I have not had time to read through all the letters, so this may have been mentioned already....

I live in Seattle, and just completed an MA program in Psychology at an accredited, secular university. During my internship at a community mental health agency, I learned that Mars Hill has it's own "MA Counseling" program, and was shocked to learn that secular mental health agencies, including my own, recruit and hire interns from this program.

I can think of nothing scarier than sending misogynist, homophobic, fundie, cult member "counselors" out into the world. I think it is totally irresponsible for secular agencies to hire these people. I had many clients struggling with gender roles and racism, not to mention several teenagers coming out as gay or lesbian. I cannot imagine the damage that would have been done if they had seen a counselor trained at Mars Hill.

I'm scared shitless by these people.

As someone who grew up in a borderline-fundamentalist church, my life was changed when a church friend introduced me to a collection of essays-- "Are Women Human?" by Dorothy Sayers (friend of Christian apologist C.S. Lewis and author of the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries). Sayers posits that (according to Christian theology) women and men are made in the image of the Creator and therefore find most fulfillment in work that has a creative element. She goes on to argue that what is fulfilling varies for each person, and builds on that argument to decry the attempts by social and religious conservatives to relegate all women to nothing other than child and home care. She specifically points out:

"There has never been any question but that the women of the poor should toil alongside their men. No angry, and no compassionate, voice has been raised to say that women should not break their backs with harvest work, or soil their hands with blacking grates and peeling potatoes. The objection is only to work that is pleasant, exciting, or profitable - the work that any human being might think it worthwhile to do."

As a Christian, I take issue with those who claim to rely on the Bible, yet ignore passages that describe the church as the body of Christ, where all members (parts) have their own unique role to play. I also find it telling that churches like Mars Hill make much of Paul's admonition for wives to submit to husbands, but it took me 20 years to hear the verse There is neither ...male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus -- and that from a television show, not a bible study or sermon.

On a more material note, as someone who lives in the Seattle Metropolitan Area, I found myself wondering what on earth the men at Mars Hill do that they can afford to buy homes that cost $400,000-$500,000 with only one income. Even the Microsofties I know can't afford homes in Seattle anymore.

I agree with a previous post (by Chris) that Dietz's statement to the effect that Sandler "will never feel like family" to him because they differ in fundamental beliefs is hardly an ideal expression of Christian inclusivity. To be fair, though, the context of the discussion doesn't make very clear just what Dietz means when he says this. Maybe he means he wouldn't be any more willing to help build Sandler a nice fence than her "wonderful friends whom [she considers] close as family" would be. And let's face it: Fence-building isn't exactly how the Samaritan helped out the Hebrew Stranger, is it? As I recall the parable, the Stranger was literally dying in the road when the Samaritan aided him, and Dietz might very well be the sort of person who would give aid to a non-believer in a situation of such dire necessity. On the other hand, maybe he's not. But we really have no way of knowing, from what Sandler has told us about him.

Regarding the issue of wifely submission: While it's certainly unfortunate that one of the women discussed in the story (Judy) feels deeply ambivalent about having given up a career to stay home and raise children, and another (Sarah) would like to finish her degree but can't see how she might, the life of an American housewife is hardly the kind of thing we might point to and scream about real oppression. I didn't see anything in here about women not being allowed to leave the house, about women having to cover themselves in tent-like clothing, about honor killings or spousal abuse, about ritual genital mutilation of young girls... Where's the oppression? Nobody (as "bma" points out in another post) appears to have been coerced into joining this group or living this life. Most people I know feel ambivalent about where they've found themselves in life, and certainly all of us would like to be able do things that, thanks to past choices, we can't do. That's just how grown-up life is, regardless of one's religious convictions: You make your choices and you can't go back and change things. I hate to be the one to break this to everybody, but there's a very good chance that most of our mothers had their own days when younger versions of ourselves were balling in our highchairs and they, in their heart of hearts, wondered if this child-raising thing had really been such a great idea, after all. Nothing new here.

One thing I do find alarming about all this, however, is the fact that somebody like Dietz can embody such stark political contradictions, apparently without suffering much psychic dissonance thanks to his literalist views on eschatology. Here again we see the (to say the least) rather un-Christian conviction that, when the "last days" arrive, only those professing the correct faith will be "saved." Unfortunately, a rather mundane hypocrisy, these days.

But instead of just yelling into the wind about how wrong it is, we might take this opportunity to ask ourselves just what some people find so attractive about this literalism and exclusivism. What jumps out here for me is the reasoning that lies at the heart of Driscoll's sermon about Jacob's unfavored sons ("Some of you know what it's like. You were the one that wasn't loved.... There is a providential God who can fix you.... He's your only hope.") God can "fix" you? Were you ever so profoundly "broken"? Whatever happened to "God helps those who help themselves"? In a way, Driscoll's mode of discourse isn't much differently motivated than that which we find in an earlier post from Jan in which she compares Driscoll's movement not only to a cult but to the dynamic of a past disfunctional relationship. She and Driscoll both lean heavily on a very strict victim-victimizer dichotomy that, in the real world, is generally not going to give us an adequate picture of any relationship, but which also seems to be only way many of us are capable of looking at things anymore. Driscoll tells his congregants to stop reacting to their fathers, but he stops short of telling them to take responsibility for their lives (because God will handle that when he "fixes" them)--rather canny of him, since if he did say something that implied his congregation might start behaving like adults, he'd probably find himself speaking to an empty room in no time. And as for Jan, she seems not to want to lay blame on either herself, for allowing her life to be controlled by an emotional predator, OR on the predator in question: Her ex, in her words, "had, at the very least, severe Borderline Personality Disorder," and naturally we can't expect such a disordered person to behave with some basic decency. Far from being out of touch with the concerns of modern, secular society, Driscoll and his ilk have tapped into the modern zeitgeist in a very effective way. We made Driscoll, people. And until we can come up with something a bit more sensible AND compelling, we're going to have to live with him.