Libel is not love
One sign of the declining state of Christianity in America is the way in which believers publicly slander one another, which can do violence to love and undermine the witness of the Church to nonbelievers. A recent example occurred when a Christian blogger took offensive to a comment made by a prominent pastor, and then, sadly, the blogger’s rant went viral on the internet.
Granted, the pastor, Seattle’s Mark Driscoll, seems to draw controversy like a magnet, mainly because of his willingness to speak out boldly against feminism in our society and paganism in the media, his unvarnished challenges to men to “be men” instead of soft and “effeminate,” his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture, and his belief that the pastorate is reserved for men and that women should stay home to nurture their children.
But what stirred up the blogger was a recent Facebook post by Driscoll, who caustically asked, “So what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?” After receiving more than 600 comments, Driscoll deleted the post, but the cat was already out of the bag. I am not here to defend Driscoll’s post and would personally challenge him over what he wrote. My concern is how Christians handle conflict with other Christians in public.
That’s where Rachel Held Evans and her blog post, “Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him,” come in. There is nothing loving about calling a pastor a “bully“—that is, “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” That is a serious charge. In her post, Evans describes why she believes Driscoll to be a bully, implying that he, his teachings, and the elders at his church are not functioning in ways consistent with Scripture. While it is more than reasonable to understand why someone would take issue with Driscoll’s post, 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.
Jacob W. Ehrlich, in The Holy Bible and the Law, explains that because of the oral culture of the world of the Bible there is no difference between slander and libel in Christianity. And according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, slander in the Bible is understood as an “accusation maliciously uttered, with the purpose or effect of damaging the reputation of another. As a rule it is a false charge (compare Mt 5:11); but it may be a truth circulated insidiously and with a hostile purpose (e.g., Dan 3:8, ‘brought accusation against,’ where Septuagint has diaballo, ’slander’; Lk 16:1, the same Greek word).”
Evans’ slanderous post also represents one of the things that God finds detestable, “a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community” (Proverbs 6:19). Additionally, the Bible teaches that if someone offends us we should go to the person directly first (Matthew 18:15-20).
Christians publicly defaming the character of other Christians by name is not the way of love (1 Peter 4:8, Romans 12:9-10).
Thanks to the dissension that has now been stirred up, atheist websites are applauding Evans’ response to Driscoll. What type of Christianity are we displaying before the world if slander is our response to the words of leaders we find offensive? Evans maintains that “Mark’s bullying is unacceptable,” and I would add that so is ungodly public speech against another Christian.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top126 Comments to “Libel is not love”
I was on the Pastor Parish board for 3 yrs in my younger days. I once spoke openly during a meeting about how pathetic our Pastor was and listed about 10 things that I and others want addressed. He took it all in and never changed a single concern.
What I learned: I will never ever talk negatively about any Pastor that I am under. God hates it, even if the concerns are true.
Report comment to moderator
This is an excellent post, Anthony; and one I would pray is well considered in all Christian communities. This is definitely one of the biggest downsides of the internet…how easily it is to spread such slanderous comments, that cannot be taken back later. I find Driscoll’s internet conduct, as described in the article above, equally reprehensible, but what ever happened to the Biblical admonishment of how to handle disagreements? My goodness, if you are offended, send the man a personal e-mail!
Report comment to moderator
This is good food for thought. I do not, however, agree with FIVES55. If you were on the board, it is your responsiblity to point out problems. Perhaps you were too critically or did it in a wrong way, but to speak the truth in love is not the problem.
There is a hierarchy in the church and the Pastor is not a dictator, nor is any board.
I do agree that going around and speaking negatively about a pastor for no purpose or to puff ourselves up is obviously wrong.
The church today is terribly divided and that is an enormous problem for those on the outside looking in. It must grieve God so much.
Report comment to moderator
Yikes! Sorry about all the errors in that post!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, yes, yes, to the article and the first two comments. In his sermon series on the Book of James, Tim Keller posits that criticism can be okay, as long as the purpose is to build up, never to tear down.
Report comment to moderator
KI – I agree, and I interpreted fives55’s “talk negatively” phraseology in the “tearing down” sense.
Report comment to moderator
There is alway a thin line in dealing with sinful actions of pastors and Churches and dealing with dumb statements by pastors and churches.
Report comment to moderator
Slander is a serious sin, but constructive criticism is a biblical requirement. With a practical process laid out. Pastors should neither be treated as open targets or with kid gloves.
Report comment to moderator
Aliteration in that post was unintendede
Report comment to moderator
So was that extra e
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, the points made in this post reflect my feelings about the editors’ hit-piece on Sarah Palin a while back. I felt that done to pile on the secular media’s tearing-down of a woman whose values, such as respect for human life, are largely aligned with World’s. In short, World’s decision to publish that piece was incomprehensible to me. I think World still owes Mrs. Palin an apology and that that debt will not diminish with the passage of time.
Report comment to moderator
adios
I worked with a Pastor, who cut a deal with the Church that if we paided him X amount of money. He would quit his job at the Post Office. Every one was under the impression he did quit his job. we found out 4 months later that he never quit his job but transfer to a location that no one in the Church would go to. My friend and me stop by the post office by mistake and caught him working. To make matter wrost, when he saw us, he turn his back on us and walk away.
Report comment to moderator
And in case anyone is wondering, I did post my concerns directly on Ms. Evans’ blog previously before writing this and got no response. She has my contact information through Facebook.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony – that is good to know.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for clearing that up, Anthony!
Report comment to moderator
Oh for crying out loud! Christians have been doing things infinitely worse than calling each other names for many many centuries. Hundreds of thousands have died in disputes over doctrine.
Defining heresy and deciding how to punish it has occupied ecclesiastical courts ever since day one. Ask Paul.
There simply is no authoritative source for most doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Thankfully, Brian McLaren has weighed in on this. We get to read him call those “on the other road”, from him of course, legalistic, rigid, anti-intellectual, combative bullies who mock and misrepresent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/two-roads-diverged-in-the-evangelical-woods/2011/07/13/gIQAKeljCI_blog.html
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think your Matt 18 concern applies here. Carson explains why: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/36-1/editorial-on-abusing-matthew-18
Report comment to moderator
Chrisblackstone, thanks for posting this. I find it interesting that McLaren does not say a word about Driscoll’s comments but focuses on Evans. I wonder why that is? Why focus on Evans when the cause was said to be Driscoll?
Report comment to moderator
Tim T., Carson, doesn’t apply here because in his emergent book he was NOT calling people names like “Bully” NOR was he encouraging people to take actions against an individual. I’ve read Carson but I’m more persuaded by R.T. France’s work and the application of the passage toward cultivating a critical spirit.
Report comment to moderator
So, you are using a public forum to call out Rachel Held Evans for calling out Mark Driscoll in a public forum…And your point is that Christians need to stop criticizing each other? Just making sure I’m clear here…
Report comment to moderator
Anthony – Why focus on Evans when the cause was said to be Driscoll?
