Driscoll Bitter Toward the Brits?

“Let’s just say this . . . right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that's known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that is a problem. There's a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.  You don't have one.  You don't have one young guy who can preach the Bible that anybody's listening to on the whole earth."

Mark Driscoll

Big Ben (Taken by Deb)

Oh what a difference a year can make!  It was around this time last year that a chap who goes by "theurbanpastor" shared some fantastic news on his blog.  This was his jubilant anouncement:

"‘We’ve got him’ were the words that brought to fruition ‘Red Dawn’; the covert operation to apprehend Saddam Hussein in 2003.  I have no idea whether Stephen Fletcher, omnicompetent administrator of the London Men’s Convention, shouted something similar when he recently received the confirmatory e-mail from Mark Driscoll. But he’d have been forgiven for whooping in celebration! It’s now official, Mark Driscoll is coming to London. And he’s playing live in the Royal Albert Hall for the benefit of the 2011 London Men’s Convention. This is very good news. And I hope that it’ll be received as such.  I realise that Mark Driscoll is not everyone’s cup of tea; some don’t approve of his risqué, unconventional and abrasive style even if they stand with him on the substance of his ministry. But here’s a Reformed guy, preaching the gospel, stimulating ministry and mission, especially amongst the emerging generation, and he’s doing it for the glory of Christ. What’s not to give thanks for? He’s been in London in a virtual sense for a while, now he’ll be here physically. It’ll be good to welcome him."

The London Men's Convention, which began in 2002, is an annual conference organized by an interdenominational group of evangelical ministers and leaders who "believe these distinctives of the Christian faith:

1. The unique supremacy of Christ
2. The seriousness of sin
3. The penal substitution of Christ's death
4. The justification of believers by grace alone
5. The sovereignty of God the Father
6. The regeneration of God the Holy Spirit
7. The reality of God's coming judgement
8. The priority of evangelism
9. The authority of Scripture
10. The centrality of Bible-teaching
11. The importance of the local church
12. The necessity of holiness"

Not all Brits were pleased that Mark Driscoll was extended an invitation to speak at the 2011 London Men's Convention; however, Driscoll controlled his tongue during his presentations and was purportedly well behaved.  Despite Driscoll's 'proper behaviour' while in London, several websites chided convention organizers for inviting him and warned of the dangers of Driscoll.  Here is an excerpt from one such website (post published on October 17, 2011): 

The Mark Driscoll Controversy

"The purpose of this website is to highlight areas of Driscoll’s ministry which should cause grave concern to true, discerning Christian believers. It is the contention of the authors of this website that the levels to which Driscoll has publicly stooped in his approach to a variety of issues are unacceptable when it comes to Christian ministry and ultimately make a mockery of the Christian faith. We are disturbed that Driscoll uses the pulpit to mock Noah, and to call Gideon a coward. We believe that the picture Driscoll describes of Vintage Jesus is blasphemous. We are concerned that Driscoll’s flippant and irreverent conduct makes him unfit for the pulpit. We are concerned that Driscoll encourages the use of what he calls new ‘convenant tattoos’ and that Mars Hill Church declares that Jesus loves tattoos. We believe that the assertion that God loves punk rock music demeans the holiness of God. In view of this evidence, and in the light of Scripture, the discerning Christian needs to face up to this question: Is Mark Driscoll a false teacher?

It is essential that concern is raised in regard to the enthusiastic welcome which has been extended to Driscoll from across evangelical circles, and the support that has been publicly voiced.

The intention of this website is not to provide a platform for discussion on the ministry of Mark Driscoll but rather to provide primary source evidence from Driscoll’s own mouth and written works, as an opportunity for discerning believers to weigh what has been publicly stated with the Word of God."

Dr. E.S. Williams, an experienced medical doctor with an interest in Christian apologetics, wrote an article that was published in the English Churchman on Friday 22 & 29 April 2011.  This is what he wrote regarding Driscoll:

Why Mark Driscoll?

"It is surprising that the organisers of the Convention believe that Mark Driscoll is the right man to teach men about faithfulness at home. Are they unaware of the highly controversial nature of Mark Driscoll’s ministry? Are they unaware that Driscoll’s crude language and explicit sexual messages have received great attention in the mass media? Are they unaware that he has been referred to as the cussing preacher? Three voices in the USA have raised serious concerns about the ministry of Driscoll that should cause alarm among all faithful believers. The purpose of this article is to rehearse these concerns."

