I often find the historical context under which any religious text is written as much and oftentimes more fascinating than the text itself...in any case the often insightful and engaging symbolism is what fuels most of my curiosity...not faith or disbelief...cause in the end I just cant honestly say that "allah/god/jesus/buddha/" etc have ever "spoken" to me personally and i guess i cant criticise what i dont understand...but in a world ripe with billie holidays "god bless the child" plus camus' "hell is other people..." plus rimbauds "season in hell" plus aldous huxleys "doors of perception + heaven and hell" plus bukowskis "play the piano drunk..." plus the constantines "shine a light" plus van morrisons "and it stoned me" plus carl sagans every word (almost) and bill hicks making me laugh till i cry maybe i was just too distracted by the full, sensual impact of human passion to hear the whispers of any one true and infallible word(s) or law(s) or religion(s)...but i have kept myself pretty busy (some might claim distracted)...but just maybe "I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his own creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence."

"What do Atheists scream when they come?" - Bill Hicks...

later, and thanks for listening and keep the insights coming, everything i had to say about my concerns for these people were articulated (for better or for worse) by J.C.Miller/alarajrogers/ScottyRVA/MontyJohnston/Schaugn/Rob Seaman/BenSen....etc (i think most people with even half a heart just hate to see anyone hurt/taken advantage of and/or duped...and if mars hill is right for you so be it (i would never deny anyone their most personal beliefs/practices)...but some (eschatological) religions and their (quite possibly too literal) interpretations/interpreters can seem somewhat intimidating, divisive and hurtful and often appear to create more psychic dissonance, pain and spiritual isolation (from the rest of the world) than anyone can stand for in these times or any other...) Oh, the pains of living out infinite notions and ideals on a finite world...

rence "king for a day, fool for a lifetime" mccusker

ps. from mr. hicks...

"you know all that money we spend on the military every year - trillions of dollars? Instead, if we use this money to feed and clothe the poor of this world, which it would do many times over, then we can explore space, inner and outer, together, as one race."

Chirp, chirp. Tumbleweed. What's that sound? It's Elizabeth Cady Stanton rolling over her in grave.

Fortunately, God led ME to an Adrienne Rich essay on Jane Eyre.

Jane has to choose between marrying a man she doesn't love and doing good works in the name of God, or staying at home. Being Jane Eyre, she wants to do good works in the name of God, but he cannot bring herself to marry someone she feels does not truly love her. However, she has the utmost respect for the man who is proposing to her, to the point where when he quotes an evil passage of Revelations at her and threatens her with eternal hellfire if she doesn't marry him, her reaction is one of understanding and not anger. Her focus is not on his manipulation but on the legitimate good that she knows he is going to do, and whether or not it is her duty as a Christian woman to submit to his plan for her.

I think women often come up against what Jane Eyre and Judy Abalofya have faced. Adrienne Rich points out that for a deeply spiritual woman, it can be easy to confuse the type of spirituality that a man offers - in both Jane and Judy's cases, this involves assuming a very traditional feminine role - and the deeper and more complicated spirituality that no one can offer anyone else. Sometimes it's just easier to take the road that's already laid out in front of you, even if it means giving up having a say. People take the path of least resistance all the time. Maybe, just maybe, it's easier to feed the baby than it is to tour the world alone. Maybe not. I don't mean to suggest that raising children and keeping a home are not worthy and venerable ways to spend a life. But you have to be crazy not to hear the desperation in Mrs. Abalofya's tone.

In Jane Eyre's case, she actually got a bit of deus ex machina helping her out. Turns out the Lord didn't want her martyring herself out of duty either.

Let's repopulate the world with Jane Eyres, not Judy Abalofyas. Can you imagine being a child in that home - particularly a girl?

Dear Slaney: I WAS the girl that grew up in that home. And a church almost like Mars Hill (except for the hipster exterior.) Your mention of Jane Eyre is very affirming to me. I am going to have to read that again--I don't even remember the part you mentioned.

Dear Timbuktom--I am the weirdo who keeps being curious about what denomination or theological background Driscoll's doctrine came from or if it is a mishmash of doctrines because he sounds so much like church of Christ but some things don't fit. I think you are right--he wants to start his OWN denomination and that's why certain things don't fit. I found a blog where someone had been curious about the same thing and referred to the books for sale on a table being by some orthodox presbyterian known for his strict literal-ness, out of Moscow, Idaho. Forgot the name. But enough about that. I have been listening to some more sermons on podcast. Driscoll is a NASTY piece of work. More about that in the next paragraph.

Lover of People, I completely understand. But I think from listening to the sermons on podcasts, the men in your Mars Hill congregation who are making the effort to be loving, committed husbands and helping around the house and acting more grown-up than the "worldly" guys...I think those guys you describe are more spiritual than Driscoll. I like to think the Gospel and Jesus reach hearts DESPITE people like Driscoll. You go girl, sounds like you and your husband are spiritually more mature than Driscoll and I hope one day you will find a church where the preacher is a bit more sensitive, loving, and spiritually mature. Nothing against you and your husband and any of the couples that are living as you describe--I only hope they all outgrow Driscoll or he grows a lot spiritually (based on my experience in the church of Christ I am not counting on that happening anytime soon.)

I just listened to Driscoll's sermon on "Church Discipline." Here is how Driscoll is like the good ol' church of Christ I grew up in and why I say he is a nasty piece of work. 1) Shunning. Only a few sects in the USA practice formal shunning. Most of the ones that do are the so-called "restorantionist sects." Jehovah's Witness and church of Christ and to a certain extent, Mormon. Amish do too but they are from a different tradition. A lot of people don't know the church of Christ practices shunning because many of them downplay it to appear more inviting. I heard Driscoll preach shunning. 2) Driscoll has a very sarcastic tone and word choice when talking about, for instance, the church member who is annoying or less than perfect. ICK. I am intimately familiar with this tone...but in the Methodist church I attend the tone is completely different. The rules aren't different; the web site says don't be a gossip. However, Driscoll describes a person who was a gossip and Driscoll prides himself on cutting the person dead each time the person tried to apprach him and get his attention--rather than take the person aside and saying, for instance, "Gossip really makes me sad, it's not my thing, the Lord doesnt' want us to be mean-spirited" like I think they would do in a normal denomination. This is just one example. In his inimitable style, Driscoll goes on to snerk that "women's ministries are seedbeds of gossip" It's his tone. It's exactly like the church of christ/International church of Christ. No opportunity is lost to make a supposed-to-be funny put-down of women and the men elbow each other and go heh-heh. I have hard time understanding this atmosphere catching on in Seattle not the deep south. But it caught on all over when the ICOC was in its heyday. But even rather strict denominations don't have to be that way. It's gratuitous. It's attitude.

4) Driscoll's every other word is 'authority.' He disses the "worldly" "modern" egalitarian structure (which right-winger Tom Wolfe praised!) and not in a way like "this has been tried; it doesn't always lead to the best way" but again, in his trademark snarky, sarcastic way. Why do so many people go in for this when there are loving churches preaching almost exactly the same things--commitment, good loving families, etc. -- but not dripping with contempt? is Mars Hill the only congregation some people in that area have ever been to, and they don't know other congregations exist which hvae the good elements but not the Driscoll-type contempt?

I find this fascinating, because I grew up in it...if you want to really be skeeved out, listen to some of the sermons on podcast.