Real Marriage: Mark Driscoll

[amyrose5]

(02-07-2012 01:07 PM)Shoes Wrote:  

amyrose5 Wrote:This is only tangentially related....but how do you take a grown-ass man wearing ripped up jeans seriously? …. "I liked that an adult was talking to us about faith and was dressed like an adult and acting like an adult. I don't know why pastors think they have to pretend they are 18 for us to listen to them."

I think that I come from the opposite end of the spectrum. It was refreshing to go to church and see a pastor preach in a polo shirt and jeans. The fundy dress code was being violated, but *gasp* he was still being used by God.

I despised the guilt trip that “You better wear the best when you come to church.” Why? God doesn’t care what type of fabric is on our back. This always pissed me off.

First of all...this player was not wearing a three piece suit and carrying a KJV. He was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. The Evangelical youth pastors that normally came in wore ripped up jeans, skater shirts, bowling shirts, had stupid piercings, spiked hair etc...most of which was in violation of the kids' dress code for chapel days. One proudly told the kids he was turning 50 while dressed like a teenage skateboarder/gang banger in sagging pants and a bowling shirt with flames.

I don't have a problem with a polo shirt and khakis/jeans. (I'm Catholic, I wear jeans and sweatshirts and snow boots, or shorts and flip flops to mass...). But the metrosexual tight shirts, the ripped jeans, etc...all of which are the fashion milieu of HS/College age hipsters on a 40-something man. Sorry, Driscoll looks ridiculous. As does his wife in her ripped up junior department jeans in one video I saw. Someone should tell them they are long past 20.

Again...there's a whole world of clothing between three piece suit and hipster 20 year old. You're making it sound like an either/or when it is not. He could find something casual and age appropriate.

[paul]

I think what you are looking for is the difference between being pretentious, relatable, or faux-fashionable. Or, more succinctly, why do you wear what you wear?

[Elijah Craig]

It's not a question of formal v. informal, but what's age appropriate. Personally, during a period when I was in seminary I didn't dress like a 32 year old man, partly because I didn't feel adult in that environment. Since then I've come back around toward dressing like something more appropriate for my place in life. If I'm in public my shirts usually have collars and my shoes are leather.

I mean really, you want to take life advice from a guy wearing this?



(from Wartburg Watch)

He's a stocky, German looking dude. Why does he have a Mickey Mouse shirt on? Even a Harley shirt would be better. If I walked into a bar in my town wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt I'd be in for a fist fight. What image is he trying to convey here? That's not relevent. It's not gay. It's not... what is that? Why is a 40 year old man wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt, in front of a church no less?

[Recovering]

(02-07-2012 01:27 PM)amyrose5 Wrote:  First of all...this player was not wearing a three piece suit and carrying a KJV. He was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. The Evangelical youth pastors that normally came in wore ripped up jeans, skater shirts, bowling shirts, had stupid piercings, spiked hair etc...most of which was in violation of the kids' dress code for chapel days. One proudly told the kids he was turning 50 while dressed like a teenage skateboarder/gang banger in sagging pants and a bowling shirt with flames.

I don't have a problem with a polo shirt and khakis/jeans. (I'm Catholic, I wear jeans and sweatshirts and snow boots, or shorts and flip flops to mass...). But the metrosexual tight shirts, the ripped jeans, etc...all of which are the fashion milieu of HS/College age hipsters on a 40-something man. Sorry, Driscoll looks ridiculous. As does his wife in her ripped up junior department jeans in one video I saw. Someone should tell them they are long past 20.

Again...there's a whole world of clothing between three piece suit and hipster 20 year old. You're making it sound like an either/or when it is not. He could find something casual and age appropriate.

Yes. It's the whole trying-too-hard-to-be-relevant thing. You don't need to have a dress code to be respectable, and respectable doesn't mean fundy-esque. I agree that it is a little insulting that some pastors think they must dress like what they imagine teens think is cool for young people to pay attention. Also, it hardly ever works, so they end up looking dumb.

[amyrose5]

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  .What image is he trying to convey here? That's not relevent. It's not gay. It's not... what is that? Why is a 40 year old man wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt, in front of a church no less?

And one that looks too small. I saw one video where he had on a flannel shirt that looked about three sizes too small and the buttons were strained. What the hell is the point of that? Does he think it makes him look hip if his shirts don't fit? It doesn't; it actually makes him look sloppy and overweight.

[myotch]

I don't mind Driscoll's dress. He's using wardrobe to make a statement.

More than a few adults my age can remember a time when Disney was boycotted by some Baptist churches over Pulp Fiction and the beneficial way Disney handled its homosexual employees. Driscol's dress code allows him to break with that section of Christianity.

Torn jeans, tee shirts, bowling shirts, skate wear. Is it really worse than ill-fitting polyester?

[amyrose5]

(02-07-2012 02:57 PM)myotch Wrote:  Torn jeans, tee shirts, bowling shirts, skate wear. Is it really worse than ill-fitting polyester?

Again, that question is only valid if those were the only two options in men's clothing. A trip to any department store will show you that they most certainly are not.

Sorry...I don't believe Driscoll has to dress like a hipster college kid to prove a point, either. And somehow, I don't think the point of his Mickey Mouse wear is to counter the SBC boycott.

[myotch]

I think the effect of his dress is cumulative. He dresses the way he does because he is part of the emerging church movement, and wants to meet culture where culture is. The culture, evidently, is at the Gap.

The SBC boycott is old. But I wouldn't put it past Driscol for the old Disney stink to be a part of his wardrobe decision that day. I think all of his wardrobe decisions are made to achieve a goal and a message.

You and I have the advantage of old-style vestments and protestant-borrowed collars as the wardrobe of choice for our church leaders. (But we are still not immune to trendiness - I remember a recent vocations poster featuing a Neo-esque priest with a Matrix background aimed at Catholic youth). For our protestant brothers and sisters in leadership, they have the whole gamut of wardrobe selection, and it's inevitable that different church leaders will exhaust all the options.

I only brought up the polyester vs trendy clothing as one of street-level credibility. The guy in factory-distressed, $75 jeans seems more approachable than the guy in the suit.

[amyrose5]

(02-07-2012 04:31 PM)myotch Wrote:  I only brought up the polyester vs trendy clothing as one of street-level credibility. The guy in factory-distressed, $75 jeans seems more approachable than the guy in the suit.

To you. The guy in the suit is stuffy, granted. But in the Protestantism I grew up in, not necessarily a legalist or a nutcase. The 40-something in the factory-distressed jeans, on the other hand, is likely a tool who thinks that he looks young and hip.

[myotch]

All of the above

My former SBC pastor (and former SBC prez) used to wear suits. Now he's trying to get e mega-church started, and is now wearing jeans, polos, and sweaters.

In PR talk, it's "softening the image".

I'm approaching my critique as one who is in marketing, not one of a theologian. Think of Christianity as a product or service, protestantism as a sub-genre of that product or service, and "emerging church" as a specific product with a few recognizable and trusted brand names. These brands set up the expectations of the consumers.

These consumers all want the product and service, and really, every outlet (church) offers pretty much the same thing. So, there is a need for differentiation.

Marketing and focus groups hit upon the idea we live in an entertainment culture. So, away with the pulpit and choir, and replace it with a head-mic, stage lighting, and a house band. The culture has become casual and less taboo-oriented. Replace the suit with casual clothes and talk openly about sex in mixed crowds.

Though this all sounds cynical, I can admire the intentions: how can we as christians reach a wider audience, and impact culture?