Encanto: A Miraculously Profound Disney Film

The following is a brief review of Disney’s recent film Encanto from a Christian perspective, which is not intended to be comprehensive, but brings attention to a few important points. 

Given the major problems with Disney, I don’t really blame an increasing number of Christians for dumping them: films, theme parks, shows, you name it. Nevertheless, I think a case can be made that Encanto is the best thing to come out of Disney in years—at least since the era of Beauty and the Beast, if not before. And I think this was at least partly unintentional. Allow me to explain. 

First, normal movie reviewers have noted that Encanto represents a new high-water-mark for visual effects, music, choreography, and attention to detail all at once. This is all true, I think, though I would say some of the songs are much better than others (“Surface Pressure” didn’t do much for me). All in all, achieving such a high level of overall quality for an animated film makes watching the film a rather intense and captivating experience, especially if you have a large screen. 

Just as importantly, but often overlooked by reviewers, Disney has achieved a remarkable level of botanical accuracy never seen before. One is immediately impressed with the stands of Ceroxylon (wax palms) which are found in that part of the Andes, but also, the plants in the fields (bananas and other food crops) and in the town (Bougainvillea, for example) are portrayed thoughtfully and accurately. The animals are well done too, but Disney was already good at that. 

Then you have the remarkable scene where Isabella starts magically producing a variety of exotic plants including cacti, Agaves, bromeliads, strangler figs, sundew, and various tree species. Isabella takes a major step in the right direction here by getting out of just boring “princessy” plants, even if her motivation for doing so was questionable. (She calls Mirabel a “bad influence” for pushing her to do this, failing to recognize it’s her own obnoxious temperament that, combined with social pressures under the influence of Abuela, caused her to feel repressed and unbalanced in the first place.) Anyway, the botanical quality of this scene was impressive. I don’t like the idea of magically empowered women fighting, but if I did, it would be fun to see who would win in a duel between Isabella and Elsa (Frozen). I don’t claim that Isabella is on a great trajectory in general; like Elsa, her temper and “I do what I want” attitude are likely to result in her being unhappily married (as was narrowly avoided in the film) or dying alone. But I digress. 

I know the plants in Encanto aren’t going to be a big deal to some Christians, who never stop to think about how boring their gardens are because they only use boring plants, but I had to mention it. Now on to even more important points. 

Encanto is, at its core, an indictment on Toxic Matriarchy and its destructive effects. I’ve seen the occasional post (Wilson) or lecture (Wiley) on this topic here and there online, but they really don’t have a clue how enormous and pervasive of a problem it is in Latino culture, especially outside the United States. Some reviewers have remarked that this film does not have a primary antagonist. But it is plain that the main antagonist is none other than Abuela herself. Why the cracks? Who alienates Bruno? Who destroys the casita? Abuela’s strained relations to her family members and incessant need to keep tight control on everything amounts to nothing less than a shockingly accurate portrayal of how matriarchy truly functions in Latin American culture. It is her actions and confrontational spirit that literally tear the house to pieces until nothing is left. This reminds us of Proverbs 14:1: “The wise woman builds her house; the foolish tears it down with her own hands.” By extension, she can also tear it down with her words, which is just what we see happen in the film. Rebuilding is not possible until total repentance has occurred. As one YouTube commenter noted, this event is how we know the film is a fantasy; because in real life, the matriarch never repents—not without some combination of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the appropriate social pressures. Scathing, but true—don’t get offended now.

Some have criticized the film on account of Luisa, an obscenely buff young woman who shuns traditional feminine qualities and crushes rocks with her hips. On the surface this would seem like a reasonable criticism, but I don’t think Luisa ruins the film, even if her song is kind of stupid. First, she is never really portrayed as anything like a normal woman, but rather as a bit of a freak. You can’t defy nature forever, and girls are more likely to aspire to someone princessy (Isabella, despite her faults) or relatable (Dolores or Mirabel). We soon find out Luisa has a major anxiety problem, and is anything but a “strong woman” other than physically, and is certainly not “independent.” At the end of the film (pay close attention to the last song!) she learns that wisdom and cooperation are virtues worth pursuing over strength (“I may not be as strong, but I’m getting wiser”).

At least three prominent female characters blatantly defy feminist expectations, which was probably not Disney’s intent. We have not only Abuela (matriarchy portrayed negatively) and Luisa (strong women persona deconstructed), but also Pepa, who is apparently entirely dependent on her husband Felix, one of the film’s more likable characters, to keep her mood swings in check. (I don’t want to imagine how bad the weather was before they met.) This theme repeats itself through the whole film: no matter how fretful Pepa gets, Felix remains in control. So much for a strong and independent wife. Then we have Julieta, who does not exhibit the strong independent persona; but rather, takes on an obvious nurturing “motherly” role while being portrayed positively as the most “normal” of the family. Go figure. Why no feminism, Disney?

Finally, we have the sad case of Bruno. Depressed, emasculated, severely isolated, socially awkward, and slightly mentally kooky, but still deeply caring and loyal to the family; Bruno exemplifies with stunning accuracy how a man is likely to turn out after being raised without a father in a matriarchal family who shunned him because they didn’t appreciate his gifts. Disney could hardly have done a better job depicting the deeply harmful effects of matriarchal Latin American culture on its men, and why many of them are drawn to popular pursuits like drug trafficking, marital unfaithfulness, and government work; all of which we may be glad Bruno avoided. Probably the wisest person in the family, Bruno’s gift ought to have been valued, but Abuela’s control of the narrative among the rest of the family (“Bruno lost his way in this family”) ruined it all, until Abuela’s moment of repentance. Oops—one more indictment on toxic matriarchy. Let’s not stop talking about Bruno, shall we?

So let’s wrap things up. Taking all the above points together, I have a feeling this film, despite its immense popularity now, is not likely to age well among the woke mob; because of its negative portrayal of matriarchy and women’s empowerment, and its failure to yield to feminist thought paradigms at numerous points. This fact makes it worth watching for those whose conscience is not afflicted by watching a Disney film just once or twice (respect to those who would still prefer to abstain, of course). By contrast, recall Princess Jasmine’s attitude in the 1993 animated Aladdin, who insisted “I am not a prize to be won!” Such a fantastical assertion is not only preposterously out of place in ancient (and probably even contemporary) Middle Eastern culture, even more so than the possibility of a repentant matriarch in Latino culture; but it also reduces one to something less than a prize. Oops. Well, none of that nonsense in Encanto.

In conclusion, it seems that quite by accident, Encanto turns out to be a fine movie with stunning visuals and unexpectedly profound themes, and one which many Christians will enjoy viewing. I’m just not sure why they didn’t call it “Encantx.”

A brief defense of taunting feminists on social media

The backstory: extremely truncated version

It's now been almost two months since I made the decision to leave the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. While some might be inspired to stick around and fight the fight that needs to be fought there--and they have my respect, prayers, and well-wishes--I am not one of those people. For myself, I sensed the need to make an abrupt break, a big reason being that it would violate my conscience to sit under a pastor who (so I have come to realize) is severely compromised by the thought paradigms of feminists, including those in the OPC, such as Aimee Byrd, Valerie Hobbs and Rachel Miller. There are further personal reasons for leaving the OPC which God has made clear to me, and I will not go into them, but I am confident it is the best thing to do. I kinda already had one foot out the door before this incident.

