Driscoll disses Calvin, plus Esther, Vashti & Lisbeth

Driscoll disses Calvin, plus Esther, Vashti & Lisbeth January 12, 2012

The Rev. Mark Driscoll has taken his all-American style of d-bag theology to the UK, telling British Christians to “man-up.”

Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.

Well, I suppose N.T. Wright might not count as young, but …

Young men, Driscoll says, won’t go to church in Britain because it’s nothing more than “guys in dresses preaching to grandmas.”

Somehow that made me think of Slim Charles lecturing his soldiers in The Wire for violating the Sunday truce by shooting the hat off of Omar’s grandmother.

Joel Watts at Unsettled Christianity has a more pertinent reaction. He notes that the neo-Calvinist Driscoll, by mocking robes and vestments as supposedly effeminate, apparently doesn’t realize John Calvin’s role in that tradition.

* * * * * * * * *

Calulu: “The Barbie Syndrome: Interchangeable Fundamentalist Wives Easily Replaced by the New Model

Sarah Styles Bessey: “Gratefully, Disillusioned

John Shore: “An Open Letter From Christians to Gay People

… we try to avoid physical and sexual.” (The key word there is “try.”)

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer: The solution to sexual assault is to get rid of all the victims.

* * * * * * * * *

Rachel Held Evans: “Esther and Vashti: The Real Story

In their attempts to try and bend the stories of an ancient near eastern culture to fit into the dynamics of a modern-day, Western, nuclear family, [these evangelical authors] have dismissed the actual story of Vashti and Esther and replaced it with one of their own making.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the Bible was written at a time in history when most women were owned by their husbands.

Technically speaking, it is biblical for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt (Exodus 21:7), biblical for her to be forced to marry her rapist (Exodus 22:16-17), biblical for her to remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), biblical for her to cover her head (1 Corinthians 11:6), and biblical for her to be one of many wives (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).

With this in mind, I don’t know anyone who is actually advocating a return to biblical womanhood. What most in the “biblical womanhood” movement are advocating instead is a return to the June Cleaver culture of pre-feminist America,  a culture that looked nothing like that  of Vashti and Esther, Leah and Rachel, Tamar and Bathsheba, Mary and Martha.

Sarah Sentilles: “The Harlot Shall Be Burned with Fire: Biblical Literalism in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The plot revolves around a missing girl and the serial killer believed to have murdered her who uses the Bible like a handbook. He takes passages from Leviticus — 21:9 for example: “The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire” — and enacts them on women’s bodies. On Jewish women’s bodies.

… I must admit that part of me is relieved to have these disturbing passages out in public. These bloody verses that insist women be punished with violent death — often for perceived or imagined sexual transgressions — are usually overlooked, downplayed, skipped over, ignored. Most people like to pretend they aren’t really in the text. Especially people who claim to take the Bible literally.

Passages like these should render biblical literalism impossible.

* * * * * * * * *

Warren Throckmorton: “Alan Chambers: 99.9% have not experienced a change in their orientation

Alan Chambers is president of Exodus International, an organization that long billed itself as an “ex-gay ministry.” In December, the conservative World magazine awarded Chambers its “Daniel of the Year” title for having “the strength to stand up against ungodly trends.”

World’s cover story on the award said:

But there’s something that angers Chambers’ opponents as much as his belief that homosexuality is wrong: His message that homosexuals can change. That’s not a new teaching in evangelical Christianity, but it might be one of the most radically unpopular messages in America today.

Pressed on that point at the Gay Christian Network on Friday, Chambers himself said this:

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could  never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.

Throckmorton asks: “Will this news be reported by Christian media, or become part of the evangelical blackout?

B. I’m answering, “B.: It will become part of the evangelical blackout.”

"The only recent work with a defense attorney for a protagonist that I can think ..."

The republic for which it stands
"It's hard because they'll want to talk clobber verses and you can dismantle those all ..."

The republic for which it stands
"In my experience, people like that don’t make a distinction between being a Christian and ..."

The republic for which it stands
"I remember watching one where Takei was one of the characters, who provided important information ..."

