::
Update: At Between Two Worlds, Justin Taylor has gone on the record commending Mark Driscoll for his "mature and measured" response to criticism. Good to see another "mainstream" Evangelical voice weighing in. (And nice knowing you, Justin. ;)
::
As you have probably noticed, I've been following the recent media explosion concerning Mark Driscoll's mean-spirited hobby of saying things that hurt people's feelings (note sarcasm). Specifically, I noted that Scot McKnight had posted an "open letter" on his blog, thereby opening Driscoll up to general critique.
McKnight hoped that giving "Rose" (a female Seattle pastor) a forum to air her grievances would encourage "Mark Driscoll and the leaders at Mars Hill to gather together with the many concerned in Seattle to converse and, to the degree possible, to seek the face of God in reconciliation." I didn't see the wisdom in this a day ago, and I still don't - but since my initial reaction, both Driscoll and McKnight have posted again on the topic. Mark Driscoll's post aimed to clarify his original intent in talking about pastors' wives:
What I did not mean to communicate was anything regarding the Haggards, particularly Mrs. Haggard. She is not to blame for the sin of her husband.
What I did mean to communicate is that most pastors I know who have fallen did so with a heterosexual adulterous relationship, often with someone they were close to in their church. In addition, as I met with many of these fallen pastors and their wives, I saw a common theme emerge: most of the marriages had serious troubles that included a lack of emotional, spiritual, and, subsequently, physical intimacy.
This communique earned McKnight's praise:
I was delighted to see that Mark Driscoll has publicly responded on his blog to recent concerns about his intent in his posts about Ted Haggard. I believe his letter clarifies his intent; and I applaud the rhetorical tone of his most recent post. Keep it up brother.
I'm happy that this interaction has taken place (despite the fifty-some anti-Driscoll comments that have been attached to McKnight's post). I'm happy for a couple reasons.
- Driscoll has explained and clarified his original intent, and done so without apparent rancor. This was a praiseworthy accomplishment under the circumstances. Moreover, Driscoll didn't back off from his original stance on women in ministry/pastor's wives.
- McKnight has commended Driscoll for what was, essentially, a humble retrenching of his original position. This appears to be (I'm reading between the lines) a revision of McKnight's earlier goal, which was to bring Mark and Rose together in a kissy-faced moment of ecumenical agreement that any PR person would love.
3 comments:
hmm...I think Scot was pretty clear that he appreciated the *tone*. He stands by his desire to see communication happen.
My personal opinion is that Driscoll still did not address the underlying points made by Ms. Rose and others--mainly that to assume that adulterous husbands are the result of wives who have let themselves go is ludicrous. I understand that Driscoll and others may not have theological agreement on certain issues, but to assume that sin is so easily boiled down to such things seems a bit oversimplified if you ask me. (Now I realize that Driscoll was addressing other points, but the case still stands that in his attempt to find reasons for sin he boiled something unexplainable, at times, to the completely explainable.
Thanks for sharing, Ariel.
A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
[emphasis mine]
Assuming that the snippet above is the section that people are referring to, I don't understand where Driscoll lays blame on a wife for her husband's failure. And I really have trouble believing that people don't think that husbands and wives bave sexual responsibility towards once another. Personally, I think I Corinthians 7:1-5 is rather clear about the mutual responsibility that they bear.
Post a Comment