The other day Mark Driscoll became the center of attention once again when he posted the following on his Facebook wall: “So what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?” Almost immediately there was response after response by a variety of bloggers (I’ve already mentioned some of the responses here). The most attention probably went to Rachel Held Evans’ post titled “Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him.” She went as far as to provide the mailing address, phone number, and email address of the church so that people could protest.
While I was sympathetic to the outrage (Should a pastor really say something like this on a public forum knowing there are so many people struggling with their sexual identity in our culture today?) something about it just made me feel defeated. Carmen Andres gave me the words when she wrote on Twitter, “[T]his whole Mark Driscoll thing leaves me tired and frustrated. [I]nto your hands Lord. [I]’m done with it.” Joel Watts shares wise words as well when he reminded us of the systemic nature of our sin that has led masculinity to be equated “with macho brevado”. Yet if most of us are honest we went with our immediate gut reaction and we lashed out at Driscoll either on the internet or elsewhere.
Enter Anthony Bradley. In his World Magazine article titled “Libel is not Love” he says, “Evans’ way of responding cannot and should not be encouraged. What was even more disturbing was the way in which many other believers jumped on the slander bandwagon to feed on the carnage once it went viral.” Bradley equates these types of responses with slander and shows us how over and over again in Scripture this is not how we should respond to one another. At the end he points out how some atheist websites were applauding Evans’ response (and I assume the rest of us who reacted against Driscoll) and how ironic it is that we would seek their applause over and against healing and understanding within the body of Christ.
I feel rebuked, but not satisfied just yet. I see what we have done wrong, but I am not so sure that Bradley provided a solution/viable alternative either.
First, I sense that Bradley’s rebuke of Evans was a tad more calm and loving than Evans’ rebuke of Driscoll, but it seems to have been a public rebuke as well. I am not accusing Bradley of doing a one-for-one here (anyone who reads the two posts can see the difference), but we should use this as a starting point for discussing what makes a public rebuke acceptable and what makes it unacceptable.
Second, what do we do with public statements like this one other than provide a public rebuke? Could Evans have called Mars Hill Church to make a phone appointment with Pastor Driscoll or would that have been ignored (we were forced to ask this same question when John Piper flippantly rebuked Rob Bell on Twitter by writing ‘Farwell, Rob Bell’ or even of Rob Bell for publishing a book that many interpreted as pastorally insensitive)? If we do not have access to pastors because of their status do we merely leave it to local elders to privately correct something so public?
Third, if we are quiet when another Christian does something like this what are the consequences? While Bradley is right to note we shouldn’t applaud the fact that we won the approval of atheists while lashing out at one another, what do we do if a serious person interested in Christianity, wondering if s/he belongs, reads what Driscoll wrote and suddenly thinks this what all Christians think, therefore I must not fit? Is there any other way to counter a public gaff that like one other than writing something open to the public that seeks to correct it? Should the Apostle Paul have taken the Apostle Peter aside when he shamed Gentile Christians with his behavior rather than rebuking him to his face and then writing about it in a letter to another church (Gal 2.11-20)?!
So where Anthony Bradley is correct is that we must not forget that our Lord Jesus Christ said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn. 13.35) We have failed miserably here. Yet I don’t know what to do with something like this, especially since I think private discussions with someone like Mark Driscoll are impossible and not responding could mislead others to think that the church as a whole supports this kind of behavior.
Where do Christians go from here? What can we learn about public error and rebuke? How do we rebuke while making it evident to the world around us that we love one another as Christ commanded?
See also: Derek Ouellette’s “Learning to Blog with Maturity”.
It’s a good thing Jesus never publicly rebuked a religious leader or Dr. Bradley’s rebuke of the rebuke would make no ‘sense’!
I missed the connection to the way Rob Bell was done away with. Rebuke in the age of social media and disconnectedness is one which we should pray about. Great post, Brian.
Scott: I see your point which is why I noted Paul’s rebuke of Peter. I guess we must ask what makes a rebuke loving and what makes it spiteful?