The republic for which it stands

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I don’t want to feed Mark Driscoll’s trolling here, but ‘muscular Christianity’ actually has a long (and unfortunate) history over here (in Britain, that is), and we have lots of young and vigorous evangelical leaders. Not to mention that probably a majority of evangelicals in Britain are in free churches or denominations that don’t have vestments, so… huh? Couldn’t Driscoll have done some research before coming over? But I suppose he was called to lead, not to read.

  • Also, Driscoll himself probably isn’t so much ‘known’ across America as he’s ‘infamous’, so it may well be a good thing there isn’t a young British evangelical of similar prominence. (But many of greater wisdom.)

  • I don’t want to feed Mark Driscoll’s trolling here, but ‘muscular
    Christianity’ actually has a long (and unfortunate) history over here
    (in Britain, that is), and we have lots of young and vigorous
    evangelical leaders.

    Yes, but Driscoll’s ignorance is your fault.

    Actually, that pretty much sums up Mark Driscoll in one sentence.

  • On Shore’s post…..while I appreciate the ultimate sentiment of “we Christians have wronged gay people(*) and we need to make things right with you,” I feel it falls into the same trap as most such apologies:  It spends too much time explaining why Christians have wronged gay people, which quickly starts sounding like making excuses and rationalization.

    I’m glad that Christians are trying to understand why they — both individually and collectively — have hurt QUILTBAG people in the past.  It’s probably necessary for them to explore that question, as the answers will likely lead to further awareness of just what changes Christians need to make.  However, Christians need those answers, not we QUILTBAG people.  We need Christians to stop hurting us and do what they can to undo the harm they have caused us.  Christians would do well to keep that extra information to themselves, otherwise they run the risk out of making their apology and the restoration process about themselves rather than about the people they hurt.

    (*)  Let’s not forget the bisexual people, the trans* people, the intersex people, or the asexual people, either.

  • Anonymous

    This needs to be brought up every time that this person is acknowledged to still exist: Mark Driscoll is an embarrassment to men, Christians, the United States of America, MMA, and the human race, in no particular order. (I’m sure that I’m missing many categories here.) I haven’t seen such trolling delight in being a dishonorable, loudly wrong pile of shit since Ann Coulter was popular.

  • Xian-x

    “What most in the ‘biblical womanhood’ movement are advocating…is a return to the June Cleaver culture of pre-feminist America…”

    In The New American Family, Jerry Falwell explicitly identified 1950s television (not the bible) as providing his ideal for the family.

  • However, Christians need those answers, not we QUILTBAG people.  We need Christians to stop hurting us and do what they can to undo the harm they have caused us. 
    Christians would do well to keep that extra information to themselves,
    otherwise they run the risk out of making their apology and the
    restoration process about themselves rather than about the people they
    hurt.

    This is a key point.

    A long apology with no behavioral change is really nothing but extended self-justification and a bit of self-congratulation.  It’s utterly meaningless without some sort of action.

    I think, though, that this particular problem is one that’s rooted in certain branches of Christianity, rather than being simply indicative of a lack of desire to change.  Basically, if salvation is through faith rather than by works, all you have to do is say, “I’m sorry I messed up,” every single time you mess up.  Then, y’know, Jesus.

    Since a certain subset of Christians is accustomed to just saying, “Sorry,” then getting out of jail free with Jesus it wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover they think they can do it with anything.

  • Anonymous

    I’m just going to say it, Mark Driscoll strongly carries the sense of a man who as a youth, was flipping through a Sports Illustrated and got an erection looking at a picture of an athlete, and so has been over compensating ever sense. What a repulsive, stupid man. 

  • Madhabmatics

    Sounds like someone just needs to “man up” and “get a face tattoo like mike tyson”

  • Anonymous

    The vast majority of Brits believe that a person’s faith is a matter between him or herself and God, and that there is no room for the likes of Mark Driscoll in that relationship. A bully waving a Bible is still a bully.

  • Anonymous

    (As a bisexual Christian, I long for the day when people can use QUILTBAG and Christian as non-mutually exclusive terms.)

    Mark Driscoll is one of those dudes at whom I’m always torn between rage and laughter. On the one hand, his message is repulsive, infuriating, horrible, and inhuman, and he is wrapping it in the Gospel of Love. On the other hand, he’s such a moron it’s hard to take even his worst statements seriously.

    Stuff like this falls under ‘ridiculous,’ but it can be hard to remember that he is trending towards ‘inhuman.’ It’s like Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. I’d be upset at their latest idiocy, but I’m too busy laughing.

