This painting is by the artist Andrew Wyeth, who died last week
Last week I read an article from Seattle in the NY Times about the indie-hip rock star conservative pastor of Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll, long a thorn in the side of liberal Christians. The article was entitled “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?” and talked about Driscoll’s unorthodox methods of condemning sin through shocking sermon titles and swearing. He is frequently called “the cussing pastor,” and some of Mark Driscoll’s members tell in the article that they were drawn to Mars Hill Church because of Driscoll’s “authentic,” “true to life” message.
Usually I dismiss news of Mark Driscoll and his hyper-macho you-are-a-worm-and-need-a-non-conventional-salvation-even-though-I-totally-endorse-the-capitalist-indie-consumer-culture Calvanism as good riddance, but this time, I felt disturbed and kept coming back, for days, to the idea stated in the article that what Driscoll preaches is “authentic” and “true-to-life,” and that it is his cussing and swaggering about a punch-you-in-the-face machismo Jesus and oral sex that attracts so many people to the mega-church.
What struck me particularly is the idea that if something is offensive, then it must be true and authentic. Actually, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that—in our culture—we are too embarrassed to be offended nowadays, because to be offended means to be old-fashioned and intolerant.
So when Driscoll titles his sermons “Pleasuring Your Wife,” or, as he did at a men’s group in Seattle when I was a university student, encouraged the young men to expect their wives to give them a blow job upon demand, we now believe that somehow this shocking straight-talk must be authentic and we are too embarrassed to be offended. After all, we are modern people, aren’t we? We’re open to saying things like they really are, aren’t we? Anyone who has the guts to speak so openly must be prophetic, right? This unapologetic, offensive Truth is the most authentic, hip message around that will save our souls, isn’t it?
It was at this point that I remembered the title essay that Wendell Berry wrote in his collection of essays, “Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community“, where Berry says:
“I know that for a century or so many artists and writers have felt it was their duty – a mark of their honesty and courage – to offend their audience. But if the artist has a duty to offend, does not the audience therefore have a duty to be offended?”
I wonder to myself if we have lost the ability to know what to be offended by? It’s somehow as if we’re too confused to distinguish between something that is ugly for the purpose of illuminating truth, and something that is ugly for the purpose of shock and awe.
If we are willing to be called “worms,” willing to swallow the ugly tonic of Driscoll’s cussing machismo gospel so that we can realize how weak and miserable we really are, how undeserving and, especially for us women, how inevitably unequal we are… then surely this just a religious form of S&M? And surely this need to be smacked down illustrates, among other things, our contempt for ourselves and for the world around us? Our desire to be treated as awful as we feel.
I don’t mean to imply that art or literature or expression in general should never offend or that it should only portray what is rosy and frilled and joyful in life. Take Flannery ‘Connor as a prime example, whose haunting fictional characters were often criticized for being grotesque, maimed, distorted, perverse, and anguished. But to what end were her characters distorted? Says O’Connor herself:
“The novelist with Christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural; and he may well be forced to take ever more violent means to get his vision across to this hostile audience. When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock—to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.” (from her essay The Fiction Writer & His Country)
Flannery, with her sometimes shocking sometimes miserable portrayals of humanity (if you haven’t already, you really should read “A Good Man is Hard To Find” online here) is one of those who I believe is showing the potential wholeness of life by pointing out what is unwholesome; she shows us what is beauty by portraying the grotesque, and at the same time, shows us how far we sometimes are from real beauty, by uncovering ugly truths that we would rather leave covered up.
My theory is that Driscoll’s proud-to-shock tactics, on the other hand isn’t nudging his followers toward any kind of beauty or life, but rather toward the affirmation of what has been felt all along, namely that we’re deprived, ashamed, undeserving, unhealthy, can’t do anything for ourselves, but at least we’re all in the same boat and willing to admit to our misery. Please, smack me again, Pastor Mark. It hurts, but it at least helps me to feel something, anything. Driscoll’s tactic is designed to keep one’s face in the mud, with the simultaneous advantage (for him) of maintaining his power as the prophet who put and keeps you there (he’s the only one not covered in mud). His intentional abuse allows him to feel powerful, and others to feel the relief of receiving due punishment. I honestly doubt that Driscoll’s manner of straight-talk violence is meant to benefit his community or bring about wholeness and healing.
Wendell Berry points talks about this later in his essay: “…I would distinguish between the intention to offend and the willingness to risk offending. Honesty and artistic integrity do not require anyone to intend to give offense, though they certainly may cause offense. I cannot imagine anyone who is a member of a community who would purposely or gladly or proudly offend it, though I know very well that honesty might require one to do so.”
In the end, I think that one’s intentions will always be revealed, and I don’t feel the need to speculate about the eventual fall of Mark Driscoll, but it’s this more abstract idea about whether or not we’re attracted to what offends us, and what ultimately the implication is, which interests me. What about you?
