PT Barnum used to say "There's a sucker born every minute"...maybe that applies to our born-again citizens too...but that's another discussion.

I'm one of these cynics the author refers to, so here's my take on all of this. This is probably just another flash in the pan, because you can only fool some people for so long before women wise up after spitting out a dozen children and say "Gee, my life is f'ing impossible to tolerate."

I get the distinct impression that folks like Driscoll feel that the only solution to the godlessly of America is to breed it out...geez, where did he get this idea from? Sounds like something from King Edward the Longshanks in Braveheart...next thing you know, ol' Driscoll will be calling for Primae Nocta from his flock...

However, I for one will not give in to this line of thinking and get into a "breeding war" so that more enlightened folks like myself populate this earth. The fact is, Mother Nature is slowly trying to cull-out the human race as a species, so breeding more Christian nuts the way Driscoll wants is just more grist for the mill.

If they want to inherit this earth, I say let them have it. If they live long enough, then they can go fight the Islamic jihadists and take control of the oil fields...maybe the sane folks among this country will benefit from cheaper gas. Opps, sorry...should have realized that "they" will also be the executives running the oil companies by then, lining their pockets at everyone else's expense.

Let's just sit back and see how long it takes for Driscoll's flock to sell-out to the Man. It happened to the hippie generation that had great plans to change our world in the 70's, and look where it got us...

Sorry, I could not get thru the first page of this article, it made me hork my latte up!

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.