I can only theorize: when setting up straw men to torch, it helps to be general and not name names. That way you present a smaller target for the opposition.
Report comment to moderator
Lightbygrace – Read the article carefully and I think you’ll see the difference. Anthony does not engage in libel or name-calling, but points out what actually happened.
Report comment to moderator
You say, “the Bible teaches that if someone offends us we should go to the person directly first (Matthew 18:15-20).” Carson explains why that need not always be the case. Now you’re giving a different spin on Matt 18 than in your article, which is fine, but I was addressing the article.
Report comment to moderator
…nor do I think a fair reading of the article reveals a generalized assertion that “Christians should stop criticizing each other.”
Report comment to moderator
No Lightbybrace, that’s not my point at all. I don’t care that Evan’s responded Driscoll. My point is that we can disagree with what people say WITHOUT calling them bad names, defaming their character, and stirring up dissension. I have called Evans no names to defame her character nor am I encouraging anyone to do anything (which is probably frustrating to some readers).
Report comment to moderator
So is this to say that no one can be called a bully – is it always a bad name? Or only that pastors can’t be called bullies? Or that women can’t call men bullies?
Jesus called leaders at the time a brood of vipers and white washed tombs. I’m not calling Rachel Jesus (!!!!), but if someone is behaving in the manner of a bully, I fail to see how that is a sinful act.
As for the atheist thing, again, Jesus was far more attractive to the not-so-faithful crowd than he was to those who were in the club. If the sinners see love in Rachel’s post and hatred in Mark’s, who is the one reflecting Christ?
Report comment to moderator
AliseWrite – It is better to criticize a person’s actions than to call him names, defame his character, or incite others to take unspecified action against him, particularly given how a mentally unstable person might be incited to act. All of that should be self-evident. Also, as I noted above, the Book of James is about the use of the tongue and a general theme is that Christians should use the tongue to build up, not tear down. That doesn’t mean never criticize, but how you say what you say matters a great deal. Finally, Jesus’ words toward the Pharisees is of questionable relevance, not only because he is God and we’re not (as you acknowledge), but because the Bible instructs believers on the use of speech and how to handle disagreements.
Report comment to moderator
This is a complicated issue. Because of the public and widespread nature of internet posts, it is not always possible or advisable to go directly ‘to the person’ doing the offending. Matthew 18 may be prescriptive here, but would anyone really expect Mark Driscoll to respond or even read an email message? Presumably, as a popular public figure he receives thousands of messages daily, many of them negative. It’s unrealistic to assume that he can be reached by a stranger through email.
The larger issue here seems to be what is the proper response when a Christian leader expresses in a very public forum sentiments contrary to Biblical teaching. As Christians, we need to respond in kind by publicly refuting the errant teaching. When Harold Camping made his ‘biblical’ prediction about the end of the world, many Christians rightly and publicly pointed out the error in his teaching, the same principle applies here. This should, however be done in a manner which avoids ad hominem, attacking the arguments, not the arguer.
The third issue at play here is the underlying debate over homosexuality. ‘Bullying’ has become an issue for the homosexual lobby to rally behind, and by using such loaded language without clarification, dangerous inferences are readily drawn by the average reader. Do Christians need to treat homosexuals with love? Absolutely. Is homosexual behavior fundamentally immoral? Absolutely. By decrying the wrongheaded attitude of Mr. Driscoll and demanding participation in an ‘I’m sorry campaign’, this blogger sends the message that Christians should love homosexuals because there is nothing morally wrong with their sexual proclivities, not because Christians are to love our neighbors.
Report comment to moderator
I’m curious. What is the correct response for the believer when a very public “national” Christian celebrity really is acting like a bully and is generally not being called on it?
I put myself in Evans’s place. I don’t know Mark Driscoll personally. I could probably send him an email, but it will just get round-filed by an assistant and never reach Driscoll himself.
What about politicians claiming to be believers? How many times has Obama been called a bully or a “thug” by various Christians? Is the proper response to express rebuke privately? Or is it a different set of rules because Driscoll is a pastor and Obama an elected representative?
Don’t misunderstand me: there are ways of expressing criticism that are unquestionably “wrong”. Name calling, spite, unfair hyperbole, etc. I’m not sure what Evans wrote rises to that level.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Why do you conclude that “Mark Driscoll is a bully” doesn’t rise to the level of name-calling…?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – If she had said, “Mark Driscoll engages in bullying behavior yet again” would that be more acceptable?
Report comment to moderator
Another dynamic involved in Rachel Evans’ post is the utilization of a political-activist approach to the handling of issues in the church. Her post reads as a rallying cry to political action in forcing Driscoll to bow to what she believes are appropriate measures of repentance. I find this to be disturbing, not only because she seems to set herself up as the ultimate arbiter of how Driscoll must make amends, but because she incites her followers to take an inherently coercive set of actions through the application of political pressure.
Report comment to moderator
AliseWrite – Yes, that would have been much better, because it would have been describing the behavior without pigeon-holing the individual through use of a pejorative noun. There are other aspects of her post that are problematic, as well (see above).
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many death threats are in Mr. Driscoll’s email inbox right now.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many are in Ms. Evans’s?
Report comment to moderator
Touché
Report comment to moderator
Why “Touche”? Did someone post an incendiary column about her and give out all of her contact information, the way she did to Driscoll?
Report comment to moderator
According to this article’s own definition, slander “is a false charge; but it may be a truth circulated insidiously and with a hostile purpose.”
Since Rachel Held Evans’ recognition that Driscoll is in fact a bully is neither false, nor “circulated insidiously” or “with a hostile purpose” (unless you consider defending the bullied and calling the aggressor to genuine repentance “hostile”), her post cannot be considered slander.
Report comment to moderator
Really? Libel? Slander? Those are some seriously loaded legal terms to be thrown around just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion.
The cowardice demonstrated by throwing around these accusations and attempting -poorly- to back them up with Scripture is astonishing. I would imagine it’s because any *actual* precedent for them is baseless. If using a bit of proof-texting out of context is the best you have to offer as a counter-argument in support of Pastor Driscoll, then I dare say he’s better off with no support at all.
The fact remains that Driscoll has a history of speaking loudly using pejoratives and then back hiding behind Scripture when confronted. He’s the popular kid in school picking on the “nerd” for messing up the curve. Calling him a bully isn’t slander, it’s descriptive. If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
That you don’t see it as such indicates that you are simply part of the same crowd at the heart of the problem that created egos like Driscoll displays. You’re the popular kids that laugh in approval.
I should note, many of those atheists didn’t give up on God because they were led astray by the Devil. In most cases it was Christians that drove them away from Christ.
Report comment to moderator
#39 and #40 – Please take a minute to read the article carefully. Nobody is defending Driscoll’s actions, which could be the topic of a separate article. The focus is on Evans’ response, which you seem to repeat almost word-for-word.
