mark driscoll woman is whore

mark driscoll woman is whore cartoon drawing by nakedpastor david hayward

I had this lined up for tomorrow morning, but some things just can’t wait.

Mark Driscoll again exposes his deep issues with women in his post about Esther. Here’s a quote:

Feminists have tried to cast Esther’s life as a tragic tale of male domination and female liberation. Many evangelicals have ignored her sexual sin and godless behavior to make her into a Daniel-like figure, which is inaccurate. Some have even tried to tie her story in with modern-day, sex-slave trafficking as she was brought before the powerful king as part of his harem. What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying.

It’s interesting how he easily casts her into “sexual sin and godless behavior”. But I also like how he suggests that we’ll know the truth, finally, after he finishes studying and praying. Please hurry!

I’d rather read Rachel Held Evans’ take on it.

About David Hayward

David Hayward runs the blog nakedpastor as a graffiti artist on the walls of religion where he critiques religion… specifically Christianity and the church. He also runs the online community The Lasting Supper where people can help themselves discover, explore and live in spiritual freedom.

  • Mike

    I’m sure we will all anxiously await his prophesy. Anytime I see a youtube of this guy my stomach turns.

  • Simon

    Its sad to see how much of a negative view he seems to innately have of women, especially when one doesn’t fit into his little box of what a woman is meant to be like. What’s even sadder is that there are people for whom his views are gospel…

  • http://blog.desaba.net Happy

    Please… Esther is amazing. That book shows God at work behind the scene and showcases a brave young woman’s life. What a jerk!

  • Valerie

    Seems I need to reread Esther…I don’t remember reading the same book he is disparaging.

  • Jeannie

    This guy is a fascinating case for a student of psychology. As one who is working on her psychology degree, I always find him interesting – and tragic. Mostly I feel for the people who are profoundly effected by his views. He, Pat Robertson, and so many others, for so many reasons, just need to shut the hell up.

  • shary

    Looks like another oppressive cult in the making.

  • Pat Pope

    Well, since he says that he’s “still studying and praying”, seems like it would have been better not to open his mouth at all, or just to say something like, “Looking forward to a sermon series on Esther”.

  • Tiggy

    Jesus would surely have held the traditional Jewish view of Esther – that she was a great heroine and saved the Jewish people.

  • Julie

    What the???? Sexual sin and godless behaviour, what ‘bible’ is he reading? You have to get me all stirred up with an MD quote don’t ya…

  • Samuel Post

    Sorry David, I think you stretch a little too far here. Mark Driscoll is not my ideal pastor or Christian leader by a long shot. Not even in the ball park. But, I’ve looked at the trailer and read what he has written about this series and I just am not yet reading it as negatively as you apparently are doing. I truly think that you are taking his remarks (that you lifted and reprinted) out of context when compared with his entire comments on the stud (if I should be pissed when the Romney camp does just this sort of thing with Obama’s comments, should I not likewise feel offended when same thing happens to some one whom I do not particularly approve i.e. Mark Driscoll). In all fairness, it seems to me that his point was not that women are whores but rather that this one woman, who may have (could be viewed as ) been a sinner/fallen woman/whore could none the less be an instrument of the divine. After all, forever, preachers have been sermonizing on God’s use of King David to fulfill his divine will, David all the while being one of the greatest of sinners, adulterer and murderer that he was. And no one has ever lamented or condemned such as disparaging of men. Now what come next with this series may bear fruit as to your assessment of Mark Driscoll. But, shouldn’t we at least wait to see if he commits this sin before we cast stones.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    Hi Samuel. Ya, we can wait and see. But it is interesting to me that Mark Driscoll can NEVER be quoted. Have you noticed that? When one quotes him to critique him, one is always accused of taking it out of context. He should be more careful about what he says if he really doesn’t believe it.

  • Mike

    One should read some of the stories from women who have left his church is one is in need of some extra “context”

  • Gary

    Well Samuel Post, Mark Driscoll did say she had “sexual sin and Godless behavior”. Of course the actual story says absolutely no such thing. Yes King David was a sinner used by God…but the text is profoundly clear on his sin of adultery and murder and God’s rebuke of such. The parallel you attempt to make is therefor a straw man argument.