Interesting ideas. A very well-formulated argument.
Your description of Driscoll’s methods reminds me of friends I’ve talked to who are depressed and cut. They express that they do it to feel pain, because they’re so numbed that it’s the only way that they know how to feel anything at all. It’s painful to hear. It’s worse to observe. To turn such a mentality into a spirituality that draws in thousands of followers… sad. Very sad.
hmm. my initial reaction to your persuasive post was that of a devil’s advocate, but now that i’ve written a few paragraphs, i don’t think i say much that you’ll disagree with
perhaps i need to go back and read the nyt article–it’s been a few weeks–but i’m not certain that i understand the link between md’s offensiveness and his push-you-in-the-mud calvinism.
you say, “My theory is that Driscoll’s proud-to-shock tactics, on the other hand isn’t nudging his followers toward any kind of beauty or life, but rather toward the affirmation of what has been felt all along, namely that we’re deprived, ashamed, undeserving, unhealthy, can’t do anything for ourselves, but at least we’re all in the same boat and willing to admit to our misery.”
to me this sounds like there’s not necessarily an implicit link between the two but that the offensiveness is just a means to this dirty new calvinism. (or perhaps you might argue that there is some inherent connection here, that it’s inconceivable for a preacher of, say, richard dahlstrom’s style of rhetoric or president obama’s style to have such a doctrine.)
it seems like your entire question of offensiveness is framed by the purpose of that offensiveness. e.g., one might assume that o’connor’s practice of offensiveness was more decided by her audience, by what she hoped to accomplish in her readers, then by the nature of the offensiveness itself.
so then i wonder, if MD happened to be using offensiveness to teach a becky-friendly gospel message, would you have had the same response? i’m guessing no. or if MD spoke like obama but preached the same message? i’m guessing you’d have the same response.
i don’t really know where to go from here. in some ways, i think i’d rather separate the means from the ends and either have a discussion about offensiveness or a discussion about MD’s “new calvinism.” and in some ways, i think that’s ridiculous.
mostly, i just wanted to say hi, and that i’ll someday reply to your facebook messages.
later,
andrew
another question: do
second, i’m curious whether your negative reaction to
@Andrew
And to further the devil’s advocacy, can you separate the means from the end? Are “necessary evils” actually necessary, or are they simply a result of our failure to be imaginative enough to come up with a better solution?
I guess I’m showing some of my own bias here, but I think that the means is as important as the end. If we can’t get the means right, the end will always be less than perfect.
I’d argue that Driscol’s degradation and offensiveness are inextricably linked his theology. Whether they inform his theology or are a bi-product of it, I think that you cannot separate the two.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thanks for alerting me to this article, Becky. This guy has scared the crap out of me since the few times I went to the church and left offended every time. Even after knowing what he is prone to though, I was shocked by some of the stories in this article. I definitely don’t think being offended is a good gauge on whether someone is speaking truth, but the fact that this church lives and breathes Mark Driscoll, even on the big-screens of church plants, is a big red flag to me. His lack of humility is astounding and his offensive speech towards women is beyond words. Anytime someone becomes spiritually aware, I try to think it is a good thing, but I hate to think of what will happen to the thousands of people who follow him when he takes a fall.
davo,
i nearly agree with you. i am generally of the opinion that ends don’t justify means.
however, as far as rhetoric and writing are concerned, i’m not so sure. when a writer breaks the rules of grammar and style, we might wag a finger at her and cluck disapprovingly, but if her mishmashed syntax performs some strange trick within us that moves us to toward the sublime or propels the arc of the story in just the right way, then the potentially bad means are well worth the good end. (and there are certainly writers like that.)
likewise, perhaps, if an orator effectively uses offensiveness (a potentially bad means) to convince and move his audience (the desired end), especially if it’s toward something that we agree is good, isn’t that a case where the ends justify the means?
and now if the orator were performing some act that we perceived as immoral, say, killing the man beside him, to make his point, then the end wouldn’t justify the means. if this is true, i think the question becomes, is offensiveness immoral?
also, when you say, “if we can’t get the means right, the end will always be less than perfect,” perhaps i’m too much of a calvinist myself, but i’d say that our means don’t always impact the end. that is, i may act perfectly, and some horrible end will occur, or i may act horribly, and some wonderful end will occur.
as to the link between MD’s theology and his degradation/offensiveness, i’m not sure i see it. how do you think they’re linked?
I don’t know what role his offensiveness plays, but I think you hit the nine-inch nail on the head with this one: “…then surely this just a religious form of S&M? And surely this need to be smacked down illustrates, among other things, our contempt for ourselves and for the world around us? Our desire to be treated as awful as we feel.”
Sadism and Masochism, of course, requires two parties. Driscol is projecting his own self-hatred, and that resonates with the members’ own self-hatred. (Hello? Crack addict?) I’m not sure if he’s so much a sadist as he is simply full of self-loathing, and therefore a masochist preaching to himself as much as the others.