  • Twig

    I would highly, highly recommend reading the chapter in “Swish: My Quest to Become the Gayest Person Ever” by Joel Derfner about his experiences at an ex-gay retreat weekend.  He comes to it as a gay man wondering who could want to be in such a self-hating situation and comes out of it with some really surprising and complicated thoughts and experiences. 

    The whole book’s pretty great, IMO, but that chapter especially is worth the time.

  • To be honest, it read well to me. I did like it. Too few times it’s been that someone of the dominant faith in North America has stood up and said, “What we’ve been doing is wrong.”

    Well, Shore’s done that and for that, I’ll be happy.

  • Mary Kaye

    In religion there is a temptation to change your  message to one that will be good for recruitment.  In science there is an analogous temptation to direct your science toward what will be good for funding, fame, or tenure.  In both cases you may “succeed” in terms of getting recruits, funding, fame, etc.–but it’s a near guarantee that you are moving away from what was *supposed* to be your goal, namely getting closer to the truth.

    The amazing thing about Driscoll is how far he’s willing to go down that road.  The only analogy I see in modern science is the guys who work for the tobacco companies–I mean, it’s really amazing to hear a purportedly Christian preacher complain that Jesus is not macho enough.

  • Am I a terrible cynic for thinking that there probably ARE people ACTUALLY advocating a return to biblical womanhood?  Ownership & all?  & lots more who realize that is what they are ACTUALLY advocating for, but pretend they “just” want a June Cleaver?

  • Heartfout

    I read the title of this post as “Discord disses Calvin”, which I shall take as a sign from my body that it is time to stop trying to do fourier transformations and go to bed.
     

  • Lori

     
    Mark Driscoll is one of those dudes at whom I’m always torn between rage and laughter. On the one hand, his message is repulsive, infuriating, horrible, and inhuman, and he is wrapping it in the Gospel of Love. On the other hand, he’s such a moron it’s hard to take even his worst statements seriously.  

     

    If you’re just looking at Driscoll then the correct response is clearly “point & laugh”. Unfortunately, between 7500-11000 people attend his church each week, presumably because they buy his shtick. There is nothing funny about that. 

  • ako

    The solution to sexual assault is to get rid of all the victims.

    I expect that he’d claim that he’s getting rid of the perpetrators of male-on-male assault and the victims of male-on-female assault (because when men treat women badly, the answer is to punish women).  He’s not – the vast majority of men who sexually assault other men are straight men who show no sign of interest in consensual sex with other men.  But the whole EEEVIL Gay Rapist idea is way too convenient for him not to embrace.

    Passages like these should render biblical literalism impossible.

    They should.  I’ve noticed that there are a few places where even the die-hard biblical literalists balk (mention the bits about rape in Deuteronomy and even self-proclaimed literalists will start talking about historic context and broader principles and taking the language to mean something other than what a literal interpretation of the KJV text would suggest, rather than go “Yes, I think that if a woman is raped in the city, she should marry her rapists if she’s a virgin and be killed if she’s betrothed”, because that’s too horrible).

    But one of the major features of modern biblical literalism is denial of how selective it is, so not a lot of people are going to wake up and go “If the literal interpretation is clearly morally wrong here, we should really look at these other areas and try to determine if a non-literal interpretation is the better choice with these passages as well.”

  • Anonymous

    I suppose you’re right. But I find the best way to deal with that sort of hateful nonsense is still to point and laugh– just, louder. That is, among other reasons, why I wear Coyote as a name. Laughter can be such a powerful weapon, especially against the powerful. I figure, we can weep for the fact that nobody* cared about the 9/11 heroes dying for their heroism until Jon Stewart launched a continual attack in their defense… or we can stand up, take notes, and join him.

    But you are right. The stuff is ridiculous and absurd– but because so many people apparently don’t realize how ridiculous this drivel is, it becomes dangerous.

    *By which, of course, I mean nobody Important**.
    **By which, of course, I mean nobody in Washington DC.