Joel: Thanks. I was connecting Bell with this discussion because some said Piper, et al., should have contacted Bell personally to express concern rather than lashing out via blogs, Twitter, etc. But others questioned whether or not Bell would have given them audience for a private discussion.
I had the same sentiments as your friend Carmen when this whole thing was boiling over. It’s not that what Driscoll said wasn’t wrong, but that if we make a huge drama out of it, many other non-Christians might lose interest as well. And, Driscoll has a tendency to carry this tone and it didn’t surprise me at all.
But there does need to be something done about it. Driscoll (or any pastor with his kind of status) should not be able to get away with statements like these just because he’s a big time pastor. I think what Evans did in providing an email address to Mars Hill will be effective enough, but I don’t think that was what we should have done.
Honestly, I am quite certain that the Mars Hill elders will probably have a chat with him. A couple years back he preached a sermon titled, “Men and Marriage,” in which he flipped out. The next week, which most of the anti-Driscollists don’t realize, he came forward and apologized to the church and said that he was working on his tone. I watched both sermons myself.
My whole belief is that if you’re a public figure like Driscoll, then all the protests and emotional responses from the masses aren’t going to do much to rebuke you for your mistakes. It takes people you know. It takes people you trust. It takes people you respect to wisely confront you on your mistakes. The Mars Hill elders, I’m hoping anyway, will probably address him on this issue if they haven’t already.
Seems to me the instructions in Scripture (Matt 18, 1 Tim, eg) all assume a personal relationship between the parties invovled, including the reprover. If I had such a relationship with Pastor Driscoll I would be in touch with him, and he would listen to what I said (again, assuming I had a relationship with him). But, since I don’t have a relationship with him, and it’s only the gadgetry of the present age that has enabled me to even know what he wrote (I read it on this post, since I don’t subscribe to Pastor Driscoll’s Twitter feeds), and I don’t have the power to stop such silly things from being said, I think my duty is to pray for him, learn from the situation, and help put an end to it by not jumping into the fray. If he’s sorry for what he wrote, it is gracious to simply move on from it and not shame him further by continuing to speak/write of it. If he is not sorry for what he wrote, then it is enabling for me, or anyone else, to continue giving him attention, publicity, exposure, etc., for such a insensitive and foolish act. Sometimes it seems to me that media exposure become addictive for our culture’s celebrities–and possibly for our religious celebrities, too. Plus, if we take our eyes off of the row in front of us that the Master has told us to plough in His field, just to evaluate the “straighness” of our fellow-worker’s rows, our own row will end up being crooked!
I so resonate, Brian, with your sentiments concerning the importance of what leaders say, esp. in public–and take the whole affair as a gracious reminder to me to set a guard over MY mouth (and fingers when online!).
Jeremy: I agree, it will be those whom Driscoll trusts that can speak to him. If I wrote a scathing blog post it may get something off my chest, but I doubt it would ever go noticed by the man himself. Instead others would see it, take it as another example of what my pastor called “intermural” Christian infighting, and concluded that we Christians like being contentious.
Ken: Well said, we can all learn from it. As Jeremy noted above, and as you say here, those of us who do not have a relationship with him cannot be of much help. That is the responsibility of those whom he knows and trusts, which is why I think Dr. Bradley’s rebuke was fitting. We bloggers are not accomplishing much by lambasting him when we know he will never see it and even if he did he won’t respect it because we aren’t in his circle of confidants.
Ken: By the way, this reminds me of your observations elsewhere that we Christians are far too consumed with “intermural” bickering. It distracts from mission. It is too easy to forget we “wrestle not against flesh and blood”.
Let me be the voice of opposition here.
While, in the overall sense, I agree with Bradley about not libeling others, I think he’s way off the mark here.
Driscoll made the point, later in that thread, that his question was in reference to a “blue-collar Christian” that was uncomfortable going to a church with an “effeminate worship leader”. This immediately discloses his feeling that there is something “wrong” with the worship leader….insinuating that the worship leader was scaring away manly Christians. This is where Mark went over the line from initiating a controversial discussion to, as Rachel put it, being a bully.
