!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Emerging Women .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Saturday, December 02, 2006
New entry on Resurgence (Driscoll)
I'm not going to comment at all about this, but thought that in the interest of giving people as much primary source information as possible, some might wish to read Mark Driscoll's most recent entry at Resurgence:

"Count It All Joy"

Labels:

 
posted by Psalmist at 12:06 PM ¤ Permalink ¤


8 Comments:


  • At 12/02/2006 02:35:00 PM, Blogger Nancy

    Ugh. I'm sure it is my bad but I have to wonder how much such a "conviction" (hiring a media handler) is going to cost Mars Hill and where that money could have been better spent?

     

  • At 12/03/2006 10:48:00 AM, Blogger caz

    I am just so happy that he sat down with the group of local leaders, and that he was apparently open to listening to their concerns.

    I think this whole thing still begs the questions of whether or not mega churches should have a single pastor? Should there be church discipline for sins of pride?

     

  • At 12/03/2006 01:55:00 PM, Blogger Jemila Kwon

    I like the idea of church discipline for sins of pride -- though of course it is impossible to fully judge the heart of another. But so it is ultimately just as problematic to judge the more outward "sins" having no knowledge of the circumstances, variables and intentions that led to what may seem like an obvious case to someone on the outside...

     

  • At 12/03/2006 06:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

    Does anyone know what transpired with the "protest" or "attend-in" that was supposed to occur today?

     

  • At 12/03/2006 09:02:00 PM, Blogger Mike Clawson

    If anyone is interested, I've blogged about this turn of events at my blog, and included links to summaries of the discussion from the others involved in the group discussion with Driscoll.

     

  • At 12/04/2006 05:23:00 PM, Blogger Julie

    I'm not really sure what to think about it all.

    Mark again didn't really apologize, just shifted the blame to those who were hurt. But this is being seen as an apology so the discussion is over.

    I wonder - does it mean that those who alsp had to apologize and call off the protest can't have a voice against the words Driscoll says anymore. I agree that harming him is wrong and that shouldn't be the point. But if people truly think that his words are sexist and therefore hate speech, does the whole "kiss and make-up" show imply that they can no longer speek out. Mark said he was hurt to be called a misogynist and others apologized for hurting him. But if a racist says he is hurt for being called a racist should our response be to care most about his feelings and apologize for speaking the truth or to continue to care for those who are being hurt and then stop the hurting?

    Just my random first reactions here...

     

  • At 12/04/2006 08:22:00 PM, Blogger Jemila Kwon

    I think it is good that Mark was removed from the Seattle Times -- an appropriate natural consequence, and encouraging to me that our actions can have an impact, since some of us wrote letters with that aim.

    Perhaps finding our voice is a journey and word choice has impact. Just as it's considered insensitive and generally counterproductive to call someone who has an abortion a murderer, (especially if she doesn't see it that way,) there are perhaps better ways to disaree with those who hold views that are inherently harmful to women than to call them misogynists (especially when they don't see it that way.)

     

  • At 12/07/2006 12:11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

    If Driscoll really learned something and has a genuine spirit of humility about it, then that's the bright spot out of all this. If he's just trying to do PR and improve his image, he knows very well that God is the ultimate authority in this matter and he'll have to answer for it.

     
Post a Comment ~ back home