  • vsm

    Incidentally, I find the ways Stieg Larsson’s novels’ titles have been translated fascinating. In Swedish, the first novel is known as Män som hatar kvinnor, literally “Men who Hate Women”. Most translators seem to have thought it good enough and kept the idea, while the German translation went with “Blindness” (in the figurative sense), which is pretty generic. The English translation toned down aggressive title of the original, going with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. The model apparently came from the second novel, whose title was indeed literally “The Girl who Played with Fire”. The naming convention was extended to the third book, “The Girl who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest” (the original used passive voice and an idiomatic expression with somewhat different connotations).

    It seems the publishers wanted to emphasize the Lisbeth character in their marketing by making the books all about her, which probably wasn’t a bad decision. Interestingly, they also choose to refer to her as a girl, despite her being an adult. The original did not necessarily do this, as the second novel’s title refers to an event that did indeed take place in her childhood. Thus, the English-speaking world gets more focus on the strong but infantilized heroine while avoiding what might sound like angry feminism.

  • I was tempted to leave a comment on the apology to gay people to the effect of,

    Dear Christians,
    We’ll see.
    -The gays

    But I figure someone probably beat me to it. I didn’t think I had the stomach to read through 600 comments’ worth of argument about whether the apology was misguided in order to see if someone had posted that already.

  • Lori

     
    I suppose you’re right. But I find the best way to deal with that sort of hateful nonsense is still to point and laugh– just, louder. That is, among other reasons, why I wear Coyote as a name. Laughter can be such a powerful weapon, especially against the powerful. I figure, we can weep for the fact that nobody* cared about the 9/11 heroes dying for their heroism until Jon Stewart launched a continual attack in their defense… or we can stand up, take notes, and join him. 

     

    I understand completely. Snark is my personal weapon of choice about 95% of the time. I think it’s worth noting though that in the case of the 9/11 first responders even Jon Stewart wasn’t all about the humor. He was pissed and it showed. 

  • Anonymous

    I will never be able to find this passage again, but there is a disagreement about the priest’s daughter in the Gemara, where some of the rabbis believe the law is literally that you burn the girl, and others disagree.

    One of the burners places his argument on a specific letter used in the text, and one of his opponents retorts, “And because of where the letter is, you want to burn the girl?”

  • I wish that I could laugh at Mark Driscoll.  But whenever I think of him, my blood boils, my fists tighten, my eyes narrow, and I thirst to cause harm.  In such a state, the only thing I want to do is fight him, beat him, hurt him, preferably where his over-inflated congregation can see. 

    I feel this way because I know that nothing I say to him, no amount of reason, will ever change him.  He is a bully, and my experience has taught me that the only thing bullies respect is force.  It is all that they know, and it is the only method by which I could possibly get through to him. 

    He thinks he is some tough guy taking on all challengers.  But he only thinks that because he lives in a society in which personal assault results in legal sanctions.  I want him to eat his words.  I want to make him eat his words, and I want his congregation to realize that speaking forcefully does not equate to fortitude of character. 

  • FangsFirst

    Thus, the English-speaking world gets more focus on the strong but
    infantilized heroine while avoiding what might sound like angry
    feminism.

    I had a very snarky friend back at Borders who thought the idea of those books being feminist was hilarious…I was inclined to agree from what I know.

    But I’ve been warned very seriously against reading those books, so that is only from synopses and encapsulations.

  • Twig

    Girl also has one syllable, while woman has two.  It sounds small and unimportant but it really does have more punch with the one syllable.

    Same reason I’ve never been able to deal with ‘Batwoman.’  Too many syllables.

  • Dan Audy

    I’m glad that Christians are trying to understand why they — both
    individually and collectively — have hurt QUILTBAG people in the past. 
    It’s probably necessary for them to explore that question, as the
    answers will likely lead to further awareness of just what changes
    Christians need to make.  However, Christians need those answers, not we
    QUILTBAG people.  We need Christians to stop hurting us and do what they can to undo the harm they have caused us. 
    Christians would do well to keep that extra information to themselves,
    otherwise they run the risk out of making their apology and the
    restoration process about themselves rather than about the people they
    hurt.

    Not that it makes it ok, but I take it as a positive sign.  When many people finally become aware of priviledge and the harms it causes (for me this was when feminism really sunk in) they start to talk about what caused them to act in that priviledged way in the first place.  It is still really all about them but it is a step closer to not just being aware of it but actually taking action based on that fact.