As I get into the discussion below, I'm going to assume a bit of context is known by the reader, including the lay of the land with regard to conservative reformed denominiatons, the controversy in the OPC over the writings of certain female authors and their supporters, and the open letter concerning abuse that was signed by many OPC pastors and elders (I think it was summer 2020) as it relates to the Facebook group Genevan Commons. I'm also going to suppose that patriarchy is Biblical and is not evil. How dare I.

In my last discussion with my (now former) OPC pastor, he posed an interesting question. I told him I would think on it and get back to him with a reply when we meet again, which hasn't happened only because we have not agreed to the terms of a further discussion, and because such a discussion is no longer important to me. We could still have this discussion--we shall see. Anyway, the question was something like this: How it is at all "helpful" or "beneficial" to say things on social media that make feminists uncomfortable? Now the part about making "feminists" uncomfortable was not part of the question as originally stated, but that is really what this issue boils down to. It was the feminists who were bothered enough about what I said to turn this into a shitshow, and I still don't believe I owe them an apology.

And, if you have read this far, I bet you would like to know what I said that started all this (for me, that is--for many other people, this really goes back much farther, and some have been much more seriously affected). Well here you go. Someone in Genevan Commons, a private facebook group, posted a quote from Doug Wilson which used the phrase "untethered women." This resulted in some non-serious discussion, in which I was involved, about the idea of tying up such women possibly using chain or rope, and whether we should worry about it if this resulted in screaming.

Now you can see what the problem is. The people involved in this discussion were, in all fairness, joking around (including some women), with no intentions of physically tying up any women. But apparently it's not ok to joke about that stuff, particularly if you're a feminist who spies out private Facebook groups looking for screenshots they can produce to make people look bad. Even so, let us grant that, if the context of this post had been actual abuse, rather than the context of restraining evil (rebellious women), then joking about it would be inappropriate and, well, bad. I grant so much. However, that was not the context, and feminists love to ignore context. They also like to take things out of context on purpose, as we have seen.

On taunting feminists

So, that having been said, let us explore some possible defenses of joking in this way.

First, feminism is an idol. We know that God habitually makes a mockery of idols (this is all over the Bible from the Exodus to the prophets to Christ, but Psalm 2 would be just one example). And we are to be imitators of God. We are to preach to each other, to ourselves, and back to God, affirming what is true. Mockery is not off limits for Christians. Indeed most of us probably don't do it enough, because we would rather focus on being "nice." But there are plenty of examples of it in the Bible that we can learn from. These may offend feminists who would, for example, probably also accuse Paul of being "abusive" for suggesting, under divine inspiration (and perhaps only half-joking), that a sect of people would "emasculate themselves." How dare he.

Second, let us consider where centuries of allowing feminism to run rampant and unrestrained has landed Western society. Millions upon millions of abortions. Gay marriage. Sodomites "coming for your children." No one can figure out what gender anyone is. Increased dependence on ever bloated government. Corrupt divorce courts and millions of broken families. Families unable to make ends meet because work was devalued when women entered the workforce. Parenting is often pretty much outsourced. OK, so the world is complicated, and there are a whole lot of other factors behind those issues in addition to feminism. All the same, I contend that those issues are directly downstream of feminism. They are what we get when we set up feminism as an idol over the princples found in Scripture, and keep running with it for years with no brakes.

What's the point of bringing all that up? For one, I myself, while I am a sinner, haven't partaken in those particular sins. Even if taunting feminists were a sin (which I don't grant, in this case), it would be a far lesser sin than all those aforementioned sins.

But more importantly, I bring up all the downstream issues from femimism so that we may compare our present situation with that of a society that was far more effective at restraining wickedness. Since the OPC places so much value on the Westminster Standards, let us suppose the OPC must also have a fondness for the society that produced them. And let us ask, in mid-17th century England, what would be the punishment if, say, a woman got an abortion? Well it would probably be public execution. What would be the punishment for lesser crimes of rebellion against scriptural principles, regardless of gender? Suppose a husband was a drunk and wouldn't provide for his family. Suppose a wife refused to care for the children. In such cases a punishment such as public flogging would be likely. And how did they keep the guilty party from running off? Rope? Chain? Was there screaming? Shall we speculate further about what this was like? Is this "abuse" yet?

Now you might not like that. You might say, thank God we have "advanced" beyond such barbaric punishments. But, let us ask, what is worse: these (to us) extreme punishments, such as flogging for the purpose of restraining evil; or (as we see now) the promotion by society of the evils from my list of atrocities from a couple paragraphs back, now completely run amok? Do we really think God looks more favorably upon modern Western society for completely and catastropically failing to restrain the evils that have come from feminism? Will not the men of 1640's England, who flogged rebellious wives, rise up to judge the men of our church today who can't figure out how to take a stand against feminism with (at minimum) just their words, and even after we have had decades to witness its resultant evils?

Now, largely, the above paragraphs are written to provoke rational thought about the issue, so that we may stop "thinking" with our emotions under feminist thought-paradigms. It is truly unimportant to me to defend those joking remarks for their own sake, or for mine. It is not a hill to die on for me personally, and certainly no one is required to think the jokes were funny. It is a distraction from the far more important issue here, but also a small piece of it.

The important point here is that I'm just plain done caring what feminists think. As should we all be. It's not their job to be the police of what may be considered offensive.

Yeah, but...

Now many in the OPC will argue that these women--Byrd, Miller, Hobbs, and their supporters--are not really feminists, beacuse they say they aren't; rather, they raise legitimate concerns and their voices need to be heard. To which I would say, actual abuse is indeed a legitimate concern, and a very serious one. So far, we agree. But what doesn't work for me is to blow this up into a major issue within conservative reformed churches without understanding, and without proof of where the abuse is. Shane Anderson has stated that in his observation, abuse is more prevalent in relationships under an "egalitarian" paradigm than a "patriarchal" paradigm. This agrees with what I have seen in my life as well. And I am convinced many more people would see this if they started paying closer attention. Yes, there are some extreme examples of abuse under a patriarchal paradigm, but what do we ever hear about (more or less) patriarchal families that flourish with no abuse? Don't they count? Let's look at the big picture: where's the evidence of a need to connect abuse with patriarchy? Where, in the OPC, is the abuse, really?

And while we're at it, I can prove that large-scale Biblical patriarchy is not functioning in any meaningful way in the OPC. How? One only has to consider that women such as Byrd and Miller have been allowed to continue to promote their views unchecked, and that they have gained a large following including allegiance from many pastors (those who signed the infamous open letter). If we were in patriarchy-world, neither of these things would have been possible. Such women would simply leave the denomination, knowing their views would not be welcome in the OPC (unless they were to stay if social pressures were enough to compel repentance). And in the unlikely event that such a person were to start promoting feminist thinking in the OPC, efficient discipline would be the result. So where's the big evil patriarchy? I don't see it.