Report comment to moderator
i find your piece puzzling. you disagree with the public nature of evans’ critique of driscoll’s misbehavior and her calling him a bully…so you publicly criticize her and label her a libeler? can’t you agree to disagree without accusing her of malicious intent? i read her piece as a level-headed call to christian accountability, and the way you (mis)characterize evans doesn’t seen so loving yourself.
there is a tremendous difference between naming-calling and calling-out sin. evans didn’t call him a jerk or anything mean-spirited–she called him a bully, descriptive of the kind of behavior and speech he engaged in. evans wasn’t publicly airing a personal grievance but responding to a public offense. there is certainly a place for speaking truth to power (in love, certainly), especially speaking up for people who are being marginalized–like those church leaders who don’t toe driscoll’s machismo line.
it’s unfortunate that this drama is obscuring the heart of the hurt: that some in Church are imposing their own cultural, extra-biblical ideas of gender–heavy burdens we weren’t meant to bear–and that too often we fail to model grace and love, to each other in the Church and those outside who watch as well.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like a call has gone out to defend Rachel and criticize Anthony. Prepare for the deluge….
Report comment to moderator
…there is certainly a place for speaking truth to power (in love, certainly)…
People should click on the link that Anthony provided and read Rachel’s post – all of it. It is more militant and angry than loving, in my view. It is a call to arms to squash Driscoll.
Report comment to moderator
@Buzzy – I read the entirety of the article. Which is why I addressed the fact that there is *no actual slander* in RHE’s response.
The remainder of my reply was directed at the attack on RHE for standing up to a bully. The not-so-subtle support of Driscoll for “his willingness to speak out boldly against feminism in our society, his challenges to men to ‘be men’ instead of soft and ‘effeminate,’ [and] his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture” while taking RHE to task on imagined charges is nothing short of silly.
It’s bad enough that Bradley tacitly approves of Driscoll’s deplorable, misogynistic, behavior, but to pen a passive-aggressive response under the guise of “Christian unity” is laughable.
He could have saved the characters and simply posted “I think Mark is cool, so losers should just shut up, no one likes you anyway!!” Ultimately, that’s a succinct summary of the entire article, which I came to after taking quite a few minutes to read it carefully.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like a call has gone out to defend Rachel and criticize Anthony. Prepare for the deluge…
Or, the bullied are feeling emboldened and won’t accept status quo. But you know, whatever helps you sleep at night…
Report comment to moderator
Friends, Pastor Driscoll explains himself today about his post that started all of this: http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/13/the-issue-under-a-lot-of-issues
Report comment to moderator
How is it that Driscoll is being a bully, exactly?
An ‘effeminate anatomically male worship leader’ would presumably be a guy who is wearing a skirt and pantyhose and a bra and lipstick; maybe carrying a pocketbook and wobbling around on high heels.
This would be alarming to me, as well, no matter how well he played the guitar, or warbled, or how shapely his legs looked in the strobe lights.
That sort of thing is almost undoubtedly happening in some ‘churches’, given the present collapse of some churches in the face of the decaying culture. So maybe Driscoll is onto something, I dunno.
After reading Evans rant, I would have to say that I suspect that she is primarily mad at him because of his non-politically correct stand against the acceptance of homosexuality by the church. (strong clue there in the blog link she references by the guy who wants homosexualists main-lined into the ‘church’).
But I could be wrong – she (herself) is a bit non-specific on that rather obvious issue, which raises my suspicions that she is just trying to gin up the ‘religious’ left, who always agree with whatever it was that Jesus actually said, as long as George Soros is okay with it.
Killing children by the millions, desecrating marriage, bowdlerizing the scriptures to fit the culture? Check, no problem.
Asking a relatively stupid question on a blog? Major angst and calls all around for someone’s head.
But then I don’t think Anthony needs to get all exercised by this guy Driscoll being called a ‘bully’ by people with such obvious political and supremely non-spiritual agendas.
It is really minor, a tempest in a teapot, compared to what goes on in so many other arenas, in these latter days.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony – that link didn’t work for me. Could just be me.
SeanRReid – Or, the bullied are feeling emboldened and won’t accept status quo.
Well, you really let the cat out of the bag on that one. It shows you have a result-oriented agenda, and a fairly militant one at that. Let me ask you a couple questions: (1) Do you think your posts here will help you achieve your desired result? (2) Do you think your extremely negative reading of Anthony’s words (posts 40 & 45) reflect your result-orientation, or is it more along the lines of an impartial analysis by a humble truth-seeker?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I hope you didn’t just let this pastor walk away. He needed to “come into the light” so to speak.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, try it now. I think I fixed it.
Report comment to moderator
The contact information given by Evans is readily available at the Mars Hill Church website: http://www.marshillchurch.org/about/contact-us
And I would consider making claims of libel to be fairly incendiary.
Report comment to moderator
Issues that once were “in house” church issues now become world wide as a result of the Web. What Mr. Driscoll might have once said before the church he pastors and which he might/might not have received correction/entreaty for is now available for all believers (and the world) to read. Thus his words are subject to criticism by anyone reading them. If you are willing to write your thoughts out for anyone anywhere to read, I think you need to be willing to bear the burden of the criticism. (This goes for Ms. Evans as well.)
Report comment to moderator
A very common trait in abusive households is a code of silence and secrecy. Any family member who breaks this code–for example by going to the authorities–is accused of being a traitor to the family. The same dynamic occurs in abusive churches. The one who speaks out is decried as a troublemaker, a traitor, a rebel, a “divider of the body of Christ”, etc.
It is interesting that in the New Testament scripture we read of Paul publicly criticizing Peter and Barnabas for stepping away from grace (Galatians 2:11-16).
Peter, in turn, devotes the entire second chapter of his second epistle to teachers *within the church* whom he considers false. His rhetoric against them is withering. “Not very loving”, as you might say.
The author of 3 John has harsh words for a church leader named Diotrephes, who “…loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.”
A teacher within the church who becomes abusive, ungracious and/or unsound is nothing new. Neither is being publically called out for it by one’s brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s not libel or slander; it is speaking truth to power and holding accountable those who lead and represent the church. The most powerful witnesses against Driscoll are his own words (as Evans demonstrated).
Perhaps the reason atheists are applauding (as you say) is because they appreciate seeing someone speaking up against abusive power in the church rather than the usual suppression of critique.
Report comment to moderator
This thread has taught me that the term “called out” has become a politically-correct euphemism that can justify any sort of name-calling, incitement to political action, and defamation that theologically liberal persons wish to throw at theologically conservative persons. As for the notion that Anthony’s column here is incendiary, I think that’s patently absurd. To get a sense of incendiary, read Rachel Evans’ post that he links to, mainly the call-to-action in the second half. Her post is chock full of name-calling and implications that Driscoll is not a “real” Christian man.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony – Yes, it works now. Here is what Driscoll says. He admits to having flubbed up (I bolded the portion below), but I expect that won’t be sufficient for some on this thread:
By contrast, here is the “call to action” part of Rachel Evans’ post. You judge for yourself who is being incendiary, and whether Rachel Evans’ account of what Driscoll said is fair. The facts speak for themselves.