    Mark Driscoll is an abusive ass with a well documented track record of abusive preaching, teaching, and so called church discipline. His views about women are very well known so it is hardly surprising to see him read them into the Esther story as he has clearly done here.

  • gio

    this guy…..should seriously shut up…..I saw a debate between him and some hindu teacher, and another man who was questioning his Christian faith, and his every word seem to be bathed in arrogant fundamentalism….ugh…..

  • cass

    I have to wonder which God he is praying to? makes me think of this passage John 8:42-47

  • http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/ Mara

    I was disappointed but not surprised to see Mark Driscoll whorify Esther. It is true, he believes that women ARE whores.

    He twists the Song of Solomon past the point of breaking to make women their husbands’ personal whores.
    And in their book, Real Marriage, Mark makes his wife, Grace, bear the load of guilt for the problems in their marriage while he slides through and uses the Songs to turn himself into a hero, a savior.

    Now Mark believes that he gets to decide that Esther is a whore, that SHE is the problem, rather than the pagan king who basically owns her and her exiled people.

    Way to go, Mark. Way to wrongly divide the Word of truth based on the darkness of your own perversions and insecurities… again.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Goodness gracious, where has the Old Testament been all this time. Do the patriarchs and their families not commit blunder after blunder? Are they not loved solely out of mercy and grace and because of God’s word and promise in covenant. Is it not HE who is faithful?–?????????

    By the way, Luther on Esther seems to likely have been Luther on Esdras, a book he relegated to Apocrypha section. (James Swan had a lot about that with Catholics on BeggersAll. I forget all the details.) I don’t want to see him pulled in here against Esther. Esther has been problematic because, yes, God is not mentioned, there is nothing in there about the Messiah coming, but it’s not because Esther is a slut, or anything like that.

  • Kris

    The view towards women is so schizophrenic in fundamentalist Christianity. We are these wonderful “life-givers” who keep the human race going but on the other hand we are whores (or prudes) and have to not only control our urges but those of men. Sex is bad when not married but all of a sudden becomes good the moment you get married. Rape is really not that big of a deal b/c we as women somehow ask for it; remember guys cannot control their urges…ughh it just makes me so mad.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Sex is bad when not married for many reasons, Kris. Not the least of which are STD’s which are rampant, abortion, which is rampant, men who won’t support their families but indulge their tastes only, children without fathers living in poverty, which is rampant, broken hearts and dreams. It is always the female which suffers more under these faithless conditions, often losing health, wealth, fertility and hope, getting stuck with losers and abusers. The “free love” thing is backwards. This is why sex is good in marriage. It is a good design, though we mess it up lots, too.

  • Gary

    No Brigitte…you seem to be confusing a whole host of things with sex. Contrary to fundamentalist dogma…there is no “sex only in marriage” ethic taught in the bible. There is, however, a clear ethic of responsible loving behavior in all aspects of life…including sex.

  • Kris

    There are plenty of unmarried couples who are happy and faithful and having sex and not spreading STDs, using birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies and are doing emotionally well. And many of them consider themselves Christian. I went to church with many couples who were living together and I am not endorsing promiscuity. I am pointing out the confusion we create about sex. We need to be honest about the fact that it feels good and how irresponsible behavior is what causes these things. Having sex, married or not, is not inherently responsible.

  • Kimberly

    When can we finally call him out as the hateful heretic he is? Thank you David though for shining a light on his anti Christ-like behavior.

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    Not only is Kris right that many not-legally-married couples are NOT doing these things (including ones who have only ever had each other as sexual partners), but that marriage prevents NONE of those things – many married people get STDs, have abortions, are abondoned and live in poverty and have their hearts and dreams broken. Many wives (and husbands) are deserted by their legally-married spouse “often losing health, wealth, fertility and hope, getting stuck with losers and abusers” – the getting stuck part even more so when actually married.

    Sex has risks. ALWAYS. That’s part of life. There are responsible ways to mitigate the risk, which marriage can help, but which some unmarried people as well as anyone and some married people do very badly indeed.