Had others responded with name calling and vicious invective, Bradley would be justified. However, the vast majority of the responses were very civil and questioned his very limited, testosterone drenched definition of ‘masculine’.
Calling a bully a bully isn’t slander. Personally, I would rather call someone out for their comments than sit quietly by, allowing them to question the faith of someone simply because they might wear skinny jeans and use product in their hair.
We can, and should, hold each other accountable, even rebuke each other, in love, and sometimes a public show of unity is necessary.
Good post, Brian. I think love sometimes might mean truthfulness and opposition. Personally, I think we have to do it out of a heart that isn’t looking to slay Driscoll for his wrong doing, but to stop him out of a heart of love so he doesn’t hurt himself (James 3) and other people around him.
And I think publicly is good if it is done out of a heart of love. It seems Paul thinks this is the case in 1 Timothy 5:20.
Christian: I don’t doubt that we should be able to rebuke each other. I think most people agree with that. It seems most of us are concerned with rebuke of the other that doesn’t actually reach the other but instead creates an angry crowd. I don’t doubt Evans had good intentions (she was standing up for people she felt were being verbally abused), and if she had Driscoll’s attention it may have been beneficial, but for better or for worse we don’t have his attention and so our rebukes often morph into group rants. I fear that this was the case this time around.
Daniel: Indeed, one’s posture has a lot to do with it. We should rebuke with a heart toward healing and maturation, not merely to put down. Also, I agree that rebuke in love, even in public, can be helpful. But what do we do if we know our rebuke probably won’t reach the offender, but only others? It is worth pondering.
I’m with Christian on this one. I like Anthony a lot, but I think he’s missed the point on this one. It seems to me that we tend to side with one version of Jesus over another in discussions like this. We side with the “loving compassionate turn the other cheek” Jesus or the “chase religious leaders out of the temple with whips and call them a brood of vipers” Jesus. The reality, however, is that the two are the same Jesus. His very public name-calling of the religious leaders of his day is an act of love towards those who most need to be loved in this case: the people being hurt by the religious leaders.
If calling Driscoll a “bully” is some sort of libel, then so is calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers and a whitewashed tomb. The question is not whether Evans was being loving. The question is whom she was loving. In this case, I think she was right on the money for showing love to those who are being abused by Driscoll’s kind of Christianized hatred.
I don’t write about Mark anymore and I try not to partake in the controversy he generates. But when I lived in Seattle and attended the awkwardly named Mars Hill Graduate School (not related to the church, and getting a new name!) it became evident how much Mark’s fringe statements hurt the whole church in Seattle. When I would mention to people where I attended school people would instantly shut down and accuse me of ‘being’ that kind of Christian. It seems Dr. Bradley assumes that churches and pastor’s are more autonomous then they are while forgetting this effects the entire body. If you talk to non-Christians who aware of this (which in Seattle there are plenty) what Evans and others are doing doesn’t look like slander but rather an appropriate response to someone bent on controversy.
To answer your question, “How do we rebuke while making it evident to the world around us that we love one another as Christ commanded?” I would simply say that we show the world we love one another (and them!) BY rebuking one another when incredibly stupid, unloving things are said. It’s not as if we have to choose between loving one another and rebuking one another.
For example, you may remember the 20/20 special several months ago about a New Hampshire girl who was abused by a man in her church. The abuse was covered up by the church leaders. Now, years later, the truth came out, and the man just recently went to jail. The most loving thing to do in that situation was not to tiptoe around the power-hungry, ungodly pastor in an effort to “love him.” Rather, the most loving thing to do was to protect children within the IFB by loudly and boldly calling out this pastor (and others like him) for their grotesque sin.
I received nasty emails from people because I supported efforts to send the pervert to jail. They were saying exactly the kinds of things that Bradley says here: We’re slandering and being unloving. That’s just ridiculous.
It may seem a bit like apples and oranges to relate the Driscoll situation to child abuse, but the principle is the same. When a religious leader abuses (physically, psychologically, emotionally, whatever) the people under him, then we ought to show love to those abused people by calling out these leaders as strongly as possible and removing them if they continue this kind of un-Christian behavior.