No, if there's a real problem in conservative reformed denominations, it would be matriarchy. I can only think of one family in the OPC congregation we left where the wife didn't pretty much call the shots, and pull the strings. They believe the husband is the head in name but not in practice. I don't have the power to fix that, but I am paying attention, and I do know it is a very real problem. So where are the voices of the oppressed calling out to smash the matriarchy? Too confused, and too busy defending feminists, I suppose. That matriarchy is a driving force in the OPC is the only way to account for those who call out feminists (Spangler, etc.) getting dragged through the dirt. All the men in power are cowards who are thinking with their emotions and/or afraid of what certain powerful women (and perhaps their own wives and female congregants) will think. There is no other way to explain what we're seeing.

Another wake-up call, since previous wake-up calls have been ineffective

In any case, I am convinced that Byrd, et al, are feminists; because they are acting like feminists, whether they want to call themselves that or not. I know this because I have seen it all before. This may be worth a separate blog post, but I was raised in the CRC in the 90's, during the feminist takeover of what used to be a solid church. In particular an important tactic for feminists is to appeal to the emotions of women, and of gullible men who unwittingly put women on a pedestal rather than recognize how manipulative they can be. After seeing this same process in the OPC, I am convinced that few in the OPC are in a position to take a stand against feminism, or even to think rationally about this matter at all. Anyone who can't see that Aimee Byrd is a feminist from her writings is in need of a major wake-up call! I don't even know how to engage such persons anymore, other than... well, you can see why I need to get out of the OPC. The OPC is full of men who just don't get it. How can I "dwell in harmony" with them, as scripture prescribes? It's just time to move on.

So this is me, telling the men of the OPC, and of other conservative denominations: Wake up! Take a stand against feminism. Preach against it from your pulpits. Name names. Have courage. Show some backbone. Think. Don't let feminists define for you what is offensive. Go re-read Spangler's series on Feminism in the Reformed Churches. Care enough to call feminists to repent. Teach your flock to be discerning. Don't say no one warned you. The OPC is under attack, and in a major way. You're not going to resolve the disunity over this issue by just being nice. WAKE UP!!!!

Finally, this is for the spais: Listen up, you cows of Bashan! You know who you are. Repent. Step outside your little bubble and quit promoting a false narrative with regard to abuse. Remember that you will have to answer to God for slandering godly men and women. Stop publishing terrible books that divide people and lead them astray. Get off Twitter, go home, and be a helpmeet to your husbands. This is your Biblical calling. You're welcome.

No Time for Sin and Vice in a Patriarchal Paradise

This post may seem like it is all over the place. It is an attempt to tie many things together at once, which may or may not succeed. Why do I have little interest in reading and reviewing controversial books by the likes of Aimee Byrd or Rachel Miller? It's not that I don't want to see their serious errors corrected.

Let me invite us all to take a good look around. Look especially at our cities and the perpetual, increasing state of mayhem in which they are gripped. Increasingly Christians are waking up to the fact that we live in Sodom, or as the case may be, the suburbs of Sodom. Millions of babies continue to be slaughtered. No one can figure out what gender anyone is, and you're in a lot of trouble if you guess wrong. Gay sex and its attendant “pride” (wasn't that supposed to be a sin?) is treated as a virtue, and conversion therapy is “evil.” Homelessness, disease, addiction and trauma issues are rampant. Masculinity is viewed as harmful and “toxic.” Numerous government programs continue to creep in and take over society, getting ever more top-heavy and inefficient as they do so. Money is wasted, people are depressed, political tribalism is rampant, no one can work together, everyone hates each other. On top of that we're so busy apologizing over slavery from 160+ years ago that we overlook major injustices right under our noses. If only we our society this kind of passion to fight, say, sex-trafficking, a form of slavery that continues to the present with thousands of victims right here in the USA.

One may ask, how did we get here? Should we blame the media? Should we blame the boomers and the sexual revolution of the 60's? Should we blame FDR? Is that when things first went down the tubes?

We could blame the public schools. That might be closer to the mark. Imagine if you will an institution which by its own admission deliberately teaches your children to deconstruct and ultimately abandon the biblical Christian principles their parents wish to instill them with. Then imagine millions of Christians willingly sending their kids there for 35 hours per week. What an idea. You can't make this stuff up.

At minimum, we need to go back much farther than the 60's, or even the 40's. Modern feminism is a movement that first reared its ugly head back in the 1800's. Granted, women with similar destructive ideas lived before that and in other parts of the world. We could go all the way back to Jezebel, Potiphar's wife, and beyond. But in modern times, feminism appeared in the form of a few 19th century women who apparently thought the destruction of the family would somehow be a great thing. Many of these were influenced by Satanism, which, in case you didn't know, stands in opposition to Christianity.

I once heard it said that these feminists really ought to have been locked away in insane asylums to make an example out of them. The more I think about it, the more this seems like it would have been wise and perfectly appropriate. It sounds harsh, but let's review what has happened since their day. It has taken multiple generations but over time their ideas, and worse, have gone completely mainstream. In the 1910's women were granted the right to vote. And, jumping way ahead, the end result of feminism has been manifest in the last 100 years: I'm talking about all the stuff in my second paragraph.

Now approaching this with the hindsight afforded to us by the present day, we ought to ask an important question: Why is anyone who identifies with Satanist feminists, in any whay whatsoever, being allowed a voice in conservative and reformed churches? How does this help? And yet here we find ourselves. It seems like the last bastion of Christian morality is just letting this slide on by with the unconvincing type of reluctance where we lament what's happening but don't do anything about it. It would seem that pastors in conservative denominations would apparently rather preach on virtually anything else to avoid this controversy. Now now, we don't want to offend anyone. We are quite comfortable, thank you very much. Where are the faithful God-fearing Christians who will refute this stuff head on? Will Christians heed the warning about how destructive this stuff is? And that's not theory – feminism has been proven destructive. Where is the passion and drive to confront it?

Ultimately, feminism will not win. It will not win because it doesn't build anything. It only tears down, and when it does, it doesn't replace it with anything. This stuff tore down the Boy Scouts and replaced it with what? It is torn down the old mainline American Christian denominations and not replaced them. For many who once depended on the work of the church, government now steps in to fill that void. Of course, we might have seen less of that had it not been for 100 years of women voting to expand government social programs.

God designed the household as a place of productivity. It is a place where things are built: businesses, livelihoods, and futures. Children are discipled and trained. In general feminists hate this, even if a lot of them won't admit it, or at least not to themselves. Personally I can't really comprehend why feminists hate this stuff so much: I can only conclude that, like Eve, they are deceived.