The “This has to stop” rhetoric is what’s incendiary, in my view. She’s inciting people to action against a specific, named individual. If there is a biblical warrant for that methodology for handling family disagreements, please enlighten me.
Report comment to moderator
Mark Driscoll posted something on Facebook that encouraged people to gossip. Whatever your opinion is on gender issues,making a flippant comment (his words) to incite other Christians to tell stories (gossip) about other church leaders was at best poor judgement and a worst causing others to stumble. We cannot have church leaders using social media in a way that would be unacceptable if it were a face to face meeting. He needed to be called to accountability. The fact that Rachel Held Evans called him on some of Driscoll’s views on gender only adds to the problem that the post created. I actually read through some of the comments and Driscoll did little to explain himself (except by defining “effeminate”)
I hear from many pulpits how we, as Christians need o be accountable. Men in particular are called to accountability and that is what Ms Evans was trying to do. There was someone from Mars Hill monitoring the comments before the whole post was taken down. Evans did not post anything that wasn’t publicly available just church address, phone and email. I gather from Driscoll’s posting in The Resurgence he did get called on the carpet. Far too many Christian leaders are allowed to get on public media say whatever they want and not be held accountable for their statements.
A number of years ago a famous Christian personality advocated blowing up the State Department on his TV show. When I called to complain, I was told by his PR person that the State Department deserved to be blown up because of something that this personality didn’t agree with. When suggested that not only what he was suggesting was illegal, but that it was probably not very Christ like to kill people simply because you don’t agree with their policies. She again referred to whatever the State Department was doing wrong. No accountability.
I’m glad that Mark Driscoll was called to accountability. He has gained a voice and needs to learn how to use it.If Evan’s rant helped, then it served its purpose
Report comment to moderator
Steve D – Yes, people need to be called to accountability. But I cannot accept that Evans’ “rant” (your word) was just a-okay so long as it “helped” achieve a particular result desired by her and her followers. This is a totally consequentialist view of the acceptability of certain actions. Her method – to name-call, very rudely I might add, and incite concerted action against a specific, named individual – was totally unacceptable in my view. That kind of rhetoric – “He is a bully. This has to stop.” – especially when posted on the Web where anyone, no matter how mentally unstable, can be influenced by it, is harmful to everyone. It may still occur that someone in the Seattle area will be moved to violence against Driscoll, if they are sufficiently offended and emotionally unbalanced. If that happens, Rachel Evans will have blood on her hands. What she posted was very un-gracious, un-Christian, and unworthy of anyone with a modicum of human decency. It seems par for the course, nowadays, for theologically liberal persons to think, if they can just get the political result they want, then the method they use can be as crass and rude and in-your-face as they feel like making it.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
This isn’t the first time Driscoll has been called a bully. There have been numerous people who have left his church (including some of the pastoral staff) who have leveled the same accusation.
Frankly, I think you’re overplaying the violence. As I said, she only published public info that wasn’t even his. It was aimed at his Elders. Hint, Driscoll was name calling and inciting people to sin. Calling someone a bully is hardly a major offense. You seem to be more offended than he is. My take is that Driscoll made an offhand comment that he should have thought twice about, and he got his knuckles rapped (rightfully so) by his Elder board. There were at lot more bloggers than Evans calling him out.
Report comment to moderator
Steve D – I don’t know Driscoll, and maybe you’re right about him. But just read Rachel Evans’ post. It sounds like a page out of a handbook for radical political action. This is not what I would expect for something purporting to merely correct a brother’s errors and the like.
Also, are you saying that Driscoll has name-called a specific individual and broadcast to the world that action must be taken against that individual? That’s another type of bullying altogether. What I gather is that Rachel Evans is unhappy with Driscoll’s theology, philosophy, tone, and the like. Is there something more specific to her complaint than that?
Report comment to moderator
Also, as I said before, I’m unaware of any biblical warrant for handling family disputes in the manner that Rachel Evans has taken it upon herself to do. If I’m wrong about this, please refer me to where it is warranted in the Bible (which, incidentally, does have a great deal to say about disagreements between Christian believers). Simply referencing the number of times other people have done essentially the same thing as Rachel Evans does not validate that methodology from a biblical standpoint.
Report comment to moderator
I think that #53 and #54 had a lot of good points.
Report comment to moderator
“If you are willing to write your thoughts out for anyone anywhere to read, I think you need to be willing to bear the burden of the criticism.”
That’s basically the bottom line.
I don’t think calling someone a “bully” comes anywhere close to being “slander” or “libel” and think we need to stop throwing those terms around or they won’t mean what they’re supposed to mean.
I don’t particularly agree with Evans (and don’t think Driscoll should have posted what he did, although I agree with his theology more), but I also don’t think what she posted was bad. Calling people to email the church and all…well, that just isn’t alarming. The fact that some crazy *might* make it into something more? Well, that can happen with anything, and is the same argument that pro-choice people use against pro-life people. So, I think it is really dangerous to use that standard.
Report comment to moderator
MARK DRISCOLL PURPOSE DRIVEN MACHO MAN !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmkk1XjrGw
Report comment to moderator
And while a person needs to be accountable for any spoken (and typed) words, those doing the criticizing will also be held accountable (and not just to fellow bloggers/posters). There is One far greater who also hears/reads those words.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony, I respect what you’re saying, but have a question. I once attended a megachurch for more than a decade that has adopted liberal theological beliefs/politics in recent years. I left for that reason after I read many instances of the senior pastor mocking and ridiculing conservative Christians who didn’t accept the “truth” of evolution and man made global warming as he had started to do. From the pulpit and in his blog posts, he called us such things as “corner dwellers,” “not the sharpest knives in the drawer,” “old in our thinking,” Pharisaical know-it-all types who warn others of their “supposed theological errors,” and other very nasty things. He even talked in what he meant as a derogatory dialect when mocking those who don’t accept the popular “facts” of man made global warming (i.e., “I agin’ it.”) No, he didn’t name any one by name, he smeared an entire group of people in the church, painting them all with the same mocking brush. Isn’t that slanderous as well, even though no particular person was named? Should pastors like this who never miss an opportunity to publicly mock other groups of Christians not be dealt with? I tried on several occasions to confront his behavior, but he refused to respond to any of my requests. I then talked with another pastor at the church, who only defended what this man was doing. I knew then I had to leave that church. How should this type of situation be handled?
Report comment to moderator
Susan, was no one else offended by the pastor’s preaching?
Report comment to moderator
I have some issues with Driscoll. He has some flaws but he is spot on doctrinally in many aspects.
If you like Driscoll you will love Doug Giles. Giles is probably the man Driscoll is trying to emulate.
