I'm glad to say that Mark Driscoll and one of his elders recently chose to sit down with several of their critics (including Paul Chapman of PAF - the protest organizers, Rich and Rose Swetman, Nancy & Tom Murphy, Dwight Friesen, and Sandy Brown) in the interest of understanding and reconciliation regarding Mark's insensitive remarks on his Ted Haggard post, and the resulting reaction in the blogosphere.

By all accounts it was a fruitful conversation. Rose said that everyone felt "heard" and all sides were able to share about the hurt and damage that the other's words had caused (Mark about the hurt that the "misogyny" label has caused him & his church, and the others about the hurt caused by Mark's inflammatory language and use of feminine terms as pejoratives - e.g. "chickified".)

Paul gives a good overview of the outcomes at the People Against Fundamentalism blog. He says that the objectives of their planned protest have been met and therefore the protest is off. (Just for reference, the three objectives were 1) to alert the city of Seattle to Mark’s pejorative language; 2) to see Mark removed as a religion columnist for The Seattle Times; 3) to see a sincere apology from Mark for his comments and a pledge to cease demeaning women in the future. - Mark was removed as a columnist by The Seattle Times this past week.) In return, Paul apologized for his "over-the-top" use of the term misogynist to describe Mark.

Another result of the meeting is that Mark has posted a real apology this time at his blog, in which he states:

"I came to the meeting expecting God would speak to me through fellow Christians and had much joy because He did. I learned that my theological convictions, even the most controversial ones, are as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back. I was also sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked."

While I might hope that Mark would eventually change his mind on his theology as well, I know that was not a realistic outcome for this particular meeting. If they've at least convinced him to tone down the rhetoric and be more respectful with his words, that definitely a good start. Overall, I think this meeting was the best possible outcome for this whole ordeal and I really respect the maturity and grace demonstrated by all involved.

I'm also grateful for people like Paul and Rose who had the courage to speak up against Mark's behavior, and were willing to take criticism of their own for it. For those who thought the threat of protest was a little "extreme" or even "un-Christian", I wonder, would this meeting have been able to take place without it? Would a few angry blogposts been enough to get Mark's attention and lead him to the reflection and repentance his most recent post has indicated? Somehow I doubt it. This is exactly the kind of hoped-for outcome that makes some protests worthwhile.

Update (added 12/04): Several local Seattle papers reported on Mark's apology and the subsequent cancellation of the protest.
Seattle Times
Seattle PI

Labels: Mark Driscoll