed marriage) but seriously I'd suggest a professional not a public forum - and step one is admitting you have a fucking problem) Oh hey, there you go - TWO FREE CLUES!

old comment by Nickel

David D.G.,
__________________________________________________ I see what you're getting at, but at the very least, Driscoll's last paragraph above shows that he is inclined to shove a lot of blame onto the shoulders of the wife for the sins of the wandering husband. While he doesn't try to pin all the blame on her, it's clear that he sees her as a factor in HIS dishonorable choice to commit adultery, which is bogus. __________________________________________________ I agree (except for the "a lot of blame" part). It is bogus to say that infidelity on the husband's part is at all to be blamed on the wife. A wife's unfaithfulness should give no cause for the husband to justify his own choice of infidelity; likewise, a husband's unfaithfulness should give no cause for the wife to justify her own choice of infidelity. Why did I pick infidelity? Because that's pretty much the highest ground "reasonable" for a person to seek to be vengeful enough to seek extramarital affairs. (I myself find forgiveness to be paramount to relationships, however--see what I write below regarding this.) Anything less than that--certainly just a wife not being pleasing to the eye anymore, which happens naturally with age--is way out of bounds by any standard for the decision to engage in an extramarital affair! __________________________________________________ Whatever other problems a couple may or may not have, in this she is the VICTIM! He does NOT have to remain in a marriage with someone he does not love, and he DOES have the option (and the obligation!) to end the relationship honorably and honestly, by divorce, before going elsewhere for sex. __________________________________________________ Yes, in this case with Ted Haggard, she is unquestionably the victim, and any claims on Haggard's part to say that she was in any way responsible for his decision would be digging him further into his own grave. As he is a Christian, however... I don't think any two Christians who are married and view their marriage as a God-blessed covenant of "'til death do us part" would say that they are ever obligated to divorce since unconditional love and forgiveness are what hold them together. Christian marriages are not perfect by virtue of being "Christian," though: this was highly exemplified in my parents' marriage, who decided to divorce and forsake a Christ-like forgiveness and instead decided to be vengeful towards each other (Julian wrongfully assumed I was the one who was married). __________________________________________________ I also note that Driscoll doesn't bother to consider the opposite view, concerning female ministers whose husbands "let themselves go." So even if he's not talking about Haggard specifically, Driscoll is making great leaps of illogic here, fueled in part by misogynistic double standards. __________________________________________________ Though I believe he is incorrect in this matter, that the "let-go-of-herself" wife is at least a small factor in Haggard's infidelity, let us assume for this part that it is what he truly meant and that we are not misreading him. Would you say, then, that it would be equally repulsive and misandristic for a person to say that a woman who cheats on her husband (further, with a lesbian prostitute) because he was a slob who never exercised and was unkempt and had "let himself go"--would this woman be justified in claiming her husband was at least a small factor in her infidelity? Because I believe that if Driscoll has not mentioned this (the opposite side), then there's no reason to believe he doesn't see it as equally true--thus no reason to believe he is a misogynist if he is not also a misandrist, and then also would the "double standard" be proven false--at the cost of him hating women and men alike and seeing them both as each other's cause in some way for their poor choices to cheat on their spouses.

Pastor Mark Driscoll #fundie theresurgence.com

78 comments

Confused?