Will: You’re correct that we cannot have a Jesus that is only who we want him to be. Jesus had no problem with rebuke (poor Peter). I do think we need to be careful how we frame the discussion though. Should we see Driscoll as like Peter: a Christian worth respecting who needs correction? Or should we see him like the Jewish leaders of Jesus’s day? As much as Driscoll upsets me, I tend to think there does need to be some caution because he is part of the body and he is not outside the church opposing it (at least I don’t see him that way).
You are absolutely right that those who were being mocked by Driscoll’s words should be defended (like Paul defended new Gentile Christians). So we may suggest that the charge of “libel” was too harsh, but I don’t think we should miss Dr. Bradley’s central point, to which we should listen, in that this could create more of an angry crowd mentality than a healthy atmosphere of rebuke and repentance.
mshedden: Interesting insight. You are correct that Driscoll’s impact is greater than just MH. When Battlecry came to San Francisco in the name of Christ abusing the people there at the direction of Ron Luce I wanted to punch Luce in the face (still do). So I can resonate with how it must feel for other Seattle Christians.
Will: You make a valid point and I don’t disagree with your premise. I guess the main concern is this: Does rebuke via the blogosphere function this way or does it lead to group think and outrage without change? Are we responsible to seek change when we rebuke or is it merely our responsibility to rebuke so that people can see we stand against what was said?
To clarify, I’m not being contentious here. I agree with rebuke and even public rebuke (obviously Dr. Bradley does as well otherwise he wouldn’t have called out Evans this way), but I wonder if this means (via blogs seeking group resistance) is the best way.
Look, Brian, I understand your concern, and I’m right there with you. But people like Driscoll have so much star power in conservative evangelicalism (and that’s a sickening topic for another day!) that it takes a large group of us no-namer people to stand up to him to make any difference at all.
If Rachel Evans wants to write a letter to Mars Hill, good for her. But we don’t live in a society where people’s bullying is confined to their little congregations or personal letters. It’s being broadcast on Facebook to thousands of people, and then many of those people are soaking it in as gospel and repeating it elsewhere. It will be impossible to have any meaningful change at all in such a wired world without the power of grass-roots means, such as blogs seeking group resistance. We can’t pretend that this is a private personal matter and that we should all just silently write our letters.
Sorry if I sound a little harsh here, but having been hurt deeply by Christian big shots, I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of crap like Driscoll’s “theology.” No one should have to endure that kind of spiritual abuse disguised as Christianity, and I’ll be as loud as I need to to help make it stop. If you have a suggestion for protecting the abused while at the same time being gentle with the abusers, I’d be happy to hear it, but I’m not yet convinced that there is not a healthy dose of righteous anger involved here.
My suspicion is that people will fall into one of two major categories on this: (1) they’ve never been spiritually abused and can’t understand the outcry, or (2) they have suffered at the hands of self-absorbed pastors before and can’t understand the lack of outcry. I’m in the latter group.
So here’s Driscoll’s response: http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues
Apparently, the elders did sit him down and rebuke him for the post.
“I would simply say that we show the world we love one another (and them!) BY rebuking one another when incredibly stupid, unloving things are said.”
I agree completely with Will’s comment. In fact, I think Anthony Bradley’s comments are themselves a disguised way of keeping people like Driscoll (who I consider an enemy of the gospel) from receiving the universal condemnation of the church that he rightly deserves. Slander against another person is certainly bad, but Evans and others are not guilty of any such thing. Driscoll is guilty of something much worse: slander against the name of Christ. He needs to be held accountable. We’ve given him a pass for far too long.
Driscoll has incited folks to gossip (sin) and he did it publicly. He needs to publicly apologize.
….and privately repent.
Brian,
Seriously? I really could not disagree more with Ant Bradley or Mark Driscoll. Sure, I believe God is responsible for making males and females difference, but the idol of Muscular “christianity” must die. It must be taken to the Cross and broken to pieces. In the first instance, Jesus is our model for what it means to be human, and in the second instance, what Driscoll is claiming is not just any form of masculinity per se, but a masculinity defined by violence. Now, I could get into the class and racial privileged assumptions behind these arguments but I will leave them at the foot of Calgary.