And remember too that Driscoll is proclaiming the Gospel in the PacNW. Who do men there have as role models? Alan Alda, Phil Donahue??
There are some effeminate types, no doubt. And do they hurt the church? Yep. See the book “Why Men Hate Going to Church” along with Doug Giles indictment of churches where Jesus is depicted as merely a bearded lady.
And after you’ve finished “Why Men..” pick up a dog-eared copy of “Wild at Heart”.
Report comment to moderator
“And remember too that Driscoll is proclaiming the Gospel in the PacNW. Who do men there have as role models? Alan Alda, Phil Donahue??”
Really? No good male role models in that part of the country? What part of the country abounds with role models?
Report comment to moderator
Tammy – Have you read Rachel Evans’ entire post? Like I said, it reads as a call to political activism, but in this case, the “political” result is to “stop” Driscoll from saying the things he says. As I have asked for on multiple occasions on this thread, show me where the Bible directs believers to handle disagreements in that way. It seems totally counter to everything the Bible says about resolving disagreements, not to mention the use of the tongue for edification. (Again, not defending Driscoll, but two wrongs don’t make a right). So, Tammy, please show me where the Bible condones Rachel Evans’ approach to her ‘beef’ with Driscoll.
Report comment to moderator
I think the word “bully” used in Christian circles, is a pretty serious charge.
Report comment to moderator
Just think about this for a moment: Driscoll expresses his conservative theological views, that’s his right; Evans expresses her liberal theological views, that’s her right. But who is trying to shut the other side up. Has Driscoll called for a concerted political campaign to censor Evans? No, but Evans is trying to censor Driscoll. As even the ACLU is fond of saying, the answer to speech is more speech, not to censor the speech you disagree with. The irony: the person trying to shut the other person up is the one calling the other person a bully. Why, for those on the left, does it always have to be suppression of speech you disagree with? Why can’t you just answer someone and show them where they went wrong? Why? Because the instincts of the left are always totalitarian, all the time. Rachel Evans has drunk deeply of the radical-totalitarian post-modern American spirit, and imported it into her version of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings – I would agree; it’s name-calling, pure and simple.
Report comment to moderator
So, Tammy, please show me where the Bible condones Rachel Evans’ approach to her ‘beef’ with Driscoll.
Show me where it’s condemned, either directly or by principle. I can’t help but think your objection is motivated by the fact that you agree with Driscoll and disagree with Evans. If the post in question had been Marvin Olasky calling out Rob Bell for his heresy would you be as critical?
1 Tim 5:19-21 deals with the local church, but it advocates dealing with the sin of an elder openly. In Evan’s case she’s basically calling on “the church” to rebuke Driscoll and reject his teachings, which she considers to do serious injury to the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Name-calling and character assassination are condemned throughout the book of James. “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone.” This supports what I said: the answer to speech is more speech (as in “reprove”), not a political campaign of censorship. Nothing in the Bible endorses a political campaign, directed to the entire world (believer and non-believer alike, mentally stable and mentally imbalanced alike), to ensure a brother in Christ may not speak views with which one disagrees. That is entirely contrary to the attitude a Christian should have.
I can’t help but think your objection is motivated by the fact that you agree with Driscoll and disagree with Evans.
Nice that you try to psychologize me from a distance, but it doesn’t work. I’m not even familiar with Driscoll’s views, so there is no way I can agree with them. I am familiar, however, with totalitarian censorship tactics, and I see those coming from Evans and not from Driscoll. That’s my focus.
Report comment to moderator
Which should we be more alarmed about? The original statemt made by Driscoll or the volume of response it drew? He hit a nerve as the dentists might say. His remark resonated with folks and they shared their observations.
Do we have a problem with effeminate men in our churches in leadership positions? Men who fail to project/personify biblical manhood?
The irony here is Jesus was a carpenter and his chosen apostles were fishermen. Carpentry in a time with none of the power tools and other no-strength-requiring power tools of our time! Can you imagine how buff he must’ve been? Ditto the men who hauled in the fish?
I’ve long suspected that in many denominations in the 60s and early 70s we harvested men who fled to seminary with the not tiny reason of it being a good way to avoid a trip to Viet Nam. And that generation of young men became in many denominations the church “elder statesman” who among other things probably lead some of the old mainline to embrace feminism, abortion and the homosexual agenda.
Just my 2cents worth.
Even to this day you see a lot of effeminate types doing parachurch campii ministry. A gal I know who got saved fairly late was sorta loathe to get involved with any of the parachurch dudes. As she said they mainly just want to have guitar koombaya sing alongs and weener roasts.
Again this problem arises from a church that won’t proclaim a standard of biblical manhood.
So its a problem way bigger than Mr Driscoll
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, you’re using a very broad brush today. So unless a man is a carpenter or a fisherman or some other “he-man” type of job, he is “effiminate”? Does that go for school teachers, programmers, store managers, politicians, pastors, etc?
Report comment to moderator
#79 Hopesprings, I think it more a question (which goes unverbalized by many men in the pews) “Does that guy live in the same world as me? Does he deal with the same stressors, hardships, challenges..” or what would he do if he had to walk in my shoes, deal with the jerks I deal with, strap on the same tool belt, face a lay-off, do involuntary overtime etc etc etc.
I’ve been impressed by the music ministers I’ve known. Many could have easily wound up in big metro symphonies or even Broadway musical productions.
And yet how many do real “guy stuff”? That is one reason why I feel Doug Giles resonates so well with lotsa dudes.
Report comment to moderator
Go back to the interaction tween Driscoll and the blue collar dude. The famous song-leader/singer in the Bible was the Warrior-King. Stu Weber has addressed this matter quite eloquently.
Report comment to moderator
Name-calling and character assassination are condemned throughout the book of James.
Sure. But we need to examine what “name-calling” is. If you murder someone and I call you a “murderer” is that “name-calling” or is it just a factually accurate statement? If Driscoll is actually bullying people then is it “name-calling” to say he’s a bully?
As for character assassination, here’s the definition from dictionary.com:
And here’s the definition for slander:
So in order for Evans to have “character assassinated” Driscoll her claims against would need to be false. Moreover, she would need to have made them with the knowledge they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Your analogy to murder is not entirely convincing. Murder is a fact, you have a dead body. What Driscoll said is, “So what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?” Calling him a bully on that account (or for similar utterances) involves a great deal of interpretation, particularly since there has been no coercion or physical violence (unlike Evans, who promotes coercion to shut him up). There has been some useful discussion here about the nature of male leadership in the church. Such discussion would be “chilled,” as lawyers like to say, if we had to worry about a political action campaign to shut us up every time we say – say – something that liberals disagree with.
Report comment to moderator
From what I understand, her describing him as a bully wasn’t based solely on that tweet.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe it was multiple tweets. But my point on this thread, in reference to James, has always been: was she calling him that name to edify him, or tear him down? She adopts a very hostile tone and calls everyone to action to shut him up. She is obviously not using her power of speech to edify. Read her post and decide for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
The truth can be wielded in a way that harms. Slander or not. You can damage a friend’s reputation by spreading around their sins. Even if they are known, what it leads to is things like gossip.