But I will make the following observation. So many people--so many Christians, even--have never seen a productive household in action, or better yet, a group of them. They see men who pursue their own interests rather than God's mission. They see households where a mission is lacking and the wife makes it her job to run everything. They see Christian families who would rather buy themselves a bunch of toys, put their kids in public schools, and soothe themselves with another praise chorus of “Oh Jesus my girlfriend, hurry up and get off this planet where everyone is so mean to us.” But is that really what we're here for?

It's great to refute the errors of feminism, but people need to see an alternative to understand why it is important. God has us on a mission to disciple the nations. Our households and our children are among the most valuable assets in doing so. And what does this type of household looks like. Is it a place where the wife and husband have equal say and leadership of the family and its priorities? Is it a place where the wife is always nagging her husband to do things? Have you ever seen such a household thrive?

Households that a ruled by the father where the wife and children willingly (as opposed to reluctantly) submit to his authority are increasingly rare nowadays. Feminists love to revile this idea and taunt those who hold it. But they shouldn't, and shame on them. This type of unleashed masculine energy is a very positive thing. It is positive because it constructs. It takes the help of the family and puts it together towards a common goal. It does not tear down.

By contrast, feminism is not productive, nor is it inspirational. It will ultimately prove to be unsustainable and someday go away. The question principled Christians should ask is, are we doing all we can to make it go away as quickly as possible?

And now we can finally bring it back to Aimee Byrd. Is Byrd laboring in her own capacity to make feminism fade into oblivion as quickly as possible? Hardly. Whatever you think her goals may be, that cannot be one of them. Thus, I see no need to waste time or money on her book. I am busy. I am being productive. I am raising my family and building my business. I am engaging and encouraging people who aren't closed-minded and foolish. I am not promoting bad ideas and stirring the pot, making money and drawing attention to myself in the process.

Thanks in no small part to feminism, Western society is falling apart all around us; and along comes Byrd saying we haven't listened to women enough. I grant there is a need to clearly refute feminism. Some may feel called to spend a lot more time on it than others, and I'm not disrespecting that. But let's not take our eyes off the goal. Those who have eyes to see must be able to see the alternative. We must continue to labor and to build for the kingdom of God, and do so productively according to the principles of Biblical patriarchy. What a change we would see if our culture, or even our Christian subculture, went all in for productive patriarchy.

Or if we're content with living in Sodom, let's not. I mean, if we're all ok with the damage feminism has done to society, slaughtered babies, the gaystapo, mass societal hysteria, and all; let's just keep our heads down and go back to our little soft-complementarian hidey-holes. Wouldn't want to get anyone riled up.

So I'm fine with coming down hard on Byrd and other feminists who have an audience in conservative Christian circles. Hopefully this post will read that way. I am not keeping my head down. Nevertheless I regard this as only a passing shot. It does not merit my attention to dwell on it further. What a distraction this is from constructive activities. It's as if someone thought “Just what conservative Christians need right now is a big controversy to completely waste their time.” No thanks. There's no time for sin and vice in a patriarchal paradise.

It's time to rebuke, to warn, to teach, and then to move on. God will destroy feminism in due time. We must continue to build. Go away, feminists, and take your destructive garbage somewhere else. Or better yet, repent, lest you perish in the way. Let all the ungodly be consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more. The rest of us have better things to do.

What to think of Doug Wilson?

It's now time for a post called "What to think of Doug Wilson?" If any readers of this blog exist, they may or may not be aware that Wilson is a somewhat controversial figure in reformed and evangelical circles. Either he is a great guy with a robust and beneficial ministry in Moscow, ID or he is a horrible man and a fraud. Any kind of neutral or moderate view of this topic is tough to come by. So let's look at the issues, shall we?

But before we do, I will just mention that I really don't expect I'll convince anyone whose mind is made up about Wilson to change it. I mean, maybe, but I should admit up front that isn't the main objective of this post. I'm more doing this "for the record," and for something to look back on and see if my views have changed later. There is always room for that.

There can be little doubt that the Wilson and the ministries with which he is or has been affiliated (including Canon Press, The CREC, Logos School, Credenda/Agenda, and more) have been very productive, and have benefited many people all over the place. There are many reformed people who can only look at the "bad stuff" with Wilson and therefore want nothing to do with "anything that comes out of Moscow." That is being reactionary, and an over-the-top response. With any person or movement, one has to be objective and produce a fair assessment of both good and bad. That is what I am going to attempt here. However, for the purpose of cutting to the chase, the bulk of this post is about the controversial points.

The major points of contention people have with Wilson are as follows:
1. "Racism"/"defending slavery"
2. Plagiarism in some books he has co-authored
3. Proponent of Federal Vision theology, which is inferior and confusing (at best) or heretical (at worst) relative to traditional reformed theology
4. "Married off" a convicted child molester (Sitler)
5. "Sided with the perpetrator" in a rape case involving a courtship gone awry (Wight)

Let's take those issues one by one.

1. I am convinced Wilson is not a racist. To be an actual racist he'd have to be a lot more overtly racist. It was from Wilson that I first learned that God struck Miriam with leprosy when she objected to Moses taking a Cushite (Ethiopian) wife. There are, and have been for a long time, black people who are members of Christ Church. It would be insulting (and passive-aggressively racist?) to them to suppose they had been duped or similar.

The slavery thing is a bit more complex. I would at this time stop short of entirely endorsing Wilson's views on slavery. I appreciate his commitment to scriptural authority as it pertains to the need to deal with difficult passages. The main change I would make from Wilson's view would be to understand slavery in the OT according in the context of the Israelites eliminating giants from the land of Canaan. The reason God allowed them to be enslaved and/or destroyed would have been not just for their wickedness, but to eliminate the genetic lineage of the Nephilim. One could argue we don't know with certainty that all these people were fully human in the traditional sense. That view does not work for someone who does not hold to the "supernatural" view of Genesis 6, but I think it all adds up. So while I don't quite agree with Wilson on this, it's easy for me to see that his view comes from an effort to maintain the authority of scripture.

Now having said that, I also find Wilson's blog posts discussing matters of race and slavery to be the most tiresome and least interesting of his output. It's not that I don't care. It's just that the topic doesn't interest me. I've pretty much heard his point on the matter over and over again and tend to think "can we move on already?" But I suppose that's not happening until the people he is interacting with no longer have a problem.

2. I grant that it looks fishy when, on separate occasions, two of Wilson's co-authored books contain obvious examples of plagiarism, yet in each case Wilson claims the other author was responsible for it. However, I withhold judgment not knowing what the evidence would show. It certainly may be that Wilson's claims are true here. In favor of Wilson, no plagiarism has been detected in books authored by Wilson alone, of which there are a great many.

3. This is a large and complex topic. Suffice it to say that I am convinced Federal Vision is, at minimum, not a serious threat to reformed orthodoxy; even while I would certainly differ with some things various persons associated with it have said. All in all I would point out that A) Wilson's theological teachings are for the most part excellent, being orthodox with no problems I can detect, and B) it's hard for me not to see FV as a distraction from the real threat to reformed orthodoxy, which is liberalism. Those persons with concerns about Wilson's doctrinal orthodoxy ought to take more time to listen to his sermons.