My point being is this: Driscoll is wrong for arguing that it is natural for men to be violent and that our male identities should be defined as such. I think what he is promoting is a form of bullying. I don’t bother with wrestling or MMA or UFC primarily because they are promotions of violence, misogyny, and male domination. Christians in the early days were disgusted with the theatre and the gladiator games. I think it is quite reasonable for Christians today to follow suit. Yup, I would include football, basketball, etc.
Lastly, the notion that competition is a good thing, and that g*d created males with this competitive spirit boils down to a Christian acculturation with the capitalist mindset. It is more worldly than anything else.
Here is an excellent critique of Driscoll’s adoption of MMA:
http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/
Brian, I have to say, this is a fantastic article. Thanks for writing it.
P.S. The article at Kingdom People titled “Learning to Blog with Maturity” was written by yours truly. 🙂
Anyways… this one is definitely getting a repost! Good stuff.
@Will: I would be one of those who does understand spiritual abuse (I was raised in Oneness Pentecostal circles where pastors have too much control). I’ve sat in a church of a few thousand where the pastor spewed forth words that would make even Driscoll blush. On top of that, he had a personal vendetta against me. So I am very sympathetic.
You may be absolutely correct that in the wired era it does take a grass roots response. It appears (from Jeremy’s link above) that Driscoll has partially admitted a wrong (though he has not repented of his overall message), so maybe it worked.
Assuming this let’s move to the concern I share with Dr. Bradley: How do we avoid people seeing this as another example of Christians looking inwardly lashing out at other Christians? I think if we are honest we’ll say some unbelievers will understand, some will take side aiming for disunity in the church, but some will see this as another example that we don’t love one another. What do we do to avoid that last part?
@Jeremy: Thanks for the link! I am glad to see this though I don’t know if it comes across as Driscoll apologizing for what was said or apologizing that he said it in the wrong place (i.e. social media). What do you think?
@David: If Driscoll is an “enemy of the gospel” it would be justified to go all out (like Paul against the Judaizers). I don’t know that I am comfortable with this though. I’ve been around too many people who frame someone they don’t like in these terms (especially in my days around Pentecostals against Catholics and the like and then in recent years with conservatives against the emergent church or something similar), so I am very, very cautious about this.
Like I asked Will, I would welcome your thoughts: How do we do this while avoiding sounding hateful, intermural, and setting forth an impression to others that the church is a contentious group that like to hack at each other?
CarolJean: The above comment by Jeremy links Driscoll’s response. Do you think this is a form of repentance or is it insufficient?
Rod: I don’t agree with Driscoll regarding his understanding of masculinity, at all. Heck, I can’t fix a thing on my car, I don’t lift weights, and I’d lose a fight to most people. I think the main point I got from Bradley’s post is that we need to be careful not to make turf wars via social media that cause the world around us to see a bunch of contentious religious people participating in infighting? Sure, he said more than I would (I don’t think I’d call Hays blog post ‘libel’), but what about his other point about love, appropriate channels, and so forth?
Derek: My bad, I corrected it! 🙂
Brian, in answer to your question, “How do we do this while avoiding sounding hateful, intermural, and setting forth an impression to others that the church is a contentious group that like to hack at each other?”
I don’t think we’re the ones coming across as contentious and hacking each other. Just the opposite. Driscoll is doing that, and I think the “outside world” is not at all concerned about our vocal opposition, but they would be appalled by our silence.
Will: I agree that they’d be appalled by our silence, but I’d likewise fear if they applaud our response to loudly.
@Rod: I think you’re confusing 21st Century American exaltation of sports with “competition.” It is a good thing, but not because it proves one man is better than another or that you can make lots of money from it. It’s good because it gets people to do something with their lives instead of sitting around and merely existing. To say that it’s “a Christian acculturation with the capitalist mindset” is to do the exact same thing that Driscoll does: alienate others.
