Eric's thoughts

When it comes to men in the church, I think that part of where he was coming from has to do with, like he elluded to, the fact that 40% of church populations are made up of men, and those numbers are declining. Working with youth, it is easy to see why. For the most part we are a generation of boys raised by women who were strong enough to take responsibility when their husbands, or the fathers, would not. For too long many of the men out there have shirked their responsibilities as leaders and the generations that have been, and are being, raised haven't had the right role models. Now we are paying the price.

So I agree with Jill. It has nothing to do with womens roles in the church because they are filling the needs doing so much good that they are not the ones in danger. It is the men who are in trouble and that is what I think Driscol is adressing.

I have to agree with how_I_roll. Driscoll is not at all saying women are irrelevant. I think it's strange that so many took issue with what Driscoll is NOT saying. He is addressing the issue of the church needing to reach men and the fact that they are failing at that NOT the issue of women in the church.

I agree with Aubrie's statement that "Our nation does not rely on just the male population to spread the word of God! If it did we would be in trouble." I think this is exactly what Driscoll is trying to bring attention to, we would be in trouble if it was just up to the men.

As I women I take NO offense in this video at all. If anything it made me, a mom of two boys, want to doeverything possible to make sure my boys grow up to be LEADERS for CHRIST. It also reminded me how thankful I should be to have a husband who does just that!

also, driscol didn't invent the "christian soldier" image. jesus and paul did.

i think that it's important to recognize that driscol is making a particular point about men being losers, not about women being irrelevant.

i've read many articles about him describing the important roles women have in the life of the church. i'm sure that to a degree, he would agree with stacie and aubrie that Christ's call is to all of us. i believe that he would make the one exception though that the women of the church are hearing this message because Christ is typically represented in a light that women(generally speaking of course) can identify with, and the point he is making in this video seems to be; maybe the men aren't getting it because church leaders don't know how to effectively represent Christ in a way that men(generally speaking) understand and identify with.

he is not saying in this video that women are irrelevant to church planting or to the church at large. he is addressing some of the common mistakes of picking leaders to plant a church. this is like all of us getting offended by what paul DOESN'T say about church life in 1 corinthians instead of focusing on the fact that paul is addressing problems in the corinthian church that be common problems to other churches.(by the way, i'm not equating driscol to the apostle paul)

My point was more that his priority order is backwards - man, mission, God instead of God, mission, man. Planting a church is extraordinarily challenging, indeed, but I'm sure it feel completely "warlike" when man is first on the list and God is third. His mentions of women and challenging people reminds me of the prayer of the rich man who was thankful God did not make him a woman, a dog, or a tax collector. Perhaps in his war they are just collateral damage.

I wonder if some of these reply comments regarding women, though they have merit, are missing the mark about what Mr. Driscol is saying about planting churchs. Personally, I've never planted a church. It sounds like Mr. Driscol believes it is "warlike" work. Did he mention that women do not have a role or only have certain roles? I don't think he said either.

I would really like to hear more than one sentance from Pastor Eric on this. I happen to agree 100% with Staci on everything she said. When the video first opened I was deeply offended by the place chosen to shoot the video. Why he chose to disrecpet veterans graves is beyond me. If you look on in the comments on the video you will see several serivce people who take offence.

I should go back and count how many times he uses the word "man". Becuase as a woman that is unfortunatly about the only word I heard. I think he could have at least talked about having a partnership between pastor, wife, & family.

Sure some of what he said about guys may be true, my husband always says guys are trash. But come on, lets not over prove your point. Why can't he just stay true to the bible. I know my response is more filled with anger than with God's love. And that's not what Jesus intended. If you really look at what Jesus wanted for his church I don't think he'd enjoy this video.

And yes, I've heard all the numbers about how few fathers are attending church with there children & how those children won't stay in the church. But how come we never praise those mothers that are tirelessly taking those children to church?! Our nation does not rely on just the male population to spread the word of God! If it did we would be in trouble.

It falls on every single one of us, man, woman, child, to stand up and say, "one more for Jesus!" Amen.

I found this arrogant at best. Finding the right man for the job – described in this video as judgmental and overly aggressive – is the number one need for a church according to this video. He then lists the “mission” of recruiting men as second in importance. Oh yeah, Jesus is third on the list. Well, He is sort of third. Once the human “right man” collects all the other human men then the third most important thing is for Jesus to lead them into shaping up all the other human men.

I really can’t see any biblical support for these claims. The bible is full of God calling flawed men and women to join Him in His mission: people who were murderers, stutterers, foreigners, tax collectors, children, least in their family, cowards, diseased, and on and on. And they didn’t often gather big groups together. Some, like Gideon, even reduced the numbers. How self absorbed can the speaker in the video be to think God can only use people like him? I have a friend who preaches regularly at the Mission. Some of the men have told her that because of severe past abuse by other men it is much easier for them to see Jesus in her than in a male speaker. God invites people to join him in the ministry of His choosing.

I do agree that the view of Jesus as passive is incorrect and may not be appealing to some men. But the view of Jesus as angry soldier isn’t any closer to a complete picture and I know many men who would find this view disgusting. There are multiple examples of Jesus instructing his disciples not to use force or even resist those who opposed Him. I can only find examples of kindness and gentle guidance to those who are broken. His more aggressive actions seem to be reserved for the religious elite – you know, those who would kick out a woman praising God with a tambourine. (By the way, praising with a tambourine is encouraged in Psalms.) Passive is not equal to welcoming and inclusive. In fact, being welcoming and inclusive takes exceptional effort and courage.

I’m not even sure how to address the comments about being “glad the ladies love Jesus, be we can’t win without men” (shall I call Him LL Cool J???. There were several bizarre statements like this that I have no idea what to do with. I mean, Jesus already has the victory and certainly doesn’t need some human to go get it for Him. And God did manage to work pretty well through Deborah, Esther, Mary, etc.

Standing on the soldiers graves is actually disrespectful, though I don’t think that was the intent. I did find the setting fitting – because his formula is a dead end. The “fuss” about excluding women in the video isn’t as troubling as excluding any semblance of a biblical view of Jesus.

Solid interpretation and application of a familiar passage. Yep, the message is a bit raw, but very accurate for today's culture. Provocative, for sure. Church planting and relevant, meaningful Christian leadership involve high stakes and risk huge consequences. Count the costs and recognize the seriousness of war.

although some of the things he said were a bit harsh i must agree with him...i have felt for a long time that if the future of our nation as christians is to survive it will have to be up to the man. i think that even though it is wonderful that there are so many women that are following jesus our legacy will be passed down faster and better and our faith made stronger if the men of this world would take their God given responsiblity serious. i for one find it very powerful to see men leading in their families and churches. i would much rather step back and let a man lead as long as he is following Christ than to lead myself.