4. I'm saving the best two points for last. What to do with a convicted child molester who repents, and wishes to marry? I am of the view that this should not be permitted. According to God's law a just punishment for his crime would be death. It is my conviction at the time of this writing that Wilson acted with a lack of wisdom in marrying this person because of the obvious consequence that children will result, whom he will inevitably be spending a lot of time with, and who will be in a position of vulnerability.

But "lack of wisdom" is as far as I will go. And I go there rather cautiously, knowing that my own personal level of wisdom may not be spectacular, and knowing I can only view this situation from some distance. But the best one can do is to call things as one sees them. At minimum this man should certainly be restored to full fellowship in the church, and ministered to rather than shunned. Some of the accusations relating to this case are way over the top and inappropriate. In some blogs and we sites it is said that this individual has re-offended following his marriage. There is no hard evidence of this, and a fair assessment requires presumption of innocence. Others paint Wilson in such a bad light that it almost sounds like he himself committed the crime. This does violence to the texts of scripture which plainly say "each shall be put to death for his own sin" (or, in a society where the death penalty is not in view, each shall be held to account for his own sin). Accusations such as "Wilson should be in prison" are ridiculous. The worst crimes one may legitimately accuse Wilson of would be failing to protect the innocent and acting with a lack of wisdom.

5. And it's really the same for this case. Wilson seemed rather muddled on who the victim was in the Wight case, and it is baffling to me that he has been unable to produce an apology similar to that written by Peter Leithart, for his misjudgment. It may be that he doesn't want to give an inch of ground to the haters. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that half of the family who was involved in this mess still attends Christ Church to this day, apparently thinking Wilson was (more or less) in the right. This tells me there is more to the story than meets the eye, and I am not close enough to the situation to get a fair picture. Some have wanted to reduce this issue to relatively simple terms when in reality (even with tons of information out there) we still don't know enough to see past our biases. But, in any case, there is again room for the idea that Wilson acted with a lack of wisdom and failed to protect the innocent.

Wrapping things up here, the big question is how much should these issues bother me when considering Wilson in general? Should we throw all things Wilson and Moscow out the window because of these issues? I am inclined to say no for a couple of reasons. For one thing the reason these cases are so well known is that Wilson has put Christ Church in the spotlight by preaching boldly in terms most pastors are afraid to use. If these cases had happened in any other church we would not be hearing about them. Additionally, if we are to judge a ministry by its fruit, my best honest assessment is that the ministries affiliated with Wilson and Christ Church have produced far more good fruit than bad, and have impacted far more lives positively than negatively. The sheer volume of good stuff coming out of Moscow is a force to be reckoned with. This does not vindicate Wilson at all points, but it cannot be ignored.

The scriptural principle to be kept in mind here is "by their fruits you shall know them." I'm persuaded the ministries affiliated with Wilson have blessed many people - tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands - through their far-reaching publications and books. They have contributed much to the development of Christian education, which is hugely impactful. It's not that I don't care about those who were harmed. I'm just trying to be as objective as I can. I'm seeing a little bit of bad and a lot of good. So I guess I mostly like Doug Wilson. It doesn't mean I trust him, but is it ever wise to put your complete trust in a fallible person?

Book Review: Giants, Sons of the Gods, by Douglas Van Dorn

Book Review: Giants, Sons of the Gods, by Douglas Van Dorn (2013, Waters of Creation Publishing, Erie, CO)

Some people read books and are immediately persuaded by whatever case the book is making. Once I “ran into” a young lady on Facebook. She had read Keith Mathison's book on postmillennialism and was persuaded by it right away, which she announced upon joining a Facebook group named for the book. Then she started reading earlier reformers and quickly got to Turretin, who persuaded her of “historic postmillennialism” (a bit of a misnomer for what I call pre-enlightenment futurist premillennialism). Then she read books on exclusive Psalmody and became persuaded of that, regarding the use of “man-made hymns” in worship as a “very grave error.” Then she read books about why “federal vision” is heresy and was persuaded, but was also unwilling to discuss the matter and will not talk to anyone with an interest in honest engagement about it. At the rate she is going she'll soon be residing in an echo chamber containing only herself and her books. I suppose we may give her credit for enjoying reading.

But enough about her. I don't read books to be persuaded by them. Mostly, I read books when I am already persuaded of a particular view (often through discussion, interaction, and experience; as well as Bible reading and study) and wish to broaden my knowledge and understanding about the topic. Such it is with this book about giants in the Bible. At the center of this topic is the much-debated text of Genesis 6:1 – 4, and the nature of the nephilim. I have remained consistent over the years in my view that the nephilim were the result of angel-human interbreeding, ever since I first paid any actual attention to this text back in college. I maintained this view because it is what flows from a natural reading of the text. The opposing view, that “sons of God” refers to the Sethites, never gained much traction in my mind; primarily because it fails to account for the existence of the nephilim (in short, how do giants all of a sudden come from normal humans?). It only takes a little bit of cross-referencing in the Bible to find that the word nephilim refers to a race of giants. It also only takes a little bit of cross-referencing to know that angelic or supernatural beings (at some level) are meant by the phrase “sons of God.” If I were reading any other book it would be hard to conclude the author intended only a natural union of humans with their offspring, as the “Sethite view” supposes. Of course, now I have many more reasons to support the correct view, most of which are touched on at some point or other in this book. The Sethite view seems like a classic case of commentators failing to recognize the author's (Moses') literary intent in favor of striving to make everything found in scripture fit a preconceived systematic theology with (in this case) no room for things like giants, angels marrying, and super weird stuff.

On the whole I would review this book very positively, despite a few writing style idiosyncrasies and not-quite-logically-obvious charts. The author is a no-nonsense reformed baptist pastor with a high view of scriptural authority and reformed soteriology. The book is very extensively researched and heavily footnoted. Anyone looking for absurd or novel interpretations of scripture passages isn't going to find it here. The author has truly done a huge amount of homework and remained faithful to sound exegesis of God's Word.

The discussion about giants in the book resolves around the combination of 1) scripture exegesis, 2) other ancient texts and 3) additional external sources. Concerning #1, the author could be accused of “exegetical maximalism” but not, in my opinion, to an unreasonable extent. In general I find paying extra close attention to scripture text to be useful, if done with integrity and caution. Concerning #2, the author made it clear that the use of other ancient texts can shine a lot of light on how scripture was understood by its immediate recipients, and how common concepts carried over between various ancient cultures (albeit with significant differences). Concerning #3, much of the extraneous discussion, but not all, is found in the appendices and footnotes. A possible criticism of the use of these sources might be “why can't we just stick to scripture alone?” However the book handles these carefully enough, as it is always plenty clear what is drawn from scripture and what isn't, and the justification for bringing in other sources is always apparent. It is noted that people use other sources (especially commentaries) all the time to study scripture. In short, none of this bothers me because it's all very straightforward. The author makes all sources clear. He is also very honest about expressing doubt where conclusions (both from scripture, nd other sources) are questionable.

