Monday, December 04, 2006
Seattle papers report on Mark Driscoll protest
Just an update: Several local Seattle papers reported on Mark's apology and the subsequent cancellation of the protest:
Seattle Times
Seattle PI
 
posted by Mike Clawson at 7:30 PM | Permalink |


5 Comments:


At 12/05/2006 12:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous

I Smell a Double-Standard

The organization behind the protest, "People Against Fundamentalism" (PAF), according to the Seattle Times article, consists of a whopping six "Christians," one of them named Paul Chapman, the husband of a woman "pastor." Thanks to the internet, that little circle had a huge audience by way of the blogosphere and managed to impugn the integrity of an honest, plain-speaking preacher who has somehow managed to pastor a growing church of 5,000 people in "the least-churched city in America." Rather than attempt to honorably resolve their doctrinal differences with him in a loving Christian manner, as prescribed in Matthew 18, they chose to drag their Christian brother before the court of public opinion first.

What did the "People Against Fundamentalism" accomplish? They managed to have Pastor Driscoll censored from his position as a Faith & Values columnist at The Seattle Times - which means that a consistent voice for the gospel of Jesus Christ at that newspaper is now silenced.

And why? Because they accused him of being a "mysoginist." Hypocrites. They said nothing about the Muslim "Faith & Values" columnist at the Times. Perhaps the People Against Fundamentalism believe that Islam has a higher view of women than traditional Christianity? Or, were they were
just afraid that unlike Driscoll, the Islamists might not turn the other cheek?

 

At 12/05/2006 09:48:00 AM, Blogger Mike Clawson

Nony Mouse, please identify yourself. We do not welcome anonymous negative comments at this blog.

Your comment is full of inaccuracy:

1) You said "Rather than attempt to honorably resolve their doctrinal differences with him in a loving Christian manner, as prescribed in Matthew 18, they chose to drag their Christian brother before the court of public opinion first."

FALSE - attempts were made to talk with Mark 1-on-1, but he was unaccessible. According to people who tried to set up a meeting with him, he was "booked" for the next two-years. It took the threat of a public protest for him to actually notice and agree to meet with his critics.

Besides, talk about your double standards. Mark has no problem publically ridiculing and insulting people he disagrees with (e.g. Bishop Jefferts-Schori, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, etc.) So why should his supporters suddenly cry foul when people publically take him to task for his public insults? If he can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out in the first place.

2) You said, "They managed to have Pastor Driscoll censored from his position as a Faith & Values columnist at The Seattle Times - which means that a consistent voice for the gospel of Jesus Christ at that newspaper is now silenced. "

FALSE - The Seattle Times specifically said that the protest had nothing to do with the end of Marks' tenure as a columnist. The position was always temporary, and the end of Mark's 2-year stint just happened to coincide with the timing of this protest.

And there has been no silencing of Christian voices at the paper. They are already actively recruiting a new evangelical pastor to take over that same column.

3) You said, "Hypocrites. They said nothing about the Muslim "Faith & Values" columnist at the Times. Perhaps the People Against Fundamentalism believe that Islam has a higher view of women than traditional Christianity? Or, were they just afraid that unlike Driscoll, the Islamists might not turn the other cheek?"

FALSE - PAF has said nothing about the Muslim columnist because they just came into existence specifically in response to Driscoll's comments. Will you fault an organization that is only a few weeks old for not speaking up immediately about every single instance of injustice in the world? I have no doubt that they are equally opposed to the oppression of women in Muslim cultures, and if they choose to remain in existence as a group after this, then I would expect that they would speak out against specific abuses in the future.

Speaking of hypocrisy though, what do you call someone who in one breath faults PAF for publically criticizing Driscoll, and then in the next breath implies that they are cowards and then uses offenseive, racists terms like "Islamists" which perpetuates violent stereotypes of Muslims?

Anyhow, like I said, stop spreading falsehoods and negativity at my blog unless you're willing to "man-up" (as Mark would say) and share your identity with the world. To refuse to sign your name to your own words is cowardly.

 

At 12/05/2006 04:54:00 PM, Anonymous Jose

Come on Mike!!!! What are you saying? Islamists are hard-core terrorists!!! What do you want anonymous to call them: "sweety pie"? Please Mike, be reasonable. BTW- I don't know who anonymous is, but you shouldn't contradict everything he wrote, he does have a valid point when he states that Mark lost his column at the paper becuase of EC extreemists.

 

At 12/05/2006 05:56:00 PM, Blogger Mike Clawson

By "valid point" do you mean "completely contrary to fact"?

To quote directly from an editor at the Seattle Times in their own article about the matter:

"The decision to discontinue Pastor Driscoll's participation was part of a review that was under way before we knew of any protest against him," said a statement from Executive Editor David Boardman.

 

At 12/06/2006 03:58:00 AM, Anonymous radioguy

Here is a link to the KIRO News interview of the instigator of the protest against Pastor Driscoll. Judge for yourself:
http://kiro.radiotown.com/audio/dorihour1.mp3

 

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link