And forget what “competition” looks like today; look at the powerful references in Scripture that utilize language of competition to teach a spiritual truth: Ecclesiastes 9:11, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Timothy 4:7, and Hebrews 12:1 – just to name a few.
I must admit that most of the “competition” we see in the world around us is in fact bad. But it’s not that “competition” erred, but rather those doing the competing. I have plenty of friends in the faith who are at the top of their competitive fields who strive not for money or for first place, but to give it their all, win or lose. Just because “competition” might be misunderstood since either one hasn’t played any sports or can see how “competition” is separate from today’s capitalistic society, doesn’t mean the athletes should be alienated by saying there is no good in what they do. It’s like saying there is no good in blogging; that it’s just a reflection of our 21st Century, over-opinionated society.
Do we all have to be competitors as Driscoll defines them? Lord no! I, too, shy away from the violent areas of competition, but that’s not to say there isn’t any good in what they do; it’s just a personal taste of my own. I would much rather kick a soccer ball around than watch some guys beat each other’s faces in.
@Brian: Good point. The tone in that post doesn’t sound to me to be apologizing, but rather somewhat defending/clarifying while admitting a general problem with social media presence. At one point, I even felt like he was saying that the Facebook, Twitter, and internet world couldn’t handle “truth” about gender and gender roles. He really didn’t sound like he was sorry at all for posting what he did.
Jeremy,
There is no confusion on my part, lemme just assure you. As a life long U.S. American, being competitive is fed to us as a manly virtue, and it goes hand and hand with capitalism.
I am alienating others, I will admit; that’s what calls to distinguish ourselves from the world must do. Not all forms of alienation are bad. Nonconformity is the very definition of alienation, but it is a separation for liberation, and not oppression.
Brian,
I doubt Ant Bradley’s point was to just condemn us for using social media to rebuke Driscoll’s muscular Christianity. In fact, if you look at Bradley’s tweet history this week, he has been defending muscular Christianity. I a little read up on MC and I believe its a heresy, yes, I do use the word heresy. In fact, I am going to venture to say that it is part of a sexual theology of glory, with a disdain for the God-Man who humbled himself and died on the cross. Its a product of Victorian England, during the time when the Brits were in charge of the world, though it did not stay overseas, but hey, thats for another day.
I’ll digress.
@Jeremy: And I am sure most people would have liked more of an apology. I would have, but I think we can show graciousness and Christian love by accepting what we did receive from Driscoll and thanking the Spirit for calming things down a bit!
@Rod: Sure, I’d agree with that. I am not giving an apology for everything he said in his article (e.g. I wouldn’t go as far as to call Evans statement ‘libel’ and I did express my concern/confusion over his assertions in those three points at the end of the post), but I do think the danger of public rebuke in a vacuum is something I agree with him on. As to the masculinity thing, well, you know me. I’m no mach man!
@Rod: I still believe you’re wrong for disregarding athletic competition. It mostly is fed to us as a manly virtue and is mostly tied up with capitalism; but NOT entirely. You paint the picture as if it’s entirely full of mysogynystic, capitalist men seeking their own gain, yet you fail to try to understand competition from the athlete’s perspective. I didn’t say that I know plenty of male athletes; I know plenty of athletes BOTH male and female who aren’t in it for the money, but rather for the sake of achieving something that they might not anywhere else. Not everyone thrives or even gravitates towards theological discussions or the blogosphere. Some of us can’t help but follow the God-given passion for competition.
Distinguishing oneself from the world is one thing; ignoring the perspectives of others is entirely another.
To clarify what I’m saying here:
(1) I am not saying Driscoll didn’t need rebuke.
(2) I am not saying all public rebuke is wrong (which is why I cited the Apostle Paul rebuking the Apostle Peter).
(3) I am not echoing Dr. Anthony Bradley’s use of the word “libel” to describe what Rachel Held Evans wrote.
(4) I am not saying Evans was completely in the wrong.
(5) I am saying Bradley is correct to note that these types of rebukes can become detached and this results in a sort of nasty, group rant that is not constructive.
