Mark Driscoll is on the defensive over an interview about his newly released book, Real Marriage, going terribly bad. At least that's how he's reacting. On his site, he writes a post entitled "A Blog Post for the Brits". In it, he laments the upcoming release of the interview: >>>
There is reportedly an article coming out in a British Christian publication that features an interview with me. As is often the case, to stoke the fires of controversy, thereby increasing readership, which generates advertising revenue, a few quotes of mine have been taken completely out of context and sent into the Twittersphere. So, I thought I would put a bit of water on the fire by providing context (//link)
Driscoll's blog post is purported to be for "British evangelicals, whom I love and desire to see be exceedingly fruitful as they contend for the gospel of Jesus in their country."
In an interview by journalist, Justin Brierley, Premier.org.uk, Driscoll allegedly remarked:
Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth (//link)
Additionally, Driscoll reportedly said young men will not go to church so long as there are “guys in dresses preaching to grandmas”.
Driscoll fired back suggesting not only were his words "taken completely out of context" but also that the interview by Brierley raised questions which were both "adversarial and antagonistic" making him feel like "a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over" him (//link).
Neither Brierley nor Christianity has taken Driscoll's retaliatory blogpost silently. Rather public responses have been posted by both. Christianity's Ruth Dickinson defended the interview with Driscoll as being both “robust and fair” concluding, "I utterly reject the claim that it was adversarial, disrespectful or subjective" (//link).
Brierley's response reveals his confusion about Driscoll's present negative feelings about the interview from Driscoll's initial response immediately after the interview. To Driscoll Brierley wrote: "you concluded our interview saying "it was fun." Hence, Breirley expresses his sorrow Driscoll "feels differently" in hindsight. In addition, Brierley links to one audio-link which shows Driscoll was not "taken out of context".
According to Dickinson, the entire interview will be released in n Sunday’s edition of Christianity magazine.
A question bears asking: Mark Driscoll has arguably made his fame by being controversial and making outrageous claims. Anyone who's followed him at all would surely understand this. In fact, Driscoll says in the interview clip (linked above) that he knows he's "gone too far" in the language he's used indicating his "going too far" in one direction is but a balance to the multitudes of preachers who are way too far in the other direction. Even so, Driscoll concedes he "goes too far". How are we supposed to respond to his complaints, then, when people criticize him? If he, in fact, "goes too far" by his own admission, what is he weeping about?
From my perspective, Mark Driscoll frequently becomes the very thing he so often despises in other men--a little boy. Driscoll speaks bluntly, provocatively, and crudely to audiences of every demographic. He routinely calls men cowards and women weak. Driscoll appears to abhor effeminate qualities in men who are not "real" men. He not only blasted the Brits for having no evangelicals who preached the truth, but presumably slurred non-urban churches all over rural America who have “guys in dresses preaching to grandmas”. Vintage Driscoll.
And, after such language, Driscoll complains about context?
We rightly ask, given Driscoll's self-confessed record for "going too far" what context would support a negation of the way his words have been heretofore understood?
With that, I am...