I think women converts choose this kind of disrespect because they believe they deserve disrespect, and they learned that from Daddy. They crave the familiar, even if it causes suffering.

Then, it's a generational thing. The daughters of these willing domestic slaves will have the same problem.

For the converts, it doesn't take a specifically Christian upbringing to be vulnerable to this. Beatings will do it. Verbal abuse will do it.

But religion takes that abuse and gives it stature and cultural respect. It's ugly, but also scary: trauma becomes dogma.

I find it strange that the author of this article described their community as Utopian. Maybe it is thus to some, but forcing women to submit to their husbands and breed while saddling the men with all of the emotional and physical responsiblity of providing for and overseeing the lives of his spouse and ever increasing numbers of spawn does not sound like a recipe for bliss for many, men or women.

I find it deeply amusing that this church which came together largely due to members rejecting their own upbringing fantasises that their children will not follow in their footsteps and rebel against them.

Seems a little convenient to me me that Driscoll just so happened to be "musing" about his fence and the expense of it all to a group of converts who, lo and behold, rush out to get the supplies and the manpower to build it for him.

Is the rock music and the beer for just the guys or are the womenfolk also allowed to participate, presuming they have time out from the nursery and the kitchen.

Can you say "cult" kids?

The thing that is missing is a capacity for critical thinking. We're told:

1) "Fear is an entirely appropriate way to be born again," Dietz tells me.

2) "If we ever encountered God it would crush us.

3) If you're in danger of being destroyed forever, that should strike fear in you.

4) That's where all this starts for me."

Taking these in reverse order:

4) Diversity is good. What is right for Dietz is not necessarily right for all.

3) We are all guaranteed to be destroyed - or utterly changed - forever. Either this world is all there is - or the Rapture will see us all sucked up into heaven like so many sunflower seeds through a soda straw - or maybe, just maybe, one of the other 9 billion names of God is the "true" one and we'll reach some other end alone or together. In any event there most certainly will be an end to our days - the question is whether we ought therefore forever fear. Conservatives - tattooed or not - say yes. I disagree.

2) God is not circumscribed by any book - whether it is one he, she, it or they wrote him, her, it or themselve(s). We encounter God's work everyday, in all things. If the word "God" means anything it is a word to conjure the creative power of the universe, not a legalistic restriction bounding our every act, limiting our every choice, crushing our every independent hope, stunting our children's growth, and overpopulating the planet at the expense of God's other children.

1) To fear the truth is nonsensical. If Christianity or any other religion is truth, fear is a very poor introduction. It certainly sucks as a rational motivating force. Similarly, to fear the implications of science such as deep time, evolution or modernity, however messy, is plain silly - either Darwin was right, or Darwin was wrong. Get over it. One similarly ought not fear this punk rock church - but the soul of the counterculture is not in the music, tattoos and two wheeled transport, it is in challenging authority.

One should seek the truth - perhaps that truth is in the inerrancy of one book - but one might at least challenge the choices made in the early church to include or exclude alternate books. If not the Gospel of Judas, how about the Gospel of Thomas? And what about the inevitable mistakes in translating ancient texts into modern languages for a modern audience? A belief in the literal truth of a text should begin with an analysis of what that text actually is and says. Understanding is not bought for zero effort in no time sitting meekly at the foot of some charismatic authoritarian - it takes a lifetime of personal synthesis and growth.

On the other hand, one might rationally fear a return to medieval ignorance and intolerance. One might reasonably question whether Mars Hill is just another patriarchal scam. The answer likely pivots on whether a questioning mindset is encouraged, however unlikely this article makes that seem.

It was on another Mars Hill - the location of Lowell Observatory in Arizona - that the planet Pluto was discovered. Will Mars Hill Church prosper to planetary significance, or remain simply another "dwarf religion" - gimmicked on top of the Seattle real estate market? One is skeptical.

The truth will set you free.

What a hypocrite you are! You are indeed utterly and completely ignorant of how typical Christians raise their children, yet you make sweeping generalizations and absurd, absolute statements such as "As in any household where religion has a great influence, kids have very little latitude to make choices for themselves where religion is concerned. This is true of any churchgoing family, not just this particular group." As in any household??!! Pray tell, how do you come by this information? Did you take a poll? Did you camp out in numerous Christian backyards and observe the Christian animals abusing their children?

Or do you simply consider all raising of children to abide by household rules "coerced religion"? Because I can tell you, my father had strict rules, and he made us follow them, yet my family was utterly irreligious. How can this be? An irreligious houshold that coerces its children? It was also dysfunctional. Imagine that. A dysfunctional family without the aid of religion Whoda thunk it? Coersion, dysfunctionality, It must be Christian!

I can also tell you that I, on the other hand am very familiar with how typical Christians raise their children, because I have been a part of mainstream Christianity for 30 years. I can also tell you that, outside extremes (flat topped, red necked, shotgun toting, spinning eyed totalitarians are NOT the norm in Christianity regardless of what you think), the Christian people we know, by and far raise their children in stable, fair, and involved homes. They also have a basis and definition of right and wrong that the secular world does not, and cannot ever have. So from a person that actually knows to a person that obviously does not, I can tell you that you are wrong.

Now for the hypocrisy: Teen depression, suicide, pregnancy, drug use, drop out rates, profanity, crime, lack of respect, narcissism, aimlessness. You think secular society is doing better than Christian society? I beg to differ. We home-schooled our children. Contrary to popular belief, homeschoolers are hardly under-socialized. The group of peers that our kids (still - they are in college now) hang out with are nicer, more well adjusted, have greater direction and self esteem, communicate with and respect older people far better than any peer group I ever hung out with as a kid. No one, and I mean no one we know has ever required their children to do anything more than obey rules and adhere to their particular family norms, which by the way, has nothing to do with religion. Some of these kids grow up to be of the same conviction as their parents and some not. None are shunned.

Before you point your finger at some group with clear, consistent, historical direction and foundational standards and call them unfair or incompetent to raise children you had better closely examine what the groups that have no such structure have produced.

Best wishes,

Poco