Mark Driscoll cannot bully me.

Rachel Held Evans wrote this blog post in response to this facebook status posted by Mark Driscoll.

This is merely the latest in a series of disgusting statements, sermons, tweets, and other worded behaviors from our favorite man from Mars Hill. The links she shares (which I implore you to read at your earliest convenience) provide you with the full span of flippant, blatant disregard for the dignity of anyone who is not Mark Driscoll that he has made himself famous for.

Over the last two days (since RHE wrote the post) the internet has provided me with abundant responses and comments and rants and letters and tears reflecting just how Driscoll's words have hurt people across this country.

And, sure, there are plenty who make excuses for Driscoll, saying that he speaks to/for a specific demographic, not for everyone. Or that if we don't like his preaching, we should just stay out of his church. If only his words stayed within the walls of his church, maybe that would be possible.

But as RHE claims, he is a bully. And we cannot (and will not) sit idly by as he bullies thousands of Americans into bullying thousands of Americans. This is far-reaching, whether you'd like to believe that or not. A generation of men are being taught that God only loves them if they are ultra-masculine and have attractive, submissive wives. And a generation of women are being taught that they must be those wives. And these people will teach their children, as Driscoll has taught his, that their futures also lie in these outdated, ridiculous, misogynistic gender roles.

As RHE writes, Godly men do not seek to humiliate, shame, ridicule, bully, or harm others. Especially not in the name of Christ. This behavior is irresponsible and he has been at it in the public eye for over a decade.

It is our responsibility as people who do not endorse these "values" to step forward and stand up to Mark Driscoll. He is a bully, and we do not have to accommodate that any longer.

RHE asks that we call or write Mars Hill Church to report his bad behavior. If that's something you feel comfortable doing, please do not hesitate. [Their contact information is in her post, linked above.] Do not assume that someone else can say your words, or say them better. And it's likely that some poor intern has to deal with all the calls and mail. But that intern may need to reconsider working for someone like Mark Driscoll. And maybe someone will tell Driscoll the sheer volume of responses. Maybe, for even just one minute, he will feel badly about what he has said. And that, my friends, will be a start.

Mark Driscoll cannot bully me into believing that my gender renders me incapable of leading people to and with their God.
Mark Driscoll cannot bully me into believing that my peacenik Christ is any less than the macho one he proclaims saves only the manliest of men and the most submissive of women.
Mark Driscoll cannot bully me into believing that those members of the LGBT community who I call my family and friends are any less loved by their God than any other human being.
Mark Driscoll cannot bully me into believing that violence has a place in the hearts of those who follow Christ.
Mark Driscoll cannot bully me into believing that he has the last word on any subject, Gospel or otherwise.

Mark Driscoll cannot bully me.

Why I disagree.

A lot of people, some of them celebrities, have put their own marriages on hold until there is marriage equality in this country. While these couples are considered honorable and activist, I can't help but disagree completely.

The fight for marriage equality is being fought so that everyone in this country has the legal right to marry the person they love, regardless of either partner's sex. People want to get married. People want the symbol of marriage, they want the legal protections of marriage, they want the chance to celebrate their relationships with their friends and families.

When you declare that you will not do the same until they can, you dangle marriage rights in their faces. You say, "I can have what you want, and am going to choose not to have it." You say, I am going to stay in this limbo state of lifetime commitment without the legal status. You are doing by choice what they have had done to them by force.

I understand that the idea is solidarity. But, for me, this aligns exactly with the idea that the person who can read and does not has nothing more than the person who cannot read at all.

It seems to me that the best choice here is for heterosexual couples who love each other to get married, and then fight for the rights of their friends and neighbors. Heterosexism does not end with the putting on hold of heterosexual marriage. But the value and importance of marriage does. Getting married isn't on my upcoming agenda or anything, but if it was, I would not be waiting. I would be so grateful for the right to marry the person I love, and want to legally recognize it, and then pick back up the fight.

What do you think?