Skip to main content

Megachurch Pastor Has Bizarrely Offensive Ideas About Women and Penises

A feminist blogger has uncovered a series of rants by Pastor Mark Driscoll that are considerably more offensive than his "pussified" remark.
  • Author:
  • Updated:

The Seattle-based Mars Hill Megachurch has come under fire recently regarding its senior pastor Mark Driscoll, who referred to the United States as "a pussified nation." Another pastor, Mark Dunford, was fired after he said Driscoll should be fired, and Mars Hill officials ended up shuttering a few of its locations. But now, a blogger has uncovered a series of rants by Driscoll that are considerably more offensive than his "pussified" remark. According to blogger Libby Anne at Patheos, Driscoll used a pseudonym (William Wallace II) on a message board, writing among other things that women are "homes" for penises:

The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may see, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wondering the streets looking for a house to live in. Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.

Earlier today, we discussed how two millionaire reality show celebrities, Sarah Palin and Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, said that we should "humble ourselves" before God. So much for that one. Nothing says "humble" like suggesting you're borrowing God's penis. Something tells me someone is overcompensating a little too much. "Little" being the operative word there.

It's been many years since I've been to church, but I don't recall anything in the Bible about women as houses for God's penis. Anyone else?

Palin also noted to Phil Robertson that God gave us natural resources specifically for us to exploit. What she doesn't seem to understand (shocker!) is that the same dogma says that women are a natural resource for men to exploit. At the very least, women are subservient to men. In the process of exulting in biblical teachings, you can't pick and choose what you believe and don't believe. If you think the environment is here to be raped by humans because the Bible says so, you have to accept that your God also thinks you, if you're a woman, should be prepared for a life that's controlled by the will of men. In the case of Driscoll's bastardization of the Bible, you're here in order to provide shelter for penises.