Dr. Williams then highlights the various individuals and organizations in the United States that have investigated Mark Driscoll and spoken out against him.  Those include — the Missouri Baptists, Cathy Mickels (at The Gospel Coalition conference), and  John MacArthur (on the Song of Solomon).  Please see his article for details.  Dr. Williams concludes with these remarks:

"Scripture warns of ungodly men who will creep into the Church and turn ‘the grace of our God into lasciviousness’ (Jude 4). The problem with Driscoll is that while he claims doctrinal orthodoxy, and can preach a sound sermon if he wants to, at the same time he engages in blatant sexual licentiousness—doctrine is divorced from conduct. Driscoll’s appalling mission is to sexualise the church. Like the rebellious priests of Israel who violated the Law of God, Driscoll puts ‘no difference between the holy and the profane’ (Ezekiel 22.26).

What is it about Driscoll’s ministry that the organisers of the Men’s Convention finds so appealing? Do they want to plant Acts 29 churches in the UK? The invitation to Driscoll surely is symptomatic of the deep compromise that has overtaken evangelicals in the UK. Undoubtedly Driscoll will be on his best behaviour when he appears on stage at the Royal Albert Hall. Nevertheless, having appeared with eminent evangelicals his reputation as a Bible teacher and church planter will be enhanced. Thousands of men will be exposed to his false teaching and many will be encouraged to read his books and view his website. The organisers of the Men’s Convention have a lot to answer for. God is not mocked."

That is the backdrop for the current controversy with Mark Driscoll.  Little did I know when I first read Mark's rant A Blog Post for the Brits that there are some in Great Britain who have been lobbying AGAINST him for quite some time.  Remember, their efforts were BEFORE the release of Real Marriage.  Can you imagine what these Brits must be saying now? 

Perhaps these critics have been somewhat successful in their campaign because Driscoll was NOT invited back to the London Men's Convention planned for March 17th.  And it's really too bad for Driscoll because this year's convention theme is right up his alley — God's Spiritual "Fight Club".   Take a look…

London Men's Convention 2012

"The London Men’s Convention 2012 is devoted to the practical realities of spiritual warfare. The Christian man faces the bruising daily struggle with the heavyweight temptations of the World, the Flesh and the Devil. We all need to be encouraged and trained as fighters by God’s Spirit through God’s Word. This year’s LMC is God’s spiritual “Fight Club”!"

Why is Mark Driscoll so worked up about the Brits in his recent blog post?  If you haven't yet read it, the rant begins as follows:

"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.

Here are some of my unedited thoughts for British evangelicals, whom I love and desire to see be exceedingly fruitful as they contend for the gospel of Jesus in their country."

Driscoll goes on to outline his unsolicited "observations" and recommendations for British pastors.   Then he concludes with these remarks:

"Some Context for the Interview in Question

I have a degree in communications from one of the top programs in the United States. So does my wife, Grace. We are used to reporters with agendas and selective editing of long interviews. Running into reporters with agendas and being selectively edited so that you are presented as someone that is perhaps not entirely accurate is the risk one takes when trying to get their message out through the media.

With the release of our book, Real Marriage, we have now done literally dozens of interviews with Christians and non-Christians. But the one that culminated in the forthcoming article was, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective. As a result, we’ve since changed how we receive, process, and moderate media interviews.

The interview in question had nearly nothing to do with the book or its subject matter, which in my understanding was supposed to be the point of the interview. My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully. The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic. It felt like a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me.

Things got particularly strange near the end of the interview. I was asked a question about, if a woman was the pastor of a church which that pastor’s husband attended, would that be emasculating to him. The question was asked in such a pointed way that it was odd.

At the end of the interview, I started asking questions of the interviewer. He admitted that his last questions were really about himself and his wife. Apparently his wife is the pastor of their church, he’s strongly committed to women as pastors, disagrees strongly with our complementarian position, and takes it to some degree personally.

He then admitted that he very much struggles to believe in penal substitutionary atonement—that Jesus Christ died in our place a substitute for our sins—and that he does not believe in a literal hell. In short, the reporter is a very liberal Christian, and on these issues I am not.

Subsequently, I am not surprised that after a very long interview, which took the better part of an hour, that I may be selectively edited and presented in a way that is not entirely accurate. In particular, the quote about cowardice may not fit all British men, but for men who misuse their authority to advance their agenda, it seems applicable.

It's All about Jesus

In the providence of God, I trust everything will sort itself out in time. The best thing is to not waste time blogging, twittering, and talking about me. I was not born of a virgin, have not lived without sin, and am not going to judge the living and the dead. Jesus is all that matters."