(6) I am saying we need to be careful to think through how and when we rebuke publically.
(7) I am saying we need to make sure it is done in love with the end goal of healing, reconciliation, maturity, and unity.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding on what I am saying in this post.
@Jeremy,
I am not against being athletic, or sports; and i think i need to find a new sport to get myself off the couch. I am just pointing out the emphasis on competition as a manly man virtue fits perfectly with our capitalism.
Brian, you’re sounding a bit frustrated. 🙂 I think we all know what you’re saying/not saying, but it comes across as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. I think what you’re really doing is trying to tread as carefully as possible so as to present Christ well, and I appreciate that. I’d give you a big virtual hug, but I’m afraid someone may start a Facebook post about my non-masculinity if I did that!
Classic theological scandal. Rachel Held Evans gets in trouble for telling the truth! In my opinion she has done nothing wrong here (just like Bell didn’t). Driscoll is a bully. At least he is online (I can’t comment about his church setting). He is a pastor who bullies people online. HE should be called on it. I’m not saying he does it knowingly or vindictively, but he is a bully none the less.
@Rod: Well then I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying. I can see that correlation, for sure. But I think it’s important to note that though competition might be presented or emphasized as a manly-man virtue doesn’t mean that it’s true. Like I said earlier, I would never be an athlete or compete in anything if sports were defined by Driscoll. How he sees sports (and many other Christians) is a little too macho (and a little too violent) for what competition actually is. He, like John Elridge, does a terrible job at defining what makes a man a man.
Will: I wouldn’t say I’m frustrated. I am just being cautious. As to cake, if I can have more cake I’ll be quite pleased (insert Jim Gaffigan routine here). I’d accept your virtual hug, but you’re right, we should settle for a firm handshake!
@Mark,
Thats why I love you man! (was that too effeminate of a comment?)
@Jeremy, no problem. I just had to clarify
Wow, it’s come this: cyber-reproof for cyber sins of cyber-bullies. I think we should charter a bus to transport effeminate worship leaders to Seattle to personally, perhaps musically, confront Pastor Driscoll with a resounding chorus of “Shine, Jesus Shine” played through a dozen stacks of Marshall amps.
Seriously, I don’t think Pastor Driscoll should be charged with being an abusive leader for what is most likely a tendency (admitted, though not too humbly by my take on it…) to say unwise, hurtful things. His statement is pretty minor league stuff compared to the actions and words of the real wolves that I’ve been around in ministry.
Just glad he pulled it … damage done but at least it’s been rectified.
I think Marc Driscoll is just immature, and has been given a platform primarily through charisma and socio-cultural dynamics. I can’t imagine that anyone actually felt bullied by Driscoll? In other words, it seems like in order to “feel” bullied by someone; that said bullied person would have to be in a place where they actually either respected the person enough to even listen to him, or be a person who was being forced to listen to him somehow. Does Rachel Held Evans fit either of these categories? Does anyone who disagrees with, Driscoll? I can see how someone under his leadership as their pastor could feel this way, but then I can’t imagine that he would be their pastor in the first place unless they somehow agree with Driscoll’s theology to begin with.
@Brian: no, I don’t consider that repentance. Even though he presented the “back story” (the reason why he posted the offending post) and related how he was spoken to by his elders, Driscoll didn’t apologize for emboldening weaker Christians to offend God by gossiping like they did in response to his post nor did he apologize for stereotyping. Driscoll is a man that many people look up to for spiritual leadership. Imo, he should set an example and do what is right in a public way, on Facebook, by admitting his error and apologizing to those he offended and to those he caused to offend God.
in addition: From reading his article I came away with the impression that Driscoll didn’t feel that he did anything wrong except to post a flippant (unwise) remark. No regret nor remorse. If anyone was offended or was emboldened to gossip (sin) by this Christian leader asking them to gossip, it seems his attitude was too bad, so sad, I’m going on vacation.
@Ken: True, I’ve seen worse as well, but I still think it was something that people can rightly be offended about. I was offended and I don’t think I’d fit the stereotype he attacked.
@Daniel: True, it was much better than leaving it up.