Some important particulars touched on by the book including the following: 1) The existence of the divine council and its implications was noted. It was a couple chapters in before this was mentioned; personally I believe this is foundational to a good understanding of Biblical cosmology from which related topics flow. 2) The idea that myths are not merely frivolous imaginings of our ancestors, but convey distorted versions of ancient truths, was acknowledged. This is very important especially given the remarkable number of common themes in myths of various cultures all across the world (especially flood traditions). 3) The author offered a good explanation for why not all ancient texts are totally useless or false. This is found in the first appendix. 4) The author was clear that people in ancient times were not stupid but discerned matters according to the best of their ability. A modern pretentious element has crept into a lot of Christian thinking nowadays where people have the idea that somehow we are more clever now thanks to the benefit of science (and perhaps, at some level, an evolutionary component). Although it is true that we have learned much they didn't know, the idea that the ancients' wisdom and worldview were without value is to be rejected. Furthermore, there is much we don't know today, and can never know, about what the ancients knew, and what they did with that knowledge.

The book is structured as follows. It starts with a lengthy introduction explaining and defending the “supernatural” view of Genesis 6, which is defended very thoroughly, simultaneously rejecting the Sethite view also very thoroughly. After the introduction, numbered chapters mostly follow scripture chronologically, going into some detail about the various episodes in the Bible where giants are found. However there are a few detours into other topics including exciting things like demons and chimeras. Also within some chapters are a few random side trips, thought experiments, photo albums of stone circles, and the like. After the last chapter one finds four helpful appendices. All in all it works pretty well. But I think if I were to approach this topic I would change a couple things. The material in the first two appendices is very important because it explains how extra-Biblical ancient texts (1 Enoch, for example) inform our understanding of scripture and relate to it. The skeptic may want to read this first before dismissing half the book as based on “extra-Biblical” evidence. Additionally, very strong support for the supernatural view of Genesis 6 is found in 2 Peter and Jude; this is not covered thoroughly until the second appendix. The other thing I would want to see would be a more extensive discussion of the divine council (see, for example, Ps. 82) right at the beginning of the book. Although I am not the expert, my sense is that (once again) many of these related cosmological topics flow from a clear understanding of the divine council, and not vice-versa. Modern Christian thinking is polluted with what Evan Wilson has called an “incipient dualism,” in which people think there are no other “god-like” beings other than God and Satan.* There are plenty of places in the Bible where other gods are found, and having actual power over their own domains, not just in people's imaginations. Of course, these are created beings, who are corrupt (Ps. 58:1) and subject to the ultimate authority of the one true God.

Although the author is probably not postmillennial (certainly not explicitly so), he starts to sound like it in a few places, particularly the chapter entitled “Victory.” There are certainly many themes that point this way throughout the book, which is inevitable given the nature of the topic and how scripture handles it. However, I have yet to see a book that really ties it all together: all the way from the divine council or governing princes, to the fallen angels, the nephilim, demons, and Christ's ultimate victory and displacement of these lesser gods upon his ascension. (This book emphasizes the giants, as per the title, and there's nothing wrong with that.) Postmillienialism has as much to do with Christ's triumph over these gods, who had a measure of actual power over the nations of the OT era, as it does with the fate of Christianity as it pertains to people on the earth. Even the New Testament is full of this language if you're paying attention to it (Acts 17:22 – 31, for example). And Satan now holds no more power over the world than the other gods everyone has forgotten about.

Finally, and somewhat tangentially, I'll mention one of the more interesting theories found in the book, which has to do with dinosaurs: namely, that they were not creatures God made “after their own kind” (as in Genesis 1) but that they may have been hybrids or genetic experiments bred by the nephilim (or perhaps even the corrupt creations of angelic beings? You know, like Morgoth [in the Tolkien legendarium] made orcs as a mockery of elves. Must fiction be stranger than the truth?). Thus, dinosaurs were not brought onto the ark, as it was God's will to destroy them, since they were not made after their own kind; rather, “all flesh had corrupted itself” (Gen 6:12). It's fairly obvious that most dinosaur skeletons were of creatures in traumatized (drowning) positions when they died. This seemed like an absurd idea at first but the more I have reflected on it, the less crazy it sounds. Also I should add that after a quick internet search, this view is much more widespread than I would have guessed. I didn't know about it until reading this book but now I think it is rather convincing. If this is true then perhaps paleontologists should stop giving new species names to every dinosaur fossil they find. Gorgonopsis must have been an earlier prototype, or something.

I give this book five out of five stars. Will it convince a skeptic? Perhaps not. But those already holding to the supernatural view of Genesis 6 will be equipped with a much deeper understanding of the topic. One is of course free to reject a few ideas here and there that may seem a bit far fetched. And if you are new to the topic and open-minded, this exposition of what you have not noticed in scripture may just blow your mind. Just don't be persuaded all at once!

*This comes from a very important essay on the topic, entitled “The Governing Princes,” found in The Forgotten Heavens: Six Essays on Cosmology, edited by Douglas Wilson, Canon Press, 2010.

Mars Hill Meltdown

Introduction

I've intended for some time now to share my thoughts on the decline and fall of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. In fact, I've already written a lot about it, but never managed to produce anything coherent enough to be worth publishing. The reflection has been useful, however; and now, more than three years later, I have concluded the reasons for MH collapsing are not terribly complicated. I expect no shortage of disagreement as to what issue I have singled out as the centrally important factor; but that will not stop me, and is pretty much to be expected. One can do no better than to call things as he sees them.

I should also note that I'm assuming the reader has some familiarity with the topic, so I'm bypassing a lot of background information about Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll for the sake of brevity.

But first, just a quick paragraph about my relation to Mars Hill: I have observed that people who have any connection with MH may be divided roughly into three categories: those who were merely disappointed in MH's collapse, those who are angry and cynical over the whole affair, and Driscoll loyalists. Some overlap is possible, especially between the first two categories. I place myself more in the “disappointed” camp since MH didn't damage me personally like it did a lot of folks. I was there from about 2002 through 2005, and left voluntarily due to relocation to Kitsap County and lack of continuing interest/dedication to commute that far for church.

A remarkable growing church

In the early 2000's MH was expanding at a rapid pace and truly looked like it was going somewhere. This was made all the more miraculous by the fact that this growth was occurring within the city of Seattle, with its relatively low proportion of Christians, and by more-or-less organic means. A familiar mantra from Driscoll that I will have to paraphrase, since I don't remember it precisely, went something like this: “All these other churches are designed to appeal to women. (You know, sappy music, lots of programs, and all that.) But at Mars Hill, we are going to get the men, and we are going to train the men.” I believed then, and continue to maintain, that his observations about the majority of churches were quite accurate. But we'll revisit that later.

We're going to get the men, and train the men. I think this is very significant. As I read events, MH was growing rapidly when they were doing this successfully. As the years wore on they were doing this with only moderate success, and growth slowed. And in the end Mars Hill failed because they lost the men. That, I believe, is the main reason things fell apart; and it's worth taking a closer look at how it happened.

