Thoughts on Mark Driscoll...While I'm Knitting

As many of you know, Mark Driscoll, pastor of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has been causing quite a stir among Christian writers, thinkers, bloggers, and church leaders. I thought I'd wade into these waters as a Christian research psychologist and offer up some thoughts on Mark Driscoll.

The aspect of Driscoll's ministry that I'd like to focus on is Driscoll's thesis regarding the place of masculinity within Christianity. This "Macho Man" emphasis is the most provocative and controversial aspect of Driscoll's ministry. An interview with Driscoll on these matters was recently remixed as a spoof in a widely viewed/circulated YouTube clip:



(For more detail on Driscoll, journalistic accounts about Driscoll's ministry can be found in two widely read pieces by Janet Tu and Molly Worthen.)

Thought #1: On Ultimate Fighting and Drinking Beer
I'd like to begin in perhaps a surprising way, defending some of what Driscoll is saying about gender psychology. I'd like to start by suggesting that many of Driscoll's observations, rather than being dismissed as testosterone-confused Neanderthalism, are important locations for serious theological reflection. By too quickly dismissing Driscoll as the "Macho Man," theology bloggers have, I think, missed an opportunity to dispassionately reflect on gender psychology within the church.

To start, we all know that in the metaphorical landscape of the Bible God is cast as the Male and believers (the church) are cast as the Female. The church is "the bride of Christ." Israel, in Hosea, is an unfaithful wife. In a similar way, God is always cast as Parent and the believer as Child. In short, the language of faith generally casts Christians as females or children.

Following Driscoll, I think it is obvious that if these metaphors are unreflectively overused in a church problems for certain males can be created. Given a certain kind of gender self-image, some males struggle with worship or images that consistently cast them as "female." Now we can object to this reaction, pointing out it's problems, but if we are talking about new male believers or visitors to church this metaphorical switcheroo can be startling, off-putting, and disconcerting. On this score I think Driscoll has a point.

To remedy this situation we see attempts in the Christian world where a kind of "metaphor therapy" is being attempted, trying to reclaim masculine images and metaphors for Christian men. Examples include the book Wild at Heart, Promise Keepers, and, well, Mark Driscoll.

The theological issue is, are these attempts theologically legitimate? That is, does a "masculine Christianity" have a different texture than a "feminine Christianity", experientially speaking? Or should Christianity be post-gender? Should we, as we mature in Jesus, drop the "masculine" and "feminine" aspects of our personality? Is Christianity aiming to be androgynous?

It's rare to get consistent answers about any of this. I think this is because there is a great deal of confusion about what we mean by "masculine." In psychology, the word "masculinity", due to its gender overtones, has been largely replaced by the term "agency." Agency/masculinity is associated with motives for control, power, independence, and dominance. These are, stereotypically, "masculine" traits, but women can be highly agentic as well. If agency means power, control, and dominance then it seems clear that "masculine" traits will struggle to find a place in the Christian ethic. This was precisely Nietzsche's concern about Christianity: Christianity preaches a passive "slave ethic."

But does being a "real guy" categorically imply strong agentic motives? When you listen to Driscoll much of what he is talking about has more to do with traditional gender role interests than agentic personality. Changing the oil in my car, shooting guns, and loving NASCAR are, stereotypically, male gender role interests. And Driscoll has a point that none of this is intrinsically unChristian. The trouble comes when issues of gender role interest get confused with issues of agentic psychology. Loving Monster Truck rallies is a separate issue from psychological needs for power, control, and dominance.

Here's my point. People tend to confuse gender role interest and agentic personality motives. If "Joe Six Pack" shows up at church and gets the vibe that he "can't be a man" what, exactly, does this mean? That to be a Christian you can't drink beer or go to Ultimate Fighter matches? It seems to me that the feminine/child metaphors of Christianity are pushing back against agentic strivings rather then stereotypical gender interests. But this is not at all clear to many male believers. The two issues--gender role interests and agentic motives--are often conflated. This leads to a great deal of confusion about if "real guys" have a place at church.

Thought #2: Chickified Church Leaders
This leads me to my second point, Driscoll's claim that most church leaders are "chickified."