This is why I don’t agree with Evans shifting everything to blog fashion. After approaching the elder’s of the church, and that failing, there is no option to go shout it on the roof tops, nor certainly to act the same way by name calling.
Report comment to moderator
HopeSprings:
Many have left that church; I was certainly not the only one offended by that, and the liberal theology/politics this pastor has taken on while he mocks those who don’t adhere to it. My question was how should such a pastor be dealt with? Should we just pretend he’s doing nothing wrong if we can’t confront him directly and none of the other leaders in that church have the guts to do so? This same pastor writes about civility and how it’s wrong to attack others verbally, but he does that very thing every chance he gets and from the pulpit!
Report comment to moderator
Just to let you know I have responded from a different perspective in “Popping Off is Not Pastoral“.
Report comment to moderator
My question was how should such a pastor be dealt with?
It’s a good question. One thing is for sure: what Rachel Evans did is not the answer.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, to answer Buzzy’s question, I did read all of Evans’ blog.
I still don’t think she was doing what is claimed. She is asking the man to stop, and asking those who believe as she does to join her.
Perhaps that goes a little too far, but I also worry about the culture of silence in Christian circles. We are so afraid of offending someone, or of looking as if we’re non-Christian, or we’re afraid of being accused of causing dissension that–sometimes–we really do put up with some bad things in church and in our communities that we shouldn’t be putting up with!
I do NOT agree with Evan’s theological views. I tend to agree with Driscoll’s much, much more. I do, however, think his question was poorly worded.
I don’t know anything more about him than what has been posted here, so I can’t say if he tends to speak inappropriately more often as Evans seems to believe.
But, I think she had the right to post what she did. I do not think her “call” to contact the church rises to a level of inciting violence, anymore than when pro-life groups “call” on people to protest against pro-choice doctors and clinics.
I may not agree with her, but I do defend her right to do it, because–in the long run–it defends MY rights too in other situations.
The church doesn’t have to listen to her.
As for Driscoll’s reputation? Well, I’d imagine that there are a lot of people like me who’d never heard of him before, so now that I have, I don’t think poorly of him. I think he made a poor word choice in a twitter post, but his theology came across to me as rather appealing. So, I think that it could work either way. More people are aware of him to hate him, but more people are aware of him to support him as well.
If Evans had called on people to even go so far as to picket the church, that MIGHT have been more worrisome, but–again–see pro-life tactics. I don’t want to see those stopped!
But, she only called on people to write to the church and tell them to get Driscoll to “behave.” The church is still free to do what it wants with that. It just doesn’t rise to the level of a major concern to me.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives are funny. Y’all have such thin skin and so many amusing double standards. You attack and mock and name-call against “liberals” all day long in your blogs, and magazines and news networks, and yet when one not-very-well-known, sort-of liberal writer actually pushes back a teensy little bit against one of your rock-star preachers, all of a sudden you start whimpering about libel and slander and the like. So you can dish it out, but you can’t take it, huh? Now who does that remind me of…? Oh yeah… bullies.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe it was multiple tweets. But my point on this thread, in reference to James, has always been: was she calling him that name to edify him, or tear him down?
Calling him a bully is just an expression of what she understands to be objective truth. She thinks he is, in fact, bullying people. Her goal is to get him to stop it in an effort to see fewer people harmed by his rhetoric and (in her opinion) warped version of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy – We could save a lot of time if you’d just answer the question I asked you, which I put in bold in post 72 so you couldn’t miss it. Instead, you say things like, “I think she had the right to post what she did.” Yes, of course she had the legal right to do that, and I never denied it, and I would never mount a political campaign to censor her. But what I was asking is a different question: was she *right* to do it from biblical standpoint. In other words (and again, to repeat my previous question), where in the Bible does it condone her actions? You haven’t answered that though I’ve asked it repeatedly, so I must assume you cannot answer it, because her actions are inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about how to handle disagreements within the family of God.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Her goal is to get him to stop it in an effort to see fewer people harmed by his rhetoric and (in her opinion) warped version of Christianity.
I would be more sympathetic to that interpretation if I didn’t find her own tone and censorship approach to be strident and unloving. In fact, I would love to think she is acting out of purely charitable motives. However, I can’t honestly do that after reading her post.
Report comment to moderator
She writes:
Sure seems like she’s doing it because she cares about folks who are (theoretically) being harmed by Driscoll’s teachings.
Report comment to moderator
Read the whole post. It’s strident. It’s aimed at a specific, named individual. It name-calls in a swaggering, mean-spirited way (”what we have on our hands is a bully”). It contains a call for concerted action against that named individual. It says that we must shut that individual up. The call for concerted action is broadcast to the whole world. It has contact information for how to carry through. That’s not caring, it’s threatening and troubling. As for Driscoll, while I have no desire to defend what he said, at least he didn’t single anyone out by name (or implication), or make a call for concerted action against anyone. He also admitted he was wrong and that he’d have to do better. The facts speak for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
HopeSprings:
SusanP #87: “Many have left that church; I was certainly not the only one offended by that, and the liberal theology/politics this pastor has taken on while he mocks those who don’t adhere to it. My question was how should such a pastor be dealt with? Should we just pretend he’s doing nothing wrong if we can’t confront him directly and none of the other leaders in that church have the guts to do so? This same pastor writes about civility and how it’s wrong to attack others verbally, but he does that very thing every chance he gets and from the pulpit!”
I think a pastor/elder should be entreated respectfully, communicating that you think the best and are confident that this man wants what God wants. I’m not saying that this will always be the case, but that is the hope. Really, you want to win him and not cause further division. Since you say that there are others that were also offended, perhaps you should take another person with you (Mt. 18). I’m not saying that a woman can’t do this, but I think it might be better if men in the church would take this upon themselves.
If the pastor/elder will not be entreated (and this is assuming that there is a real biblical problem and not a difference of opinion or a personality problem), then you have to decide if God wants you to stay there, I would think.
Report comment to moderator
Woooo, strident! I’m not sure what all of the whining is about. DriscolL was being a bully and was called out on it, what is the big deal?
Report comment to moderator
Does it seem to anyone else that an invitation to describe the most “effeminate” male worship leader one has seen on Driscoll’s Facebook page is an invitation to slander and public judgment (and a highly subjective form of it at that)? Of course, this doesn’t excuse Evans’ slander if such it is (I have not read her post).
I agree that slander is unwarranted. Speaking the truth in love is what Christ’s followers are called to. Apparently, there are times that this doesn’t preclude calling someone what they truly are quite publicly, even when that is not at all complimentary. Witness Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:1-36 and Luke 13:32.