  • ako

    I read the first book.  I got a very male-fantasy vibe that put me off completely.  (I do know a number of people that loved them.)

  • I’m glad you liked it, even gladder you recommended it, and gladdest of all that the complexities of my experience there came through in the writing.

    (To everybody else:  I agree.  The whole book is pretty great.)

  • FangsFirst

    Someone I know gave a copy to a survivor friend of hers (and mine…hence the “Yeah, don’t read that”) with a whole page scribbled out with permanent marker. Which I know because said mutual friend told me about it, and that zie’d already read it unknowingly. So it just became triggering anyway. I had been too late passing on the advice I’d gotten unfortunately.

    I wanted to punch said friend in the face. Even though I understood the point was probably “Look, it will make you feel good because she gets revenge!”
    But failing to get the point that your own “solution” doesn’t necessarily work for someone who actually dealt with it…sigh.

    I’d been given the impression that it carries the implication of “Yeah she’s a strong female character!…because she was sexually assaulted.” Which wouldn’t be a new idea, after all, so it’s not unbelievable.

    (My mom, on the other hand, likes the books. I stick with Jo Nesbø if I want Scandinavian crime novels. He doesn’t feel the need to be gratuitous about sexual assault.)

  • hapax

    I want him to eat his words.  I want to make him eat his words,
    and I want his congregation to realize that speaking forcefully does not
    equate to fortitude of character.

    Umm.  I can understand the sentiment, but do you realize how frightening and potentially triggering your comment is?

    Because honestly, even though I’m not the target, I felt the visceral need to cringe and hide when I read your words.

    I suspect that if you got your wish, what that congregation would “realize” is that the biggest bully wins, not anything about tolerance or respect.

  • ako

    I’d been given the impression that it carries the implication of
    “Yeah she’s a strong female character!…because she was sexually
    assaulted.” Which wouldn’t be a new idea, after all, so it’s not
    unbelievable.

    I didn’t get that impression, more that there was a rather weird idea of how strong female characters are supposed to react to sexual assault (not getting too emotional, and making sure to make the guy suffer for what he did – I appreciate a good revenge story targeting rapists as much as anyone, but it fell rather flat for me because it was too long on graphic details of the original assaults and too short on human-seeming reactions, plus if one is to make one’s “The victim makes the rapist pay” fantasies public, one should be careful not to imply that women who manage to get revenge on rapists are just more special and impressive in every way than women who didn’t).  Plus, I got the vibe that a lot of her issues were there to make Blomkvist seem more special and awesome for being able to get close to her.

  • FangsFirst

    one should be careful not to imply that women who manage to get revenge
    on rapists are just more special and impressive in every way than women
    who didn’t).  Plus, I got the vibe that a lot of her issues were there
    to make Blomkvist seem more special and awesome for being able to get
    close to her.

    I guess perhaps that was what was conveyed to me, that I mistook for the above. Same principle in its way: strange misunderstandings of empathy with a victim turned to exceptionalist elevation. And I have heard the “it’s almost in service to Blomkvist, anyway” part as well.

    too short on human-seeming reactions,

    In my quest to NOT ignore the actual feelings of the survivors I know (and thus turn to “yay, I like revenge so you should too!” mentality or any equivalents), this has begun to be the thing that bugs me most sometimes. Depict the brutality or horrific nature of it…then get your character over it really quickly because, gosh, it’s bogging the plot down. Or, you know, can’t we just…move on? Yeah, uh, we wish…

  • hf

    not getting too emotional, and making sure to make the guy suffer for what he did

    That seems strongly tied to Lisbeth Salander’s background and psychological problems. And while I think I see what you mean about Blomkvist, ultimately I have to disagree. The second book makes it clearer that if she didn’t have these issues there would be no story. At least not one we’d understand.

  • hf
  • vsm

    I got a very male-fantasy vibe that put me off completely

    That’s because they originated as precisely that. Larsson was a rather stressed out investigative journalist who wrote the novels as a way to unwind, which is why he had three of them ready when he died. The vibe bothered me too, which is why I could barely finish the first novel. I watched the rest as films to stay vaguely relevant.

  • ako

    Ah.  The first book put me off that I didn’t want to slog through any more, so if the book, so I would have missed all of those bits.  I’m not interested in trying to read any more of those books, but if other people want to give it a try, that’s useful to know.

