Mark Driscoll laments "disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective" interview by Peter Lumpkins

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...

Peter   

Comments

[Wyman Richardson]

Peter,

I canNOT believe I am about to type this...[give me a moment here to collect myself - deep breaths, deeeeep breaths]...but I agree with this post. I agree completely.

Driscoll needs to man up and be the warrior he repeatedly tells every man to be.

To whine over an interview when you're the self-professed manliest man of all maledom seems ironic and downright childish. And if I'm reading right, one of the interviewers was a woman? So Driscoll is flustered by the aggressiveness of a woman reporter? The mind boggles: Driscoll bested by a girl.

I'm not sure, but I may even tweet my agreement with you.

Whew! Gonna be a strange year! I can feel it.

Now, back to my principled objection to almost everything else you write. ;-)

Wyman

[lmalone]

But what he was really chiding them for is there are no young celebrity preachers.....like him making a big name for themselves (or like he was)

How does Mark know if there are any young humble servants toiling away in the British vinyards? He doesn't. It is all about being known.

This time Mark is outside of his Reformed bubble and cannot delete. He thinks he has a leg to stand on for his insult and the focus on no celebrity young pastor in England because the interviewer has a pastor/wife. He knows that will give him a pass in the states among many. An excuse to be a cretin and bore.

[lmalone]

Peter, I agree with something you said elsewhere: Where is the line in the sand for people when it comes to Driscoll?

One can only close their eyes so long.

[Rick Patrick]

In other totally unfabricated news...

Danny Akin has invited Driscoll to speak at Southeastern Seminary on the topic: "Gospel Centered British Clergy Fashion."

When asked for his take on the situation, Al Mohler replied, "Any true student of Baptist history will state, categorically, that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been preached more faithfully, more accurately and more widely by preachers wearing pants than by preachers wearing dresses. Any suggestion to the contrary is a denial of the basic fabric of ministry Christians generally and Baptists particularly have forever cherished. We should be thankful for Mark Driscoll's helpful reminder of this reality."

[Mary]

Driscoll sure is obsessed with the idea that it's important that the right messanger (young, not wearing "dresses") as opposed to the authority of the message. I thought there was power in the message of the Gospel, but Markie seems to believe that the Gospel needs to be given by a particular type person in order for the Holy Spirit to move.

[Mary]

And classic Driscoll to play the victim in the interview and try to divert your attention from him by implying that this sissy man, who does he think he is questioning such a manly man. How dare anyone bring up all Driscoll's bad acts!

[lmalone]

Rick, LOL!!

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

I think this quote exposes a lot:

"As is often the case, to stoke the fires of controversy, thereby increasing readership, which generates advertising revenue..."

Is that not exactly what Driscoll has been doing for years now? Seems the means of crass materialism and worldly market/consumption culture has taken care of him well. It might be very fair to understand his being upset because his market share might dive and revenues fail in Europe because of this interview.

[lmalone]

You know, If my mom and dad ever had these issues, even in ministry, I would really have appreciated it later on in life they did not write a book about it telling the world such details of their marriage and the fact my mom had sex before marriage and my dad had a graphic vision of it. And all the things my refused to do for my dad and he got real angry about it. Thanks mom and dad!

Do people think of their children anymore with all this "transparency".

[Scott Shaffer]

You should check out what Carl Trueman, a British professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, has to say about MD's statement, "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."

Trueman writes, "Notice the three important elements of this sentence: the definite article, 'young' and 'known across Britain.' The Great Man, youth and fame: not high on the list of Paul's priorities; and three basic elements of celebrity culture. "

[RobertP.]

Did you notice what made MD really bristle?
It was the fact that another man "had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me."

Congratulations to Mr. Brierly! A mild-mannered British journalist managed to accomplish something that not one "elder" at Driscoll's organization, not John Piper, not Gerry Breshears, not CJ Mahaney, not one Gospel Coalition associate, has ever done.

[Mary]

There is an obsession we see with Driscoll and you see in the SBC that only the "young" are acutally worthy of being messangers of the Gospel. All us old people need to get out of the way so the "young leaders" can do their thing and save the world. It as if no one ever in the history of Christendom has understood the Bible better than this "young" generation. Thus the "young" don't have to show one iota of respect or gratitude to those who've gone before them. Because everybody before has made a royal mess of everything and our only hope is that the "young" will come and fix the world.

Has anybody seen a Piper response to the Driscoll's book. At the time of the SOS hullabaloo Driscoll was supposed to have been taken under the wing of Piper and Driscoll was alledgely "repentent" yet this book just shows he's still perverting SOS in the exact same way that Piper had supposedly corrected him on. I don't think Driscoll submits himself to any authority anywhere. He's too narcissitic.

[lmalone]

http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

Here is the entire interview with Mark that got him so upset to write the blog post to Brits calling it advesarial and disrespectful. You decide who was those things in the interview. And if things were taken "out of context" as Driscoll claims.

And here is a great critique of Driscoll's interview by Bill Kinnon. Kinnon gets it right when he says Mark was never "discipled".

http://kinnon.tv/2012/01/the-interview-was-it-of-the-undisciplined-or-undiscipled.html

[Mary]

This one quote by Mark Driscoll sums up Mark Driscoll completely:

At the 51 min. Mark states, "You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious."

The success of Mars Hill is because of Mark and nothing else.

[Peter G.]

For the record, I think it's "Christianity" magazine not "Christianity Today."

[peter lumpkins]

Noted, Peter G. I actually go it right toward the latter part of the post. I think it was the banner on the page I linked which says "Christian Today" which threw me.

Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter