Thursday, October 04, 2007
Shame on me
In my last post, I implied that Mark Driscoll might be saying things that make him sound like a religious bigot. Actually, I must confess that I did more than imply that idea. I appreciate the many positive AND critical responses. I take to heart the fact that pointing out bigotry in others with provocative language may not be expressing the type of loving kindness I've written about on this site. Please note that I did express apprehension and uncertainty in my original post but I obviously didn’t make my concerns clear enough.
I’m sure progressive Muslims struggle with the same problem of discerning when to speak out against fundamentalism and when to stand by and watch it erode the reputation of your own faith tradition. Do we wait for religious exclusivists to become violent as they did in the crusades or Nazi Germany? You could argue that it is already happening today in our American Government. It isn't just the violence that is harmful. The shame and humiliation inflicted on Christianity by fundamentalism is harmful for all of us that value the good name of Jesus. I’m still considering how to respond to the people I’ve met who espouse that rhetoric.
However, I’m not willing to accept the idea that what I did was bash Driscoll for his theological differences to mine. I never said “hey, this guy is a bigot because his theology is not as good as mine”. I may disagree with his theology but that is not why I suggested his language may be a form of bigotry. He seemed to be rebuking the practice of religious tolerance and his specific language spreads the ideals of religious separatism. Maybe in my original post I should have used the term “seeds of bigotry” and I probably should have explained the specific details I was addressing rather than leaving the door open for others to connect my theological disagreements with the charges of bigotry.
11 comments:
Let me get this straight. Driscoll goes on a rant where he is yelling and attacking other people and points of view, and you are called on the carpet for criticizing him? Ahem.
Look, the guy calls people who disagree with him "wingnut whack jobs", and even jokes about being violent at the dinner table with someone of a different theology than his own, and somehow you are being bigoted or intolerant for objecting to that? I don't think so. Driscoll deserves to be put in his place, pure and simple.
Mystical Seeker-
I don't know you so I'm reluctant to respond (because blogs do not always convey the best communication as face-to-face does), but please allow me to make a few statements and trust that I do so respectfully and with the motivation of kindness and love:
1. If you were truly a "seeker," you would give an ear to people who differ from you theologically instead of dismissing them altogether and merely affirming only those who are just like you- to me, this is truly the heart of bigotry. Otherwise, the danger is some sort of neo-emergent-mystical-fundamentalism. Although it's different from traditional fundamentalism, it's fundy just the same.
2. If you listen to Driscoll's message at the Convergent conference, he disagrees with the Emergent Theology, but goes on to state that McLaren is one of the nicest men he knows. You may not enjoy Driscoll's personality, but he (like many other "non-people-persons") offers some good theological insight that is worthwhile. I question your motives: are you "pro" something that's different than Driscoll, or just "anti-Driscoll?" If you define yourself by what (or whom) you're against (rather than what or whom you're for), that seems kind of bigotish to me.
3. I applaud Mike for his recent post. This is one of the qualities I like about Mike: his willingness to discuss rather than have a quick reaction. I disagree with much of what Mike posts on this blog, and he and I differ greatly on major theological issues that I understand to be doctrinal essentials, however we manage to meet up periodically for discussions, book swap, and a beverage. Do you think this would be possible if he or I bashed each other on blogs back and forth?
Hats off to you, Mike. And keep up the journey...see you next week.
Jeremy,
The issue is not about giving Driscoll an "ear". Neither I nor Mystical seeker above question his right to express his views. Neither of us dismiss his views. The problem is the language that promotes separatism (like not allowing women to lead or interfaith dating and dialogue). He clearly promotes the idea that ONLY christians could understand and interpret the Old Testament correctly. That is absurd. I can't imagine you agree with that. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Driscoll said the same thing about an african american not being allowed to date his daugher would that be bigotry or just expressing "his views". Go back and listen to what he said and imagine him saying the same thing about any race or religion.
What is wrong about having a Jewish theologian explain the old testament? Jesus was a Jewish theologian. So was Paul. I've learned so much more about God by learning to read the old testament through a Jewish context. You are limiting the ability of the text to speak to you in full by ignoring its Jewish meanings.
I think you misunderstand what people mean by the term fundamentalism. Driscoll isn't a fundamentalist because he is too angry or emotional. A person could be an angry liberal (maybe I am). Fundamentalism is about feeling you have access to God that nobody else has. It means having "non-negotiable truth" and rejecting any new found truth or new discovery merely because it isn't a part of the traditional doctrines that were handed down to you. It would be like insisting that up is down and down is up just because your ancesters told it worked that way dispite every bit of current information that told you otherwise. It is the refusal to question the status quo and an aversion to searching for truth if it might disagree with your fundamentals.
Mike,
That was the first time I'd actually heard Driscoll speak -- so I don't know if that's typical of him or not. You know in some ways he seems like he's a pretty entertaining speaker -- and yet I found him to border on if not cross the line of religious bigotry.
Most disturbing to me was his declaration that he can't learn anything from anyone not a Christian -- and I expect that would be according to his definition of what a Christian is.
Anyway, I found his statements disturbing because he has become an increasingly influential voice. Whether or not he thinks Brian McClaren is a nice guy or not.
Reverend Rock Star,
Nothing in what you wrote addressed the points I made. You ask me to give an ear to people who differ from me theologically--and then you defend someone who calls those who disagree with him "wingnut whack jobs"? WTF. If you are truly in favor of people showing respect to other points of view, you will join me in condemning Driscoll's comments in that video.
You also did not address my point about the fact that he joked about being violent towards those he disagreed with. I don't find comments like that even remotely amusing or acceptable.
Mike - here I go again. I can't stop myself - I evidently lack any sort of self-control. If I may, let's talk about your definition of tolerance for a moment. What exactly do you mean by tolerance? Webster defines tolerance as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own or the act of allowing something." With that understanding of tolerance in mind, at what point does Driscoll say you or anybody else aren't allowed to view the OT differently than he does. I don't think he does. I think he says something similar to this: the OT is not properly understand and interpreted apart from Jesus - which in turn says you're wrong if you try to understand scripture apart from Jesus. Again - that's not an inherently bigoted statement - it's a statement regarding truth. Mark is stating what he feels is true for all people in all times in all places. It seems to me that your idea of tolerance means Mark has to feel the same way about the OT you do - if not, he's bigoted and intolerant. If he's right and you're wrong, then how is that intolerance? He's simply right - and right is right whether you agree with it or not. If you're right and he's wrong - then why not allow him the same tolerance you're arguing he doesn't give you. I guess my point is this - In your post, you state -
"I never said “hey, this guy is a bigot because his theology is not as good as mine”. I may disagree with his theology but that is not why I suggested his language may be a form of bigotry."
I would argue that's exactly why you're calling him a bigot - because he's telling you you're wrong. The fact of the matter is that both of you can't be right about this - the 2 ideas here, specifically about the OT, are mutually exclusive. It seems to me completely out of place to call him bigoted because he doesn't agree with you. I don't agree with you, but I'm not calling you some pejorative name - I just think you're wrong - and you think I'm wrong. I've tried to argue through these last few posts that Driscoll is simply taking Jesus' words at face value - he really believes Jesus said and meant what scripture records Jesus as saying and meaning. It's a perfectly logical and acceptable place for him to end up. And - you'd have to agree - if Driscoll takes Jesus' words at face value - then there's no way in Heaven, Hell, or Earth that Driscoll is going to end up advocating Genocide or any other types of hate actions. It's simply ludicrous to believe he would. If you would truly listen to and investigate Driscoll, you'd have a better understanding of what he's all about - and I guarantee you it's not bigotry and hate and separatism. His concern here seems to be that truth is vitally important - whether you like it or not. I would tend to agree - being truthful is far more important than you or anybody else thinking Driscoll or me is just a nice, tolerant, sweet guy. The fact of the matter is that truth sets people free - it always does - it always has - and it always will. Untruth always holds people in bondage - it always does - it always has - and it always will. So it seems to me that speaking truth is far more important than coming to a place where you or anybody else thinks it is ok and tolerable to speak that truth. Truth is bigger than you - bigger than me - and bigger than Driscoll. It's also bigger than our feelings about truth.