It is to his credit that Driscoll removed his ill-advised Facebook post, but I’d say by now it’s too late. Pastors also are called to a higher standard. Is Evans a pastor or just a concerned lay person? Hypothetically, if Driscoll were, in fact, a bully, and in light of Jesus’ own example, would this change your conviction here expressed at all Mr. Bradley?
This does serve as a yet another warning to all of the power of words and of the Internet! Be very careful what you post. I have to say, though, I have seen professing Christians write much worse than what you have described here, which is why I think it’s worth tackling the topic whether this is the most relevant example or not.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for this article along with the discussion and comments.
Report comment to moderator
“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.”
It was slander. RHE basically said he was unaccountable to anyone, and enjoyed throwing his weight around. That is untrue. Mark Driscoll’s words are indefensible sometimes, but his pattern has been to respond with humility when his errors are brought to his attention.
As for #90,
“I may not agree with her, but I do defend her right to do it, because–in the long run–it defends MY rights too in other situations.”
I thought we were slaves of Christ, with no rights of our own, but only to go when he says go, and come when he says come.
Report comment to moderator
#93
Actually, I thought I had.
I think that #54 answered that well. I see no reason from the Bible that says her post was wrong.
Public sins are not the same as private ones.
Driscoll apologized, though, and that should be the end of that.
Report comment to moderator
I would be more sympathetic to that interpretation if I didn’t find her own tone and censorship approach to be strident and unloving.
******I think that this is the crux of the problem.
You are READING her “tone” into the article. I do not read it the same way that you are reading it.
I don’t particularly approve of her tone, but I don’t think it is nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.
Words on a page are wonderful. The problem with them (as will all communication) is that we bring a lot of our OWN preconceived notions to the table and we may well read what is written way differently than someone else.
Again, while I see her “tone” as a bit negative, I really don’t read it the way that you are.
Report comment to moderator
HopeSprings #97
“this is assuming that there is a real biblical problem and not a difference of opinion or a personality problem”
I attended the church for 13 years quite happily, so this was not just a disagreement or personality problem with this man, who has been senior pastor there the whole time I attended. The man is mocking and ridiculing conservative (theologically) Christians from the pulpit and in official writings with his name and countenance on them. I gave examples in my previous post (#68). I call that a biblical problem. He never did such things before the last few years. I tried numerous times to contact him about my concerns, and he refused to respond. Many others had the same experience with this man. Another pastor I was close to at the church did nothing but blow off my concerns or refuse to actually confront them and/or made excuses for what what happening. That is why I left. I am fully aware of Matthew and how we’re to confront those we have a problem with; this pastor will not adhere to that passage.
Report comment to moderator
Susan, my answer was not to imply that you didn’t have a genuine biblical grievance or that you hadn’t approached this problem in a biblical manner. I was just replying to:
“My question was how should such a pastor be dealt with?”
However, I answered it more on the line of my understanding as to how a pastor should be entreated. Specifically, if this man will not be entreated and men are not willing to confront him, I don’t know how he can be “dealt with” (except by prayer).
Report comment to moderator
“Thanks to the dissension that has now been stirred up, atheist websites are applauding Evans’ response to Driscoll.”
If a believer’s words are being applauded by atheists, it should also give pause.
Report comment to moderator
“..atheist websites are applauding Evans’ response to Driscoll..”
—
Sounds like chemical-onlyites have made chemical-based “moral” assessments of supposedly, other chemical-onlyites.
This is via a chemical-based “guess” at reality by such entities.
“Reality” cannot be assessed by such multi-moleculed compounds.
Thus, no derivative chemical-based “points” can be made.
—
Thus, true instruction on reality is critical.
Spiritual realities are foundational to the natural.
(N/C for that.)
For further light, regarding the seaching lightless-ite please consider…
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (Joh 8:12)
Receive Him.
And the eternal adventure will begin.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Hopesprings. You are right. Such a man needs prayer, however, I find myself struggling with great anger at the way he is molding people to share his views and contempt for others who do not believe his way. Before he started doing this, the church was apolitical. Christians of all stripes attended: liberal, conservative, many races and cultures. However, now that he has taken to showing such contempt for a sizable percentage of his congregation, many conservatives have left. Who wants a senior pastor who scorns them? He is doing the very thing he condemns in largely conservative churches: making other Christians who are not conservative feel unwelcome. That is definitely wrong, but it’s just as bad when an increasingly liberal church makes conservatives unwelcome. He doesn’t seem to think so, however.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Susan, many churches are accountable to another authority, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention. So, there might be an appeal there.
I’m sorry you have had such an unfortunate experience and I can relate to it as well.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings:
That is not a possibility in this case, as this man sits on the national board of this movement. Many on the national board are of the same views as he is. The current national director shows no respect for Scripture … he pays lip service to saying he does, but advocates the liberal belief that scripture must change with the times and the culture. The ones that aren’t going along with this are too cowardly to confront the damage the others are doing. I expect that in a number of years, this movement will be only a shadow of itself. It’s really already starting to happen. The church I attended was founded in the late 70s, and giving had grown every single year since that time. However, last year, giving actually went down for the first time. That says a lot. As for me, I have been quite fortunate to find a church that is small, biblically solid, and full of the Holy Spirit.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy @ 83 Exactly. Regarding the litany that the Rachel Evans’ used to imply that Mark Driscoll was not a real Christian man, I found that her instances of bullying to be more open to interpretation than such serious accusations should invite. For example, in the link she provided to show how Mark Driscoll trashes femininity, I expected to find comments of his that, you know, trash femininity. Instead I found an article in the wake of the Ted Haggard scandal pertaining to Driscoll’s comments about women “letting themselves go” not making themselves available to their husbands. Offensive, insensitive, poorly-timed, easily interpreted as blaming the wife for the husband’s sin, all of that, yes. But I do not see that as trashing or attacking femininity. He was rightfully corrected then, and he rightfully apologized for hurting women with his ill-chosen comments.
Mark Driscoll does not always speak with Christian care, to say nothing of pastoral care, on these types of issues, and by now, he really should know better. He should be confronted for being uncharitable and worse, and brought to account. (Which seems to have happened here already.) But to me, it is just as uncharitable (and worse) to lay charges at his feet that are not quite as advertised in order to justify an electronic flash mob of phone, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, plane, train and automobile. Obviously I am being hyperbolic on the last few modes, Evans’ did not encourage anyone to show up on his front door, but now that Buzzy has mentioned the inescapable caste this protest has taken, I am curious what else we can expect of political tactics in the future when a pastor says or writes something that (understandably or not) offends others’ sensibilities. Organized protests and picketing at pastors’ homes, like is done now to elected officials and corporate executives?
Report comment to moderator
Marc Driscoll may be completely biblical, but I his approach is sad and offensive. He is smug, arrogant, and repulsive to some who might respond to his message if issued in a kinder voice. I’m not saying that Rachel Evans is totally correct, either, but her approach and tone are FAR better. In any event, jerk pastors should be “called out,”and Marc Driscoll is a jerk pastor.