  • shelly

    @Kimberly: Many a person do call him out as a hateful heretic. But the ones who need to start doing so — the ones who have as much influence and clout as Driscoll does — remain silent. :(

  • Mike

    Is Mark Driscoll out of his mind? Where does this stuff come from? Who is he angry with? God? Women? Or himself? Why do partiarchal men like him believe women are whores? Does he hate women or is he an angry closeted gay man who can’t face himself? I just don’t get it.

  • Bene D

    You captured the Driscoll smirk well David.

    Blog on!

  • Beth

    What I see as the real problem is if people confuse Driscoll as thinking as a’Christian.’ He has Word of Faith leanings. Word of Faith has been declared a cult by people with more credentials than me. As WOF is not a Christian faith, when Christians discuss his thinking, we have to take into consideration he has a not-Christian bias.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Of course, we know that there are successful common-law marriages and unsuccessful legal marriages. That’s not the point.

    “Free Love” is a movement from previous centuries and I read the wikipedia entry on it last night. Quite interesting. What stuck with me was the story of Nietzsche who also promoted the concept of Free Love but then proposed marriage to a lady also involved in the movement — but was stung by her refusal and rebuke. She called him hypocritical for advocating free love but then proposing marriage. It made me think of the leaders of such movement we have who are actually involved in traditional marriage. Is it not incongruous to advocate, condone, allow for various sexual practices and pairings but treasure for yourself the comparative stability of traditional marriage?

  • Gary

    “Is it not incongruous to advocate, condone, allow for various sexual practices and pairings but treasure for yourself the comparative stability of traditional marriage?”

    Why? How can it possibly be incongruous to have a belief in freedom of choice and also have a personal preference? In fact…the belief in such freedom is the perfect ally of personal choice.

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    That’s not the point? Brigitte, you made it *your* point when you claimed that preventing those bad things was the reason why sex before marriage is bad. Obviously, that’s diesn’t conform to reality. You were the only one suggesting otherwise.

    And to say that there are only two options: 1. some “Free Love” movement you googled and 2. legal marriage is blatantly absurb. There are, obviously, many different ways in which people approach love, sex and marriage.

    What one *can* be in favour of is allowing people to make their own choices and providing them with the options that allow them to make choices they believe in and help them in finding their own sexual and mental health. Marriage of whatever kinds because one of the options that helps achieve this and that one can take personal advantage of.

    In contrasting choice and “traditional” marriage (whatever that really means… buying multiple women as property might be most traditional…), you assume that advocating for choice is the same as endangering people by making it less likely they will chose the “right” path. You assume one is safe and that advocates of choice secretly know this but don’t care enough about others to push them toward that path. I didn’t marry because it was “safe”, I did it because (and here’s the hard part…) I wanted to.

    In fact, people are going to make their own choices. Period. They can have the tools to live responsibly and healthily with those choices, or they can be endangered by denying them options.

  • Nick Bulbeck

    David – more than anything else, what disturbs and frustrates me in the quote you began with is the last two sentences:

    What’s the truth? We will see, as I’m still studying and praying.

    This is not an isolated quote; it represents a mindset that this highly influential speaker and marketeer often manifests. Namely, the last word on scripture is his. Others may have their personal opinions and agendas, but he alone truly teaches it “as it is”.

    Jeannie – this might be linked to your psychology degree. I suppose this has already occurred to you, but isn’t the really instructive case-study not the man himself, but the movement that has grown up around him? How does a young man with little understanding of scripture carve such an influential teaching career? How does he convince so many people that he represents faithful “biblical” orthodoxy, using no more than proof by assertion? (Turning that around, you might say that his success demonstrates the power of proof by assertion.) I could go on, of course.

  • JD

    We do know that he thinks women should always be subservient to men.

    Out of curiosity, does Driscoll denigrate the patriarch Abraham or King Solomon for their sexual sins? You don’t have to “read into” the texts to know. Abraham a wife and also a women he had sex with to get an illegitimate son. Jacob (Israel) had four wives. King David committed adultery with a woman and had her husband killed to take her as his own. Solomon supposedly had 1000 wives & concubines combined. So how is Esther’s alleged sexual sin so bad when he seems mute on these men?

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    Reminds me of a nasty comic strip spoofing comics artist Frank Miller (300, Sin City, Dark Knight) who had a similar rep. Every panel of the strip, Miller had a thought balloon which almost filled the top of the panel: “WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES WHORES…”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X