You might be shocked to know that Driscoll is exactly right about this. It is a well known psychological fact that as educational attainment increases the genders look, psychologically speaking, more and more similar (note for aficionados: the M/F scale of the MMPI is positively correlated with education). For example, males who get more educated tend to display greater interest in stereotypical female activities (e.g., cooking, home design, the theater).

I speak from what I know. One year I took up knitting to see what all the fuss was about among my female students (knitting is all the rage now). That semester I freaked out quite a few of my male students as I knitted while proctoring exams. I doubt I could knit through a Mars Hill church service. So count me as Grade A Chickified.

I illustrate the gender psychology/education association to my students by asking them the following question: "How many of your male, PhD college professors do you think are hardcore NASCAR fans?" Answer: Very, very few. Personally, I've never seen a NASCAR hat on the head of any male university colleague. I then ask a follow-up question: "How many blue-collar males working in the city are hardcore NASCAR fans?" Answer (note that we are in small town West Texas): A lot.

See the difference?

So Driscoll has a point. Most church leaders are highly educated. This means that most church leaders are culturally divorced from the average NASCAR fan. The very group Driscoll is targeting.

But here is the very important point about all this. A lot of the reaction to Driscoll isn't even about gender. We are actually talking about the little discussed fissure running through many churches: Education.

I see this everyday in my own church. The educated teach, preach, and have the public leadership roles. The uneducated are marginalized. Worse, if you are an uneducated male, you are force-fed those feminine metaphors. Educated males, being chickified, don't mind or even notice the feminine metaphors. But Joe Six Pack notices the metaphors. All this creates a disjoint in the church. Two groups of males who find each other alien and weird. So when Joe Six Pack wants to start a Wild at Heart study the chickified church leader just blinks uncomprehendingly. Or, if you are me, turns back to his knitting...

Let me offer up this little test for your reflection and experimentation:

If you hear a man trash Wild at Heart or Promise Keepers that person very often has a graduate degree.

In my life and church this test is about 80%-90% accurate. In short, a great deal of the conversation about Driscoll is really about the educational fissures running through the church which tend to manifest in high culture (going to the theater) versus low culture (going to Monster Truck rallies) clashes.

Thought #3: Masculinity as Misogyny?
I've argued in Thought #1 and #2 that Driscoll should not be so easily dismissed. The question he's raising--Why are males not more attracted to church?--is worth asking. And one of his diagnoses on this issue--Church leaders are chickified--has some merit to it.

But the dark side of Driscoll's ministry is its chauvinism and misogyny. And this criticism is also valid for certain impulses one finds in the Christian men's movements. Specifically, the assertion of masculinity implies a suppression of women and a restoration of male power over women. To be a "Christian man" means "reclaiming" and "taking back" leadership roles in both the family and the church. Men use spiritual warrant to assert power over women.

So the issue we need to raise is this: Does the assertion of masculinity in the church necessarily involve an assertion over against women? Can masculinity be asserted in an egalitarian manner?

I think it is possible to recognize gender distinctives without getting into power plays. But I'll admit that this is rare and hard to do. Too often in the church to be male means to assert power over women. And I think Driscoll is guilty on this score.

The point is, I don't mind Driscoll's focus on trying to reach "real guys." I think he's right about this being a demographic that is being lost to most churches. Also, I'm largely in agreement with the diagnosis that chickified church leaders struggle to reach the "real guy" demographic. I say this proudly as a chickified guy who enjoys knitting and writing poetry. So I'm not offended. I see what he's talking about.

But when "real guy" creeps into misogyny, with men asserting power over women through the euphemism of "leadership", I'm in strong moral disagreement.

Final Thought
The point of this post is that when Driscoll starts talking about gender and people start pushing back there is a lot of stuff that starts flying around: Agentic motives, gender role interests, educational fissures, power and misogyny. It all blends together in a conversational stew ostensibly about "real guys." And if we are not clear about what we are talking about we talk past each other. In favor of Driscoll, our lack of clarity means we miss the important and legitimate points he is making. On the side of Driscoll's critics, a lack of clarity means we get distracted by trivial issues (e.g., chickified church leaders) and fail to corner the critical issues of male chauvinism and misogyny.

This essay is about keeping things clear so that when the subject of Mark Driscoll comes up we can start getting a little less heat and a little more light.


And now, back to that scarf I was working on...