I am encouraged. In fact, I choose to be. Let me tell you why.
Yesterday I mentioned the Facebook post written by Pastor Mark Driscoll that caused public outrage because his words could very easily have led to pain for those who do not fit into the macho-masculinity paradigm espoused by many in our society. One of the most read responses was that by Rachel Held Evans where she called Driscoll a “bully” and then asked for people to contact Mars Hill Church where Driscoll pastors to ask for his correction. In response to Evans there was an article written by Dr. Anthony Bradley calling Evans’ response “libel” and warning us Christians of infighting that distracts from our witness to Christ. People commented on this article either defending Evans, defending Bradley, or some nuance of these positions.
I blogged about it because I thought it gave us all an opportunity to discuss public error and rebuke. What should we do in these types of situations? Who has the right to rebuke? What kind of rebuke is helpful and healing? What kind of rebuke comes across as spiteful and divisive? There were some good responses here.
Yesterday Mark Driscoll wrote a clarification. It was titled, “Gender: Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?” I am not sure that we can call it an “apology”, per se, but it is appreciated none the less. Driscoll wrote the following stratements:
“I…put a flippant comment on Facebook, and a raging debate on gender and related issues ensued. As a man under authority, my executive elders sat me down and said I need to do better by hitting real issues with real content in a real context. And, they’re right. Praise God I have elders who keep me accountable and that I am under authority. “
“In the past, I’ve not had a regular place to work out personal commentary on social issues, and so I’ve erred in sometimes doing so in places like Facebook, Twitter, and the media, where you can have a good fight but don’t have the room to make a good case.“
While some may not be satisfied because Driscoll doesn’t say, “I was wrong for what I said” this is an important step. If the church is graceful we will accept the step, pray for further maturity, and seek reconciliation. This is exactly what Rachel Held Evans does in her blog post in response to Driscoll’s response. She writes,
“… I am grateful that the elders at Mars Hill held him accountable and asked him to “do better” in speaking about these issues with decorum and respect. That means that our messages were heard and that something was done. I know that many were hoping for an apology, but as followers of Jesus we must be willing to forgive without one. This is a step in the right direction, and I thank Mark for taking it.“
“Evangelicals appear to be at a crossroads in this debate, and Facebook is certainly not the ideal forum for productive dialog….
…Mark is my brother in Christ, and I would welcome him to such a conversation with open arms. “
This is a productive, I think, though I know it is not satisfactory for many. What it is doing to some extent is admitting wrongs (from both sides), seeking humility, and welcoming discussion rather than detached, impersonal rebukes. I think this is what happens when we put a face on “the other”. We find a way to be gracious (and again, let me applaud this recent response from Evans because I think it shows great courage in seeking graciousness when it would be easy to dismiss Driscoll’s statement as insufficient). We must see the (A) humanity in even those with which we disagree and (B) seek reconciliation, especially with those who are fellow children of God in the same household of faith.
I don’t know if we have solved this “public error and public rebuke” conundrum. I presume something like this could very well happen again and we as the body of Christ will once again face the difficult challenges involved. Yet at this point I applaud steps toward reconciliation, understanding, and most of all love.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
Could you elaborate the line ” I think this is what happens when we put a face on “the other”. Are you talking about “the Other” in a Levinas fashion or perhaps Derrida?
From what I gather, and I am probably inferring too much, you are saying that the first step of reconciliation was when Driscoll and Evans broke through the internet barrier which saw each participant as simply “a text” and argued about each in other as if they were arguing with a text (and not a person)? Once the humanity broke through, and people started talking to “people” it moved in the right direction….
Would this be fair to say?
The reason I hate the questions you have raised (but find so interesting) is because I don’t think there is any real precedent Biblically on how to handle the issue of a virtual personality….. Especially in regards to the Lack of the Face of the Other.
@Joel: No, I am not consciously appealing to Levinas or Derrida, though I wouldn’t be surprised if their thought has trickled down through many sources into my own. What I am saying is that in the virtual world it is too easy to take a shot at someone in a way that we would not do in person. While I am not denying that there is always a distance between two people it is scenarios like this one that force us to ask whether not one will be sold bold in person (e.g. the Corinthians wondering if the Apostle Paul could say what he had written while in their presence).
I don’t think I am saying we have a “biblical” precedent for how we should handle cyber-conflict, but we do have precedent for how to handle conflict in general. We should seek to apply a hermeneutic of trust, the benefit a doubt, and graciousness whether sitting with each other at a table in a coffee shop or writing to each other over Facebook.
Let’s work on saying sorry … then we can move on to the big issues of the Church.
Saying sorry is something we can all work on.
Sorry is just a word unless it is said from a sorrowful heart. We can all say “I’m sorry” and not actually mean it. We all have done it. I am coming in late on this story so I didn’t see his remark or the rebuttles, but having an opinion is fine. Opinions, we all have them. Offensive opinions, yes we have those too. Tact can be used in relaying ones ideals or opinions, but not all of us are gifted with tact. I have seen Pastor Mark preach. I follow him on Twitter too. He is an honest man. Honest to a fault perhaps, but honest. I respect that and admire that in him and in others. Having said this, it doesn’t pay to sugar coat things. There are somethings that you can meet head-on and it’s ok. With “lifestyle” being such a “hot button” right now it might be best to keep one’s opinions to themselves when it is over something as heavy as sexuality. I have my own opinions on the matter of sexual preference, which is a horrible term I think, so I’ll say sexual orientation. I have my thoughts on whether it is sinful or not, but my opinion would never change the love I have for all people. Telling the truth in love is what God and His word asks us to do. Having your opinions, your thoughts and even be passionate about them are ok, but make sure that the passion that is being show is love and not hate. IMO.
I thought this post by the Internet Monk was a gracious and useful contribution to the discussion, trying to retrieve from Driscoll the important questions he is asking without getting distracted by some of the other issues associated with the questioner.
@Justin: No doubt this doesn’t settle the matter. I think one key will be to give it time. We must give Driscoll an opportunity to hear his elders and mature. I know he has made mistakes before so the common response will be “how long?” I don’t know the answer, but I think we should be as longsuffering with one another as possible. This whole situation has been very unfortunate.
@Byron: Thanks for sharing the post.