Reggie, you didn't read your own definition of tolerance. You left out the most important part that said"
...indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
Driscoll is showing an absense of indulgence of other beliefs. He is refusing to allow for the possiblilty that a Rabbi could in any way offer usefull exegesis of the Old Testament texts. He is suggesting that Christians should not indulge views outside their own and allow others into the conversation.
As for separatism... What could be more separatist than suggesting that Christians should not date or marry outside thier own faith? That is textbook separatist. If I said that I refuse to let my daughter date an african american wouldn't that be bigotry? That is why I used the words "RELIGIOUS bigotry". He suggests that only his own traditions stories can contain truth.
I made this second post to highlight the fact that what Driscoll has done is not on LEVEL with genocide or mass descrimination, but it is clearly the same "seeds" of bigotry that is always the starting point for large scale massive descrimination. We have records of similar seemingly innocent propoganda in Nazi Germany well before Hitler came to power. Many people in the south are not active KKK members but I still hear language and inferrence on a daily basis that feeds into the same type of hate.
The seeds of exclusivity may seem harmless but we have plenty of historical evidence that they can grow and what I'm asking here in these posts is how far do we let them grow before we point them out.
Telling me I'm wrong doesn't make anyone a biggot. You tell me something... How do you expect Driscoll's daughter to react to people of a different faith if every day Driscoll tells her that people of other faith are not acceptable mates or worthy of association. He clearly implied that he tells his daughter she can't have any type of relationship with someone outside their faith. That is clearly building bigotry into the next generation. It is the same type of thing that Islamic terrorists do by building bigotry into their children generation after generation. It may not be served with the same dose of violence, but it is the same type of indoctrination.
I'm awfully hard on fundamentalists I must say, because i do see them as a potential threat. Fundamentalism is a psychological state of mind wherein one needs desperately to find security, comfort, assurance that the future is secure. They do this by, in every case I know of, adopting a sacred book and claiming it as a "manual for living", eventually supplanting the book into the God itself. Once interpreted to their satisfaction, they must claim any and all challengers to be wrong. They are unwilling to compromise. Their objective is whether stated or not, to creat a theocracy and to erradicate every other faith. There is no essential difference between fundamentalists whether they be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, or anything else for that matter. Their core belief is the same, They get it you don't, and it's their God-given duty to make you see that. You were much kinder than I...and I'm ashamed of me for that.
Mike,
It sounds like you're very much pulling from the idea of Jesus saying that whoever calls someone a fool is in danger of hellfire (I'm paraphrasing).
To me, I've always read that as the first step towards killing someone, or committing an atrocious act, is to see them as "less than" yourself -- such as calling them a fool.
If we look at history, such as the Holocaust, we can see that the Nazis didn't just randomly go out and kill all those people. It happened in stages, and one of the first stages was bigotry (I'm not saying that Driscoll was or was not bigoted here). First, you build up in your audience that it's okay to see this group as "less than" and it's okay to hate this group, or feel this group contributes nothing valuable. Then, after that type of talk has numbed the audience, you start small acts of violence. ANd, since the audience is already conditioned to see the Jews as "less than," the audience isn't going to protest.
That type of hatred starts with language, and it starts with very mild language. Then builds.
Mike, you said:
"I’m not willing to accept the idea that what I did was bash Driscoll for his theological differences to mine. I never said “hey, this guy is a bigot because his theology is not as good as mine”. I may disagree with his theology but that is not why I suggested his language may be a form of bigotry."
Dude, don't pull your punches. Mark is a bigot precisely because of his theology. His is a narrow, sexist, bigoted theology. If you have a theology that oppresses over half of the human race (i.e. women) and treats non-Christians as ignorant and not worth learning from, then that is a bigoted theology. There is no other word for it.
I'm afraid that I agree that Driscoll is a bigot. He's on a path to flames for using Jesus' name to espouse hate. He somehow thinks it's okay to be angry and threaten violence against those who have a different theology than his. And it is clear that he thinks Jews are are less than he. Jesus is clear that one must be gentle with non-believers. Gentle is not a word that I'd use to describe Driscoll. Peace.
Post a Comment