I'm grateful to a commenter named "John Strickland" who left this comment on my site >>>
You've been schooled by many people recently...First, Mohler eats you for lunch, now you pick fights with Driscoll and LU and they do the same! When will you learn?
Strickland also logged a link to Mark Driscoll's official response, a response the Seattle pastor dubs the "kerfuffle" over his speaking at LU. Driscoll writes:
Lately, I’ve been busy with something you may have heard of called Easter. So, I’ve not been on the Internet much but instead busy with church and family. However, rumor has it there is a bit of mushroom cloud of controversy over my planned trip. So, I asked our community relations manager, who gets to enjoy reading blogs about me while eating breakfast every day (it’s amazing he holds anything down), to give me a summary of this kerfuffle. (Henceforth, we will officially refer to this situation as “The Kerfuffle.”)
And just what did Mars Hill community relations manager discover about the "kerfuffle" while eating breakfast? Driscoll writes:
The trouble started with a Southern Baptist blogger . . . yes, you should have seen that one coming. Now, to be fair, the blogger quoted an anonymous “source.” And, we all know that almost everything bloggers say is true. But, when they have something as solid as an anonymous “source,” then you can rest assured that when Jesus talked about the truth over and over in John, this is precisely what he was referring to. I have a degree from Washington State’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication and worked professionally as a journalist, and I can assure you that The Kerfuffle is a very serious matter to be taken with the utmost sobriety and propriety. In fact, one anonymous “source” I spoke to said that Watergate pales in comparison.
Well, no we don't know how that almost everything bloggers say is true. I certainly don't presume this. Nor do I or have I presumed anyone ought to believe everything I write just because I write it. Nor do I expect Driscoll lovers to accept anything I say as factual--whether the sources are anonymous or not. Nor do I see the connection between Driscoll's degree from Washington State and whether or not I logged accurate information. Nor do I think simply offering a facetious response is somehow supposed to be taken seriously. Evidently, Driscoll does.
Driscoll again:
This particular blogger’s anonymous "source" says that the Liberty University Board of Trustees met and voted unanimously to not to allow the harmless, ruddy, pleasant, and often gregariously enjoyable Pastor Mark to speak at the university. The source said that two motions were presented and voted on. The first was to unequivocally express that Liberty University Board disapproves of the invitation for me to speak in chapel and the invitation to host the Real Marriage Tour. The second motion was to create a vetting council for future speakers at Liberty. He also states that he believes the reason why they haven't actually disinvited yours truly is that they have a contractual obligation and thus can't disinvite me.
Similar to other folk who failed to read carefully what I wrote in the first post about this matter, I wrote nothing remotely similar to Driscoll's first statement above: "This..."source" says that the Liberty University Board of Trustees met and voted unanimously to not to allow...Pastor Mark to speak at the university." This is unequivocal nonsense. So, if Driscoll has worked in professional journalism as he states, perhaps he should give his community relations manager some lessons. Or, else his manager should stop chewing his bagel long enough to read correctly. The fact is, nowhere is it stated in my piece citing a source which suggests or implies "Liberty University Board of Trustees met and voted unanimously to not to allow...Pastor Mark to speak at the university."
On the other hand, Driscoll gets it right when he speaks of the two motions I'm told were presented at the trustee meeting: "The source said that two motions were presented and voted on. The first was to unequivocally express that Liberty University Board disapproves of the invitation for me to speak in chapel and the invitation to host the Real Marriage Tour. The second motion was to create a vetting council for future speakers at Liberty." But Driscoll apparently doesn't even see how what he suggests in the first statement contradicts with what he actually gets right in the words about the two motions following.
More significantly, Driscoll (and his community relations manager) botched badly the latter part of the paragraph above: "He [Lumpkins] also states that he believes the reason why they haven't actually disinvited yours truly is that they have a contractual obligation and thus can't disinvite me." That's is not what I stated. Here's the footnote in the piece upon which Driscoll seems to base his assertion:
2contractual obligations have apparently been cited as the reason Driscoll will not be "uninvited"
First, I was not stating my belief as to why Driscoll is still headed to Lynchburg. Frankly, I remain just as confused as to why Driscoll is speaking there as I was when I first learned of it. Nothing has changed. I frankly don't know why. Second, as clearly as my ability to muster the English language would allow, I stated that some have apparently cited contractual obligations as the reason they could not walk away. So, what they mean by my supposed belief that the reason why LU hasn't actually disinvited Driscoll is that they have a contractual obligation and thus can't disinvite him I do not know.
The more one hears when Driscoll attempts to answer his critics, I have to confess, makes me wonder how he ever attained the reputation he has for being a great communicator. It saddens me to see such shallow replies toward one's critics be touted as "official" responses from celebrated leaders in the young, restless, and reformed community.
Driscoll next really delivers me the "knockout punch"--or to use John Strickland's metaphor, "he ate my lunch" and "took me to school"! How? Well, he quoted Liberty's official statement denying what I said took place and slandering me as one whose blog is clearly being used to disseminate misinformation about Liberty University and to cause strife and harm to the university. Well, that settles everything. Case closed. Since LU puts out a statement saying what I said was not so, that, in itself, apparently makes what I said not so. How intellectual absurdity like this passes for "official response" I cannot tell.
One thing is for sure, however. Liberty University may think it's over. Mark Driscoll may think it's only a kerfuffle. Time will tell, I assure, if this issue doesn't come up again in a much more serious venue.
Read Driscoll's entire piece entitled "An Official Response to the Kerfuffle at Liberty University."
Consider: Do you think Driscoll "ate my lunch" or "took me to school" as John Strickland suggests? Feel free to log your reasons as to why or why not below (be nice!)
Comments