 

I have listened to Justin Brierley's interview numerous times and am grateful he posted the audio on the internet for anyone to hear.  Here are Driscoll's criticisms along with my "observations":

"With the release of our book, Real Marriage, we have now done literally dozens of interviews with Christians and non-Christians. But the one that culminated in the forthcoming article was, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective. As a result, we’ve since changed how we receive, process, and moderate media interviews."

Brierley treated Driscoll with respect, though he did challenge him on some theological issues.  What is wrong with that?  He asked the questions that I wanted to have answered.  Now Driscoll wants to set the rules so he and Grace can be seen in the best possible light.  How honest is that?

"The interview in question had nearly nothing to do with the book or its subject matter, which in my understanding was supposed to be the point of the interview."

Brierley asked at the very beginning of the interview if he could ask Mark some theological questions in addition to talking about the book, and Driscoll clearly agreed.

"My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully."

MAN UP, MARK!  That is not true, and you know it!  Brierley told Grace before he asked the first question that she should feel free to chime in at any time.  The only reason she spoke at all during the interview is that he asked her specifically for her input.  Otherwise, she likely wouldn't have uttered a word.  As best as I can determine, this was a telephone interview, so if anyone's to blame for Grace's lack of participation, it should be Mark who monopolized the conversation on their end.

"The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic."

Driscoll knows better.  Brierley asked him a number of thoughtful questions about his marriage, church, and ministry.   Thank goodness the interview is available on the internet so listeners can see just how wrong Driscoll was in making such a claim.

"It felt like a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me."

I find this remark to be extremely revealing.

"Things got particularly strange near the end of the interview. I was asked a question about, if a woman was the pastor of a church which that pastor’s husband attended, would that be emasculating to him. The question was asked in such a pointed way that it was odd."

Actually, I thought this was rather clever on Brierley's part.  Yes, his wife is a pastor, and Mark has a real problem with it.

"He then admitted that he very much struggles to believe in penal substitutionary atonement—that Jesus Christ died in our place a substitute for our sins—and that he does not believe in a literal hell. In short, the reporter is a very liberal Christian, and on these issues I am not."

Actually, Brierley explained that he believes as John Stott did on this matter (whom Driscoll said he greatly admired earlier in the interview).  Brierley is a very liberal Christian?  Mark is the master of intimidation by labeling those with whom he disagrees.  Let's see, who did he insult in this interview?  the Brits in general, priests in dresses, grandmas, John MacArthur (although he did not directly name him but inferred he is a chaplain, not a missionary as Driscoll is), and others. 

"In particular, the quote about cowardice may not fit all British men, but for men who misuse their authority to advance their agenda, it seems applicable."

Once again, Driscoll has to correct his words.  Didn't he say he attended one of the best communication schools in the country?  "I have a degree in communications from one of the top programs in the United States."   Could have fooled me, Mark. 

"It's All about Jesus" 

No, Mark, it's all about you.

"In the providence of God, I trust everything will sort itself out in time. The best thing is to not waste time blogging, twittering, and talking about me. I was not born of a virgin, have not lived without sin, and am not going to judge the living and the dead. Jesus is all that matters."

Yes, God is sovereign, and He is allowing concerned Christians to get the truth out about Mark Driscoll through blogging, twittering, and talking — the very tools he has used to promote himself and his ministry. 

As I wrap up this post, it certainly appears that Mark Driscoll has been seething about the Brits for some time, based on how he answered Justin Brierley's questions.  He and his 'disciples' likely monitor what is being said and written about him in Great Britain, and I believe that may have influenced his responses to Justin and as well as his blog post for the Brits. 

Tomorrow I will highlight what I consider to be the most interesting exchanges between Justin Brierley and Mark Driscoll.

 

Lydia's Corner:   Isaiah 8:1-9:21   2 Corinthians 12:1-10   Psalm 55:1-23   Proverbs 23:4-5

 

 

 

 

Comments

Driscoll Bitter Toward the Brits? — 33 Comments

  1. Don’t you find it interesting that Calvinistas including MD throw out the word heretic all over the place? How does it feel MD? Someone called you out! Now you have to retaliate. I have a question MD. Why do you tell everyone to stop twittering and blogging… Why DON’T YOU?????????