Incidentally, for you fundies ready to twist my neck for calling Driscoll a “jerk,” calm down. I’m not a Christian now, though I was a passionate and active evangelical for more than 30 years, with ordination by a conservative denomination, and an additional 12 years as a hard-core conservative Bible teacher in local churches. So I have no qualms about creating a burp on what some think should be serene, calm Kingdom waters.
One more thing. Anthony advocates that Christians use politically correct — sorry, non-”slander”-ous — language when pointing out flaws or errors in other Christians. I wonder; did he (and/or the rest of you on this thread) follow such advice faithfully when you talked about Harold Camping in May? Or Benny Hinn and/or Paula White last year?
Report comment to moderator
@ Buzzy #85. Agreed again. There was another response that got lost in the furor and that is a shame because this particular Christian woman and blogger (Dianna Anderson) wrote something that could further discussion (the type that Mr. Driscoll says he is interested in having), while also making plain how she feels his words can hurt those in Christ and otherwise. I did not agree with much she wrote after “Dear Mr. Driscoll. Hi Mark. Can I call you Mark?” all the same, I appreciated how she made an effort to interact with Mr. Driscoll and present why she thinks his words and views are problematic and/or departures from the Christian ethos. (I saw that some had a problem with her tone, but I thought the casual and lightly snarky tone was fine, especially given she was writing to Mark Driscoll.) Ms. Anderson treated him like a fellow Christian with whom she has serious disagreements, whereas Rachel Evans treated him like a creepy slumlord whose operation needs to get shutdown by any means possible. I understand fervor like that and wanting to take up on behalf of those who she feels are hurting, but a mass electronic dog-pile is not an edifying event.
Report comment to moderator
I know very little about Mark Driscoll. But…I do know that God is not limited by a pastor’s problems. A church can grow because of a pastor/elder or in spite of a pastor/elder. God is always good! And He is the One that raises up or remove. And it’s according to His Word and His plan (not ours).
Mark Driscoll is God’s own and God has not completed His work in Him (or in his believing critics). God is able to chasten as He sees fit or to defend as He sees fit.
Report comment to moderator
“removes”, not “remove”
Report comment to moderator
Should I now start a blog post about how Anthony Bradley is not being a loving Christian because of his negative post about Rachel?
:rolleyes:
Report comment to moderator
I think we may be so focused on protecting Driscoll that we are missing the call to Christians to protect and love marginalized groups. When Christians poke fun at folks who are already feeling excluded from mainstream Christianity (LGBT folks and “effeminate” men), they deserve to receive some harsh words. His post and attitudes are driving people away from the church and, as a leader, he should be accountable.
Report comment to moderator
The best way to deal with a bully is to call him what he is and then cal him out. The atheists are gonna say what they want about the way the Christian community deals with issues anyway–who cares? The conversation should be about Driscoll’s issues and his insatiable need for the limelight not Evans stance
Report comment to moderator
Driscoll is a media hound- Rachel Evans plays both sides of theological fence-
Both crave the attention of man, true christians can see what part they are both playing in the public playground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmkk1XjrGw
Report comment to moderator
If Driscoll had made a mean comment about slavery, rather than effeminate looking men, perhaps Bradley would have been less frustrated by people pointing it out.
Jesus called religious leaders some pretty brutal names… “You brood of vipers!” If Driscoll is a bully, which he is, then calling him one is totally appropriate. I am saddened that World saw fit to let this argument by Bradley get exposure while the bully Driscoll gets yet another pass. What must Driscoll do as he hurts former elders and members before it is a story that is worth noting? Especially in the light of World deciding that Bradley’s criticism of Rachel Evans is a worthy story.
I am trying not to lose respect for Bradley. His candidness about how blacks have been treated has been something I deeply respect. Now I see that he is not prepared to call out other forms of bullying.
Report comment to moderator
Given Anthony Bradley’s elite position in the increasingly lucrative world of Driscoll’s Acts 29 and Gospel Coalition speaking tours, I would never expect Bradley to have the courage to call out Driscoll on his bullying.
But to actually appear to stand against those that call Driscoll out for his repeated bullying reminds me of the weak school yard boys that would accompany bullies and give them the platform that gave the bullies the sordid satisfaction they got out of bullying.
Those weaklings were desperately wanting the bully’s approval.
Report comment to moderator
As many has pointed out, Bradley’s suggestion that Rachel Held Evans is libelous is no different than Evans calling Driscoll a Bully. The pot calling the Kettle black.
How can a Christian (Evans) calling another Christian (Driscoll) a bully, which many think he is, be harmful to the testimony of the Church, but a Christian (Bradley) calling another Christian (Evans) libelous is ok? Even Bradley certainly must recognize the inconsistency.
Even World Magazine is known for its willingness to call a spade a spade when valid criticism of Christian public figures is warranted.
What I can’t figure out, is how it Bradley’s “Libel is not love” commentary makes the magazine, but Dricoll’s awful Facebook comment did not – especially after C.J.Mahaney steps down after years of accusations of being an arrogant bully (which is finally noted By World Mag as news August 13, almost 2 months after the fact)
Report comment to moderator
“bully”—that is, “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.”
“libel”-defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
Driscoll is a bully by the account of many many ex-members, including elders and employees that have worked closely with him. Even his sermons make this rather evident (just google “reallysad1″).
The truth that he is a bully would make the suggestion that it is libel to call him a bully itself libelous.
Perhaps this rebuke in Anthony Bradley’s blog ought to be directed at himself first.
Report comment to moderator
Evans’ slanderous post also represents one of the things that God finds detestable, “a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community”
Boy, the more I look at exactly what Anthony Bradley is saying, the more upsetting it is. Does World even read what their commentators are saying? He is accusing her of spreading lies about Driscoll. I think this is blatantly libelous!
I am a lover of Christ and fit into the Theological world Anthony and Driscoll, and I think that calling public attention to the public and disgraceful words of Driscoll’s Facebook entry was quite appropriate.
Report comment to moderator
JOHN MACARTHUR – ROB BELL RICK WARREN MARK DRISCOLL SERMON JAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HidbQZMKVI
Report comment to moderator
So when Mark Driscoll takes on “effeminate” pastors,and ask people to mock them its ok !
Registered.
But when, based on facts, Rachel Held Evans takes on Mark Driscoll for being a bully, going up to ask for people TO MAIL HIS CHURCH, it’s libel !
Registered.
So would it mean that:
- whe can freely lash on effeminate pastor, women, non pastors ?
- those not being pastors should not take on to judge pastors, (exept the effeminate ones, of course) ?
- asking people to politely express that no one should be allowed to bully based on sex discimination -and doing so by mail- is libel ?
Just remember one things: Christ wanted to be a poor amongst the poor, he was on the side of victims, so Mark Driscoll should realise that before him, Christ would like to be an effeminate pastor !
Have fun and take care.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!