I was just reading Women’s Space and she critiqued some of Mark Driscoll’s blog writing. Cheryl writes:

You know, Driscoll is unapologetically, openly demonizing women here. There is no discussion at all in Driscoll’s post about the way men objectify, sexually harrass, sexually approach, rape, molest, sexually assault, “flirt with,” or otherwise harrass women, or of the way men prostitute women, or of any of the reasons why they do. It is all laid at the feet of women, it is all about poor, beleagured Driscoll, protecting himself from teeming hordes of temptresses, shirtless Jezebels, deceivers, sex-crazed single mothers, emotionally needy secretaries, and wives who “let themselves go” once their pastor husbands are “trapped” by the requirements of monogamy. Does he even GET it that it wasn’t women Haggard lusted after, it was men? Beyond that, I think he’s bragging, and even threatening, especially in light of his throw down about “taking one for the team on this,” as though to say, “You women better shape up, because we men can only hold out so long.”

It makes me so sad to hear that Mark’s blog has been so hurtful and misogynist. Mark I hope you have listened to some of these voices from the margins that (as Cheryl says) can speak truth to power (injustice).

Rose Mardrid-Swetman a Vineyard pastor (who Cheryl quotes) writes:

Now to the point of the Ted Haggard posts. I am going to assume you have not been totally insulated from the firestorm over your comments such as:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

And then:

Contrary to some who misrepresented my prior blog, Gayle is in no way responsible for the sin of her husband and by all accounts seems to have been a lovely and devoted wife.

These two comments, no matter how you explain them, are an offense to many women, let alone pastors’ wives, and to me personally. Can’t you see how even posting that women have motives such as this — my husband is a pastor so he is trapped into fidelity so I can sit back and let myself go — is offensive? In the second post, you sound patronizing and demeaning of Gayle Haggard calling her “lovely and devoted.” Please don’t call me out as a feminist that does not want to be considered “lovely’ or “devoted” because that is not my issue. The issue is that Ted Haggard’s struggle is homosexuality. It did not seem to matter if Gayle Haggard was the most beautiful, devoted woman, and with her husband the most sexually active woman on the planet, it would not have changed this situation one iota. So for you make this statement in these terms and make it an issue of sexual impropriety, failure, and sin, in my opinion, simply misses the point. It is offensive to talk to men and women this way and certainly reveals something about your character which for this reader seems rather prurient. One of the marks of a great leader, when she or he discovers that they have not faired well under their responsibility to not arbitrarily offend, is to make a public or private apology as the circumstances dictate. Because this was a public statement, it calls for a public apology.

Mark, I am not a pastor, but as a man I support these women’s comments in reference to your blogs. I hope you heed their words. I don’t know how else I can suppot you Cheryl and Rose, but I agree with you.