  • Umm. I can understand the sentiment, but do you realize how frightening and potentially triggering your comment is?

    Because honestly, even though I’m not the target, I felt the visceral need to cringe and hide when I read your words.

    I suspect that if you got your wish, what that congregation would “realize” is that the biggest bully wins, not anything about tolerance or respect.

    With respect, it was intended to be chilling.  It means I got the emotion across.  I apologize if it was triggering though. I am not sure where the threshold of requiring one is in this case.

    What I want his congregation to realize is that Driscoll’s style of “authority” is based not on being “manly” as he claims, but is based on cowardice.  All the evidence suggests he is a coward at heart.  His ham-handed attempts to prove his masculinity, his insistance on controlling his wife, and the fact that he posts security guards at his church, for Christsake.  That kind of desire to dominate suggests someone who is heavily insecure with what he has and who he is, someone who’s own internal sense of self is so fragile he fears someone will come shatter it. 

    And shatter it is what I want to do.  I want to rip away the cloak he conceals himself behind, to yank down the curtain and expose the charlatan behind the giant green head.  Let his congregation see him for what he truely is, a sniveling little wretch hiding behind a facade of machismo.

  • And shatter it is what I want to do.  I want to rip away the cloak
    he conceals himself behind, to yank down the curtain and expose the
    charlatan behind the giant green head.  Let his congregation see him for
    what he truely is, a sniveling little wretch hiding behind a facade of
    machismo.

    Does that usually work? I mean, it seems to me if that someone beat or humiliated my pastor (or someone else that I cared about, venerated, and respected for most of my life) in front of me, I would be more likely to rally around him than the invader. The problem with Driscoll isn’t that he’s physically weak, cowardly, or timid. The problem is that he’s a controlling bigot. Beating him up isn’t going to prove that he’s wrong; all it would do is prove that you (or whoever it is who does attack him) is physically more powerful… which doesn’t mean a damn thing.

    Might doesn’t really make right.

  • FearlessSon, I get that you actively dislike many right-wing politicians as well as their fundamentalist compatriots.

    Thing is, though, is as much as the idea of bashing Driscoll’s face in might be personally satisfying, one just can’t go around using force to get what one wants if there are any alternatives at all*.

    The USA, at least still nominally, counts itself a country that respects freedom of speech and thought. As such, nobody has to beat him up to prove him wrong; he can be proven wrong with words.

    It would, I suppose, be different if he were in a position of power in a theocratic dictatorship that actively employed the police and military to suppress dissent, but the USA isn’t there yet by a long shot.

    * War, and violence, should be a very last resort. As such I think the politicians in the 1930s who have since been 20/20-labelled as “appeasers of Hitler” were simply understanding the very real fears of that time; the last major war in Europe had only been twenty years before – not old enough to yet to be considered ancient history by any stretch – and plunging their countries into yet another Europe-wide war was not looked upon with any appetite.

    That said, when it finally became clear Hitler would not be moved without force of arms, those nations that could, did oppose his armies and were entirely right to do it.

    A related example might be the Yugoslav breakup. It could easily have ended peacefully, but roused passions on the Serb and Croat sides led to an entirely pointless conflict that ended with status quo ante bellum, except for UN control over Bosnia.

  • With respect, I think that you are misrepresenting my desire to beat up Driscoll.  I do not wish to beat someone up simply because I disagree with them.  That would be barbaric and stupid.  I can engage with people that I disagree with, debate them, compromise, seek to understand and be made understood.  This is how things should ideally be. 

    Driscoll though is not someone with whom such a response would be productive.  Yes, he is a controlling bigot.  But more particularly than that, he is one who has based his authority and identity off a few core principals.  Namely, that those who would rather talk and debate than dominate through force of personality are weak, deserving only of his scorn.  Further, that he is strong, a tough guy who can speak the truth, and those offended by it do nothing because he is too “strong” for them to retaliate against. 

    By attacking him, I seek to undermine those principals.  To put the lie to them where others can see.  I want him to beg for his life, cry, and plead, not because I take sadistic joy, but because it runs contrary to what he has based his persona off of.  Anything less and he would just ignore it, use it as fodder to reinforce his illusion of being strong. 

    I go to my death willingly for my belief, will he do the same for his?