  2. Robin –

    You forget that Driscoll and other similar Calvinista leaders can dictate what others should and shouldn’t do but they (with spiritual authority) are on a different level than you and I and live by a different set of rules. They live by the “Book of Biblical Spiritual Authority” while the rest of us have a mere Bible πŸ™‚

  3. I forgot. Those rules about blogging weren’t found in the new testament. Maybe they were lost in a cave somewhere and one of those guys found them and translated them. Of course that is like meat spiritually speaking and we are still babes being weened off of milk. Of course we are women so… I’ll stop before I say something non-submissive.

  4. “The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic.”

    Would it be a stretch to assert that is “bearing false witness”?

  5. Robin
    He really believes he is anointed differently than you and me. Frankly, the only place that would accept his attitude is the church. People in any other venue would fire him or beat him up. Oh, he would go down in a fight. He talks too much-sign of a guy who is not a fighter. The real ones just wait quietly and then “pow.”

  6. TedS

    Actually, he did not tell the truth with this statement. β€œThe only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years .” If that had occurred, the interview would still be ongoing. πŸ™‚

  7. Deb

    Loved the post. Mark said “My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully.” Mark Driscoll is a wuss who hides behind his wife’s skirts/ He blames her for their marriage problems and then he uses her for his mouth problems.

    Free Grace!

  8. I think the authentic Grace is pretty much entirely ignored in their marriage. Yes, I know. Personal opinion that cannot be supported.

    But the plastic Grace that sits submissively by his side while he rants and raves just makes me think that.

  9. Oh, and Deb, I know you ask Dee but I want to let you know that I like the verb you used in the title.

    Women get blamed a lot for bitterness. But guess what? Bitterness is not a gender specific emotion. I’ve thought for some time that the Vision Forum men were bitter and putting forth bitter doctrine that has passed over the bitter root in their own hearts.

    It’s not much of a leap to see the bitterness in Driscoll.

  10. I’d invite everyone to check out my friend, Dave Fitch’s post on Driscoll & the Neo-Reformed. link. Dave asks, “Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?”

  11. Brierley treated Driscoll with respect, though he did challenge him on some theological issues. What is wrong with that?

    Plenty. He didn’t suck up to The Driscoll and Praise His Holy Name.

    He asked the questions that I wanted to have answered. Now Driscoll wants to set the rules so he and Grace can be seen in the best possible light. How honest is that?

    Mark of a leader who can only tolerate yes-men around him. Or He’ll Beat Them Up.

  12. Bill Kinnon,

    Thanks for the link to your friend’s post on Driscoll and the Neo-Reformed. It was “spot on”!

    I especially liked David Fitch’s concluding remarks:

    “Mark Driscoll is an irruption of sorts on the skin of the Neo-Reformed movement. His flare-up, if closely examined, can reveal some of the theology at work and the forces behind these theological allegiances. How other leaders in the movement respond to him, like Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen, James McDonald, will reveal perhaps even more. Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?”

    By George, I think he’s got it!

  13. Bill Kinnon – great link and article by DF. As one who comes from a neo-reformed world, I can relate to the questions that he puts to the readers. They are very good food for thought.

  14. From my limited exposure of Driscoll, I see nothing gracious about him.

    Does anyone think that all the contoversy over the interview is designed to sell books?

    Why would he want to speak of the Brits, their clergy, and their country in this way when he is going to be speaking at a convention there this year?

    This is a convention for Christians so why berate the Christians in this way before you go speak to them?

    His goal is not winning converts, particularly, so what is his purpose in teaching?

    If he is preparing the way for something – then what might that something be with these (ever so gracious) remarks?

    Is Acts 29 preparing to invade England? With churches? The Driscoll gospel?

    Musings . . .

  15. Deb and Dee –

    Wasn’t the interview by phone anyway? It sounded like Mark and Grace were on speaker phone. Mark was sitting with her. Why did’t he offer for her to answer some questions? It would be easy for the interviewer across the pond to overlook seeking a response from her. She was not in sight and Driscoll was so busy spouting that he often tallked over the interviewer. Why didn’t Mark think to include HIS OWN wife for goodness sake? No. He can only blame the interviewer and, in a sly-Willy-way, attack the interviewer’s “leading” of the interviiew. I wonder if this is done outright, or in the subconscious way?

  16. Agree about David Fitch’s article. My assessment of missional theology has been based solely on what I saw in the Acts 29 plant we were briefly involved in. It’s good to read about how the concepts might work outside North America.

    I think Fitch’s arguments are particularly perceptive with regard to the link between the penal substitution theory, hierarchical structures of church government, and the Christian culture of the middle ages. In the early period of church history, the ransom theory was popular, and spiritual authority was derived from spiritual gifts and from personal holiness. The connection between authority and office only began in the middle ages with the blurring of the lines between church and state (see Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, which I had to read for my dissertation).