Part of me is actually okay with Mars Hill – he’s providing a space for people to feel (somewhat) better about themselves. I don’t think they are fully realizing their potential, but Mars Hill /really is/ better than crack.
On the other hand, I am saddened that they aren’t experiencing divine joy in their hearts. But I feel that way about any religion that holds dogma over direct experience of the divine.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3120226289_4b4933feb9.jpg?v=0
Andrew,
Good point. I’m the first to defend an artists’ right to break the “rules.” I think that doing makes art one of the most powerful social commentaries we have. However, I think that artists who do so successfully do so with the intent of challenging the legitimacy of the rule. For example, a successful artist can portray a sacred image in a sacrilegious way in order to challenge our cultural view of that image. “Why is this image sacred? Should it be? I don’t think it should,” is the implied commentary from the artist.
I don’t see this element in Driscoll’s work. His offensiveness, to me, seems more for the purpose of entertainment than as a social commentary.
Feel free to agree or disagree. I’m not really tied to what I just said. It’s just my general feelings and impressions, which are admittedly limited.
As for the connection between Driscoll’s theology and degradation, I’ll admit I’m not familiar with his teachings enough to make the connection. I was more so working from what the author said. I can speak from my experience with the “beat you up and make you feel bad, miserable worm” theology. I’ve read Driscoll’s book, and heard some of his sermons, but I don’t think I’d be able to make a good connection between his theology and his method of delivery based off of my limited experience.
So, I’m no theologian, and my opinions on Calvinism are therefore not respectable, but I have a really hard time wanting to believe any theology that hints about good people losing out in the end and horrible people “winning” (whatever “the end” is). Somehow I’d rather think that, first of all, “the end” is a process and second of all, that everything horrible will be run through the mill process and everything will finally be smoothed out. But even more than smoothed out–beautiful. I don’t know what kind of theology that is. But I don’t like what MD seems to do with Calvinism. Perhaps the problem, Andrew, isn’t that I can’t figure out what the link between his offensiveness and his theology is, rather that his theology is tainted/distorted by his grapple of power/fame, which he gained from his sexy bathroom talk?
Does Calvinism teach such violent thinking toward women or is this MD theology?
I’m ruminating on what Andrew says about whether ends justify means and whether offense is immoral, which I’m not sure is the right question. I think it comes back down to the intent to offend–do you want your audience to be offended by something that is offensive in order to dredge up the underlying values that may have been forgotten, or do you want to offend your audience because it’s somehow cool to offend and you hope for the recognition (this is obviously my opinion of what MD does) and because you don’t care whether or not you offend your audience because you don’t actually care about them?
And Jason, I would challenge you a little on your last statement: “But I feel that way about any religion that holds dogma over direct experience of the divine.” What is direct experience of the divine? I bet you that there are some who believe that religion gives a more direct experience of the divine. Who is to say what the most direct experience is? Or what the divine looks like? What if your experiences are only like a dream compared to the truly real? Like in the play “Life is a Dream,” by Pedro Calderon de la Barca:
And yet, and yet, in these our ghostly lives,
Half night, half day, half sleeping, half awake,
How if our waking life, like that of sleep,
Be all a dream in that eternal life
To which we wake not till we sleep in death?
Davo,
I like what you said about social commentary, but I have two potentially irrelevant responses. First, I think I disagree that MD’s purpose is exclusively for entertainment rather than social commentary. But, yikes, I don’t know that I want to dive into that debate. And second, I would argue that art and rhetoric have value that is way beyond social commentary; art and rhetoric have aesthetic and even entertainment value. But again, I don’t know where to go from there, if anywhere.
Becky and Rockmaster,
I don’t think you need to be a theologian to have respectable opinions! If so, count me out. And I doubt that Calvinism teaches violence toward women.
When you ask “do you want your audience to be offended by something that is offensive in order to dredge up the underlying values that may have been forgotten, or do you want to offend your audience because it’s somehow cool to offend and you hope for the recognition (this is obviously my opinion of what MD does)?” I think if we had MD’s brain here to honestly answer for itself, I bet it would say “both.”
I think that MD’s offensiveness and humor are meant to propel his message, are meant to be cool, are meant to keep people interested, are meant to increase his fame, and are meant to increase his church. and the offensiveness and humor are probably the result of his genes, environment, personality, theology, and a multitude of other factors that we can’t know.
And unless we know the man, I’d rather shy away from suggesting that he uses the pulpit as a means of airing out his own self-loathing or that he doesn’t care whether or not he offends his audience because he doesn’t actually care about them. How can we know his motivations? I guess I’m just wary of portraying the other side as monsters, of leaping beyond what we know objectively and assuming the worst rather than engaging our ideological foes with grace.