@Bobby: This is a great observation. If someone was at MH then yes, it could be easily considered bullying. I think people like to use the word “bully” with Driscoll because he comes across as macho. As some have said, it reminds them of being in the locker room of a high school with angry jocks. I can see that, but we don’t have to give Driscoll the celebrity attention that we do (and that this blog is doing!), nor do we have to take to heart what he says anymore than we had to listen to the late Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or John Hagee, or John Piper’s Twitter account.
@Carol: Indeed, that is the ideal. As Evans said in her response to Driscoll response (which I will discuss here on the blog later this morning) it is something and we have the opportunity to show grace to Driscoll and I hope that in doing so it will prevent further mishaps like this one.
Thanks for a very helpful piece. I have written to Dr. Bradley, who is an acquaintance, asking how he could use the words slander and libel (against Evans and those of us who reposted her piece) when, in fact, the allegations about Driscoll have been well known, often reported, on-going and utterly unacceptable. (His recent one was scornful, but not the worst!) For something to be unloving it has to be mean or ugly and for it to be libel it has to be untrue. I just don’t get how my friend can call me libelous and unloving (talk about messing with a reputation, which he says he cares about, at least in Driscoll’s case) when all we tried to do is say enough is enough. Anyway, this post is reasonable and kind and helpful. Thanks.
Bryon: I agree that the accusation of libel was too strong. I don’t parrot him there, though he is right to point out the danger of a herd mentality. Not everyone involved was guilty of what Bradley said, but surely there were some. Evans on the other hand was probably not the right target.
What I find highly disturbing and depressing about American evangelicalism in this Driscoll/Evans discussing is using Jesus’ rebuke of classes of people (like the Pharisees) to defend Evans naming calling Driscoll. It is RARE in the Biblical narrative that individuals are assigned to a moral class (like Bully) in the public square as a normative method of public discourse.
To Will Lee, I would challenge him to give provides us the names of individual people who were publicly assigned to an immoral class in Jesus’ speech, the OT, or anywhere in the NT as a normative pattern for public discourse and how Christians discuss other people’s sins in public. There are reasons that this is rare and why Christians should not do this.
Overall, one can publicly evaluate the content of someone’s speech without assigning them to an immoral class. This where Evans derailed public virtue. However, I should not be too surprised because this is standard American fundamentalist practice of naming calling and assigning people publicly BY NAME to moral classes. Evangelicals, don’t seem ethically equipped to make those types of distinctions.
Also, I think that, overall, for people who support public name calling, what’s really behind this is the spirit of “well, I never liked him anyway so he deserved it. He had it coming to him.” And that revengeful spirit is even more troubling in evangelicalism. We saw as in the odd defense of the way Piper and Taylor and others encourage the bloodsport against Rob Bell. Maybe people just don’t like pastors of churches called “Mars Hill.” Ethics and evangelicals are words that do not go together.
@Dr. Bradley: Thank you for coming here and commenting. I appreciated the overall emphasis that you made in your post, though as you can tell from this one there were some things that I found confusing. First, what would you say is the major difference between the Paul v. Peter situation and this one? Would it be that they were equals? Second, if people don’t say something in public about a statement like the one Driscoll made in public could it be a negative witness in that others may assume all Christians agree (one person used the example of the priest sex scandal in the Catholic Church)? What would be a way forward?
Dr. Bradley,
You write: “We saw as in the odd defense of the way Piper and Taylor and others encourage the bloodsport against Rob Bell.” I’m afraid you misunderstand the situation. Rob Bell does not correspond to Mark Driscoll in this situation. Instead, Rob Bell corresponds to Rachel Held Evans and the many others who have been insulted and offended by the absurdly un-Christian comments put forth by Driscoll over the years of his “ministry.” Your comments are effectively defending Driscoll, and the ironic thing is that this is precisely like those who defended Piper and Taylor. So you’re on the wrong side here. Calling someone a bully for acting like a bully is not slander; it’s truth-telling. Your defense of Driscoll only serves to disenfranchise those who have been put down by his appalling comments.