    I happen to think that one can hold multiple views of the atonement simultaneously–they don’t have to be mutually exclusive, just as one can hold the transcendence and imminence of God in tension. By definition, God is bigger than we are, and our theology must allow for paradox and mystery. You’d think a former Catholic like Driscoll would get that, but he obviously doesn’t.

  17. Bridget2,

    You must have skipped over this part of the post:

    “My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully.”

    MAN UP, MARK! That is not true, and you know it! Brierley told Grace before he asked the first question that she should feel free to chime in at any time. The only reason she spoke at all during the interview is that he asked her specifically for her input. Otherwise, she likely wouldn’t have uttered a word. As best as I can determine, this was a telephone interview, so if anyone’s to blame for Grace’s lack of participation, it should be Mark who monopolized the conversation on their end.

    Bridget, I agree with you. I believe it was a phone interview (very different that being face-to-face). I did hear them say their good-byes at the end of the interview, further indicating that this was done by phone.

    If anyone was ignoring Grace, it was her own husband. Perhaps she is used to that…

  18. Amy,

    What an incredibly insightful comment! You have given all of us a lot to think about.

    Blessings!

  19. Bridget2 wrote:

    “…Is Acts 29 preparing to invade England? With churches? The Driscoll gospel?…”

    If so, I hope that TWW and other blogs do to Driscoll what the Spitfires and Hurricanes did to Goering’s Luftwaffe.

  20. Muff –

    What better way to gain a foothold . . .convince people they are doing it all wrong, be loud and authoritative about it, tear them down, then come in with the Driscoll and, of course, “right” way. So, some might exchange one form of religion for another. I don’t know that they would be experiencing the grace of Jesus Christ.

    BTW – I agree with you on the Spitfires and Hurricanes!

  21. Muff
    I look at this as a fight between Snoopy and the Sopwith Camel taking on the Red Baron. In fact, here is an awesome you tube video/song 10,20,30,40,50 or more….
    Link

    Curse you, Red Baron!!!!!

  22. As no other Brits on this blog post have commented, I feel I should speak up regarding Driscoll’s ‘Blog For Brits’. He shows a lot of ignorance about UK culture and church, which doesn’t surprise me. It seems the only times he’s been to British churches is when he’s the one giving the sermon. Overall, the whole section on Britain is basically Driscoll complaining that our pastors don’t do things the way he does.

    1) His very first point seems to reflect the lie going round America that ‘Christianity is dead in Europe’. Yes, the mainstream culture is generally secular. Isn’t American mainstream culture secular too? What evidence does he have that it’s more ‘anti-Christian’ when there are also plenty of American voices expressing bitterness at religion? Like in the USA, there are still Christian publications, TV channels and radio stations over here, and sometimes a ‘secular’ article or TV will actually express sympathy with Christian values or beliefs. There are sections on faith in at least two or three of the six major newspapers here. We’re not loud though, like many infamous American preachers (more on this point later). Overall, I think he is mistaking subtlety for absence, which also isn’t surprising. I doubt if he could spell subtlety, let alone recognise or practice it. And seeing as we are more subtle over here, maybe his ‘difficulty in reaching us’ is more to do with his teaching practice than with us? But of course, he won’t see it that way.

    2) The ‘media and legal liabilities’ that he speaks of are there to a) prevent hateful, crude or prejudiced speech being published and b) try to maintain politeness in expressing views. Bible-bashing and religious throat-shoving does not go down well here because it’s seen as disrespectful to people who are of other faiths. And I think that’s fair. Driscoll’s main problem seems to be that church leaders aren’t preaching in the same style that he does. However the UK churches are still growing and bringing in new believers, so what’s the problem?

    3) This one is ridiculous. He accuses churches of not teaching on things that they actually DO teach. Apart from the blatent ignorance, his message seems to be this: “Please say the things I think you should say, in the way I think you should say them.”

    4) Another display of ignorance. UK churches ARE reaching young people and working hard to do so. MD has an obsession with bringing young people to his church, whereas others are happy to have anyone. All inclusive, like Jesus intended. Driscoll seems to think that if other churches don’t match his numbers, they’re ‘not doing enough’ in that area.