Five ways to lose men

How did Mars Hill lose the men? We know that shunning and ostracizing were increasingly destructive over time, especially under the new bylaws. But I'm looking for the root causes behind that. Much conversation and reflection has led me to single out the following five problems:

1. Hypocrisy

Sooner or later most men will recognize a hypocrite and wise up enough to cease remaining loyal to him. In 2000 Driscoll made it clear the plan was to train men to plant satellite churches all over Seattle and beyond. In 2005 Mark appeared on a big screen saying his sermons would now be broadcast to all the other campuses because there were no other men who wanted to do and/or were able to do it. In 2000 Driscoll said never to be part of a ministry that is named after the pastor. Now he has just such a ministry. Those are just two examples of a trend which could be multiplied over and over. At what point can you no longer take a guy seriously when he says one thing but does the opposite? This was a factor for me in leaving Mars Hill, or at least, in not really missing it once my relocation was complete.

2. Lack of ecclesiological oversight

To the best of my knowledge Mars Hill lacked any real accountability structure between the elders and any outside entity from the get-go. In the early years accountability existed, as far as I can tell, only in an informal sense among other more or less like-minded churches pastored (mostly) by Mark's friends. (If there was anything formal at that time, I didn't know about it, and I'm open to correction.) Over time Mark increasingly shunned this accountability, and ultimately distanced himself from his old friends. Thus, persons with legitimate grievances against the leadership had no recourse, and little choice but to depart. By contrast, in (for example) a Presbyterian church the elders are members of the presbytery rather than the congregation, and someone with an issue can appeal to the presbytery. (Not all is perfect in Presby churches but at least an additional layer of accountability is advantageous.) Later, a board of accountability was created for MH following concerns raised by some members and possibly former members; and, while some actions to correct the problems at Mars Hill were attempted, this effort ultimately amounted to a case of too little, too late.

3. Divisiveness over secondary issues

Some issues are worth dividing over—those of “first importance”—but, given the limitations of fallen humanity, it is unreasonable to expect all Christians to agree completely on all matters all the time. That's not to say conflicting positions are “equally valid,” because there is one correct view and God knows what it is; rather, it is to say that an honest reading of scripture can lead one to more than one possible conclusion. Importantly, adhering to the wrong view in this case doesn't make one a heretic. With secondary issues, you can still embrace those who don't agree with you in Christian fellowship.

In the early years of Mars Hill, Driscoll plainly understood the concept of primary vs. secondary issues, and he taught it with clarity. But as time went on, he completely failed to apply this principle. By 2007, when two pastors were fired and the bylaws re-written, a level of “divisiveness” worth defellowshipping over was defined as failure to agree completely with Mark Driscoll and his “yes-men,” and exactly what they wanted to do at Mars Hill. “Embracing those who don't agree with you” on secondary matters was thrown out the window. It's one thing to take a stand for important truths like the infallibility of scripture, but foolish and counter-productive to divide over actual secondary issues (infant baptism being one example) or disagreement over church management. This is a great way to alienate and lose the wrong people. When you become incapable of working together with other Christians, people leave and you no longer have a church. I suppose that is stating the obvious.

4. Pride

In James 3 – 4 we read such statements as “Where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.” “You are envious and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” “Do not speak against one another, brethren... ” All Christians struggle with pride, and the more power and influence one has, the greater will be the temptation to fall. It's fair to say that Mark and his “yes men” group of executive elders (until they were “thrown under the bus”) had a pride problem, because their actions manifested that they believed their decisions and actions at certain points were above question. While I wasn't closely involved enough to form a long list of specific examples, it is my belief that they looked in pride to their own wisdom in dealing with conflicts, and in crafting the 2007 bylaws which consolidated more power to Driscoll, and erred in doing so. Also, I personally noticed over time an increasing amount of scoffing and poking fun at other pastors, denominations, and Christians holding to certain beliefs, coming from the leadership at Mars Hill. Some of it may have been “all in good fun” at first, but I believe it grew into boastful pride which became manifest in various ways. This is a problem for sensible men because pride is foolish, and sooner or later it will start to look foolish, and no one wants a fool for a leader.

I also believe pride was, and still is, a driving factor in Driscoll's failure to reconcile with the pastors who were removed in 2007, Bent Meyer and Paul Petry, and many others. Furthermore, it is the main reason he increasingly distanced himself from a lot of his old friends (including fellow pastors) who stood by him when he planted the church. And it continued with all kinds of other people getting “thrown under the bus” in the later years of MH. There is simply no other explanation for the failure to recognize one's own errors, to reconcile, or to see the need to reconcile, other than a sense of personal pride that says “I'm fine on my own and I don't need you.” (Granted, there are plenty of folks MH didn't need, but it's a big mistake to confuse allies with enemies.)

5. Lack of eschatological vision

The reader may wonder “what does that even mean,” but I actually believe this is the biggest factor in MH's demise. In the early formative years at Mars Hill, the elders including Driscoll remained ambiguous (at least, ambiguous enough) about eschatology so as to pretty much leave members to their own conclusions. But you really can't sweep eschatology under the rug, and I will demonstrate why it matters. Consider this progression of Driscoll's thinking over time (interpreted by me, as long as I'm here to help):

2000: We're not going to try to be popular and hip. We're not going to do what all the other churches are doing, with things like singles ministries and youth groups. We're going to get the men and train the men. And we only want real men, not pansy-asses. We're going to mobilize men who will plant churches all over the place and take the city in the name of Jesus!

2008: Now we've mellowed out significantly, because we're only “a city within a city”. (What kind of dumb slogan is that anyway?) We've retreated to a position of being much better behaved. We no longer need the whole city, but just our own little enclave.

2014: I'm super sorry for all the offensive things I said back in 2000 (even if they were all true). Please come back to my church. Henceforth I will say only nice things, and keep you entertained, and do whatever it takes to appeal to as many people as possible (as long as that doesn't mean actually apologizing directly to those I have wronged).

Notice the progression in Driscoll's attitude from courageous and inspiring (2000), to maintaining the status quo (2008) to being a total pansy-ass who has completely lost sight of his mission (2014). In the end it was “We'll bend over backwards to not offend anyone in order to bring in whoever we can get to keep the church running!” Driscoll (and MH in general, to an extent) had become the very caricature that he had disdained—rightly, for the most part—back in 2000. I'm not sure what kind of men gravitate to such a person as a leader: surely not many.

So what happened? Although Mars Hill had a formal vision statement, the eschatological basis for it was never established. Why take the city if our only job is to win souls? Why take the city if (as the average premillenialist will suppose) God's just going to bail us all out of here any day now?

The answers to these questions are very important, because possessing an eschatological vision that recognizes God's ultimate and immediate authority over the entire city, and not just individual Christians within the city, alters one's perspective in a broader sense. Once you have swallowed that pill, you have to think strategically about how to disciple Seattle and preach the authority of Christ to all (Matthew 28:18-20). You can no longer afford to act pridefully, or to divide over secondary issues. Who has time for that? You have to accept all Christians who are, or potentially could be, on board with the true meaning and application of the words of Christ in the great commission, and the vision for Seattle that follows from it. You will emulate the example of Joshua: “Be strong and courageous, for the Lord has surely delivered it into your hands.” (Which sounds a bit different from “I'm sorry I offended anyone.”)

I believe “let's take Seattle” as an objective drew a lot of people to Mars Hill in the early years, but this vision gradually faded into the background, which I can only suppose was due to a lack of commitment to it as a biblical eschatological principle. It became apparent over time that Driscoll failed to recognize, or perhaps to believe, his own words about “taking Seattle” as an inherently eschatological statement with an eschatological objective. (You'll be relieved to know I'm done with that word now.) Of course, many Christians think God's authority extends only as far as their “hearts,” which is not Biblical thinking; but it has subtly crept into most churches over the decades, and Mars Hill was no exception, especially as they attempted to become more broadly appealing over time.

What about the women?

Now you culturally seasoned folks may be thinking, men men men, what about the women? I'm aware of the prevailing view that maltreatment of women was a major factor in the demise of Mars Hill. I'm not dismissing that as a piece of the puzzle, but I now view that as more of a secondary issue—a symptom of other problems (especially #2 above), and not a root cause.

This question is also made more complex by various degrees of faithfulness to or departure from Biblical thinking with regard to the roles and duties of women among all MH congregants; including elders, husbands, and wives. On paper MH was “complimentarian:” on the ground, a wide range of relationships existed all the way from reasonably Biblically healthy to “egalitarian” to quite dysfunctional in a variety of ways. Thus, some complaints of “abuse” bear greater legitimacy according to Biblical standards than others.

But more importantly to my premise, it is worth noting that there is no shortage of churches that appeal to women. This has been the case for a long time, to the point where some of us are probably too accustomed to it to notice. That's basically what the seeker-sensitive movement is, which has infected (in varying degrees) nearly any church you can think of. Because these churches tend to largely compete with each other, they seldom experience any very dramatic growth or decline.

By contrast, it is very rare indeed when a church comes along which succeeds in appealing to men and mobilizing them into action. It only makes sense, then, that MH's amazing growth in the early years was because they were not directly competing with these other churches, due to their calculated appeal to a different demographic.

Furthermore, this model results in a fast growing church for the simple reason that men bring their wives and girlfriends along with them. Additionally, many single women are drawn to such a church because of the appeal of an environment where men are actually, proactively seeking God and getting things done, rather than (as is so often the case) just being dragged to church by their wives to survive a boring service with sappy music and forgettable preaching. Where men lead, women follow. Where women lead, men run the other way. This point is certain to offend some people but there is no use denying the truth of it. It's worth adding that, as this principle holds true regardless of what else is wrong with one's church, it almost doesn't matter (as concerns growth/decline) what other internal problems MH had, as long as they were not problems that caused men to leave.

Reviving a worthwhile mission

So, those are my thoughts about the decline and fall of Mars Hill. And some readers will be disappointed in me for not talking more about spiritual abuse, or misogyny, and other such issues. Suffice it to say that I am aware of many stories relating such incidents, but I don't see a particular need to go in depth on those topics. If I did, I would have to start by dropping those terms in favor of biblical terms, and then I'd be off on a major tangent. Others have put the blame on worldliness, which is certainly another angle worth exploring.

Additionally, I wish to continue to exhort those persons who were “thrown under the bus” by Mars Hill to “dust themselves off,” if you haven't already, and continue on what was a worthy mission in 2000, and still is now, without Driscoll and MH. Seattle still needs the gospel, now more than ever. Many of you whom I know personally are already doing this. But because I read what people write on Facebook, it is apparent that there are still plenty of embittered and jaded people out there.

When Driscoll sensed things were falling apart, he did an awful lot of whining about how unfair this all was and how victimized he felt. Then he bravely ran away, away to Phoenix. Don't be like that. We're all “victims” of something. I have some real problems with the church I grew up in. At what point do we move on, repent to God of our own sins, and focus on the mission at hand? If you haven't done so already, there's no time like right now. Don't be mastered by pride.

Conclusion

It's not complicated: Mars Hill collapsed as a direct result of doing the opposite of what made it grow. When men were gathered, discipled, and mobilized, the church grew. When they lost the men, for the various reasons outlined above, the church went into decline and was not sustainable. Let us all pray that when the next church comes along that draws in and trains men, that whoever is in charge is teachable enough to learn from the failures of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, and will manage not to screw it up.

Where have all the cowboys gone? Or something

Unlike some people, sex is not really my favorite thing to post about on the internet.  But I've stumbled on a couple of articles about it lately that I thought were interesting enough to be worth bookmarking for future reference, and sharing with anyone else interested.  In general both of these articles support Christian sexual ethics and contrast it with "modern sexual morality."

So here's the First Article: The Death of Eros

I don't go around talking about sex to everyone so it's hard for me to judge the accuracy of the information in the first article.  However I would not be at all surprised if it were true, and am happy to grant that it likely is.  The million dollar question, of course, is, if you read this and respond negatively, is that because of the possibility the article could be true?  If you've rejected the Christian perspective in favor of feminism, "liberation" and all the rest, are you really content with your sex life?  With your life in general?  Only you can answer that; I don't presume to know.

A lot of comments could be thrown in here.  Personally I believe we've hit a bit of a feedback loop involving a lot of other topics.  I'm completely generalizing here so bear with me.  I believe... and this is the toughest point to prove, and probably worth another whole post... I believe that feminism has resulted, over time, in a number of economic pressures that were less substantial 50 years ago.  (Cost of living, worthless college degrees, and the rest.)  The result of this is people marrying later.  The result of people marrying later is they lack a sexual outlet before marriage other than fornication or porn use.  The result of this is they are dissatisfied.  Out of this dissatisfaction comes feminism, because it isn't hip to even consider the traditional Christian stuff as a possible solution.  And so the cycle continues.

Now I know I didn't prove feminism raised our cost of living, and as I said, that's a topic for another whole post.  But I'll just throw out two tidbits as food for thought.  One, when women all decided it was more important to have a career than stay home raise kids, the inevitable result was that less competition resulted in lower wages for many jobs.  (As an aside, that's a really inefficient way to run a family.)  Two, one could argue a link between feminism and bloated and inefficient government programs, which are funded on taxpayer dollars--money a family can no longer save to better their own lives.

This article is also a bit of a strike at feminism within Christianity.  A call is made for a return to traditional gender roles in society.  Once again, no one should be allowed to scream at that unless you are truly content with your life.  There was a time that would have rubbed me the wrong way.

Next article: It's past time to re-think modern sexual morality

The second article reads as more of a call for Christians to take a firm position on these matters and stop capitulating to the world to try to impress people.  I don't expect anyone who doesn't value something close to Christian morality to agree with it but there it is.  If you don't have some consistent basis for sexual morality then what do you have?

And you're welcome for getting that fabulous Paula Cole song stuck in your head.  At least someone had this figured out back in the 90s....