    5) Oh look, he expands on his obsession with young people. Really it’s young men he wants. Because apparently if there aren’t ‘enough’, there may be a shortage of church leaders in the future! God forbid that women take up the posts instead. [/sarcasm]

    6) Driscoll is ignorant of many big names within the UK, expecting that a ‘courageous’ leader is one who is known the world over. And once again he translates subtlety as absence, or in this case, he thinks that lacking a leader like him means that UK churches are lacking in good leadership.

    Driscoll, the only thing we’re lacking is pastoral celebrity culture. THAT’S A GOOD THING. It means that those with a bunch of bad ideas, like you, don’t get as high a platform as you like to stand on. It also means that more British Christians are free to worship the real Lord, Jesus, instead of the preacher that gets the most TV airtime.

  23. Anne, The difference between Britian and America when it comes to Christianity is simple in my view. Christianity has become a BIG “business” in America. In Britian, it was an institutionalized state church for so long with a Monarch as head of the church that it was only a matter of time before it’s demise as a cultural influence.

    Personally, I find the church as “big business model”, worse. It is deceitful and makes merchandise of people. I do not believe God is pleased at all with our fake Christianity which is so pervasive here building big fancy buildings and making bank on conferences, books, etc.

    Is it all fake here? Of course not…. just as it is a lie there are no serious believers in England or true churches. But this brand of consumer driving Christianity is huge here. And unfortuantly, it is the goal for many of the wolves and hirlings we are churning out there.

    I apologize to you for Driscoll. He is the poster boy for the commercialization of Christianity and the proliferation of narcissism in ministry. If he had not become a preacher, he would have found a stage somewhere.

  24. Anne,

    I really appreciate your taking the time to comment. I agree with the points you have made about Driscoll. As far as I’m concerned, he’s an embarrassment and a poor excuse for a pastor. I am sorry that he has been so offensive to Brits, for he doesn’t represent many of us here in the states who profess Christ.

    Anon1 is right – Christianity is BIG business in America. The way Driscoll is peddling his Real Marriage book is an excellent example of that.

    Please keep your American brothers and sisters in Christ in your prayers, especially the younger ones who are being deceived by Driscoll. On Monday we will be featuring a special post you will not want to miss. It has been three years in the making.

  25. Anon 1:
    I’ve visited America and a few of its churches and they’re fine and dandy to me. I know that some great stuff can come from the USA – for starters, just look at the many good American Christian blogs. I have Christian literature written by Americans. Don’t worry, I don’t judge the whole nation based on the ‘wolves’. πŸ™‚ Thanks for the apology, but sometimes the flock are partly responsible for supporting him without thinking. Sadly there are Brits who are falling for him and that isn’t helping the situation.

    P.S: Dee and Deb, I didn’t realise you had already made a whole post attacking Mark’s ‘Blog for Brits’. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/13/mark-driscoll-puts-down%E2%80%9D-british-christians-while-ed-young-beds-down-in-dallas/ I’ve unwittingly repeated a couple points you made, i.e. MD’s ignorance, but I think it’s important to stress that British Christianity has a much different style than that of the celebrity pastors in America.

    By the way, I’ve got something that can really punch a hole in Mark’s ideas. Has anyone heard of Ellel Ministries? Google it. It’s a fairly big international ministry dedicated to the healing of inner wounds and the deliverance of spirits. It started in the UK in 1970 and grew spectacularly. The founder was a man, but if Mark is so adamant that women in leadership will cause a church to struggle, then why is Ellel still thriving and successful in Britain when *gasp* the UK Directors are both women? And when I say thriving and successful, I don’t just mean numbers, like Mark means, but the fact that there are many testimonies of God’s blessing and healing for those attending Ellel retreats.

  26. Sorry, let me correct my sentence. When I said that Ellel is still thriving in Britain, I didn’t mean that it isn’t thriving anywhere else. What I meant was that its UK Directors are both women and yet Ellel is still going strong here. (I think ‘Director’ is not a word used to avoid the title of ‘Pastor’ either, because technically Ellel isn’t a church, it’s a healing ministry with mini-courses and conferences.)

  27. Ann
    We really like you comment and may actually use it as part of a post in the near future. Thank you for taking the time to correct Driscoll (and his fan club). Driscoll represents the worst in American religion. Note: I said American religion not Christianity. He knows what is best for the Brits and the best for the Brits is doing it his way which he equates with Christianity. He is just another cultural bore who thinks he is “missional.” This episode proves just how silly he really is.

  28. Dee,
    Go for it, I’m delighted you like it. Like I said to Anon, I’m well aware that MD is a minority. The problem is that he’s loud enough to cause serious damage, none less than making people turn away from Christ and think that all Christians are like him.