Remember the whole Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren exchange a while back? Remember how Driscoll took shots at McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Driscoll now apologizes.
A godly friend once asked me an important question: “What do you want to be known for?” I responded that solid theology and effective church planting were the things that I cared most about and wanted to be known for. He kindly said that my reputation was growing as a guy with good theology, a bad temper, and a foul mouth. This is not what I want to be known for. And after listening to the concerns of the board members of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network that I lead, and of some of the elders and deacons at Mars Hill Church that I pastor, I have come to see that my comments were sinful and in poor taste. Therefore, I am publicly asking for forgiveness from both Brian and Doug because I was wrong for attacking them personally and I was wrong for the way in which I confronted positions with which I still disagree. I also ask forgiveness from those who were justifiably offended at the way I chose to address the disagreement. I pray that you will accept this posting as a genuine act of repentance for my sin.
God bless him. I'm not sure I could lay aside my pride like that.
Posted by: marc | 03/27/2006 at 02:03 PM
Were his previous comments bad?
I don't remember him making personal attacks, just attacking the position of McLaren.
But if he feels the need to apologize, far be it from me to stifle that.
I am just curious what specifically were the "sinful" comments.
Posted by: J.Gray | 03/27/2006 at 02:06 PM
very gracious.
i hope those who followed his example in that 'conversation' will also ask forgiveness.
Posted by: ellie | 03/27/2006 at 02:47 PM
surely a pattern others may do well to follow on any side of a disagreement ...
Posted by: Todd | 03/27/2006 at 03:39 PM
I am glad to hear this. I really like Driscoll, and laughed at his original post, but I do agree it was a bit out of line. Good stuff!
Posted by: blake w | 03/27/2006 at 03:53 PM
This was very gracious, and I think Mark did the right thing.
However, I am still appalled that while in the middle of this debate, I saw far more people attacking Mark for being unkind than I did anyone taking strong objection to McLaren's heretical position.
For example, I've never met Chris Seay, but I was greatly dissapointed that a brother like him would spend an entire post lamenting Mark's use of sarcasm, but not one word about McLaren questioning the clear teaching of Scripture. We have to draw the line somewhere. With all due respect to him, it isn't the occassional overuse of mockery that brings nealy as much "shame" on the body as much as it is the outright denial of clear Biblical teaching.
I'm all for showing charity, but our responsibility isn't limited to "being nice" and making sure we don't hurt someone's feelings. We have to confront error with truth. While Mark's comments were certainly not the best way to do this, at least he stood for what was right and clearly Biblical.
Posted by: Joel | 03/27/2006 at 04:25 PM
Mark's apology is encouraging and convicting! We all do well to take note and follow in suit.
Posted by: Michael Foster | 03/27/2006 at 06:29 PM
Did MClaren ever answer his question?
Really curious.
Posted by: Hashman | 03/27/2006 at 08:19 PM
I don't think so.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/27/2006 at 09:01 PM
Has McLaren ever answered a question?
Posted by: Jason | 03/27/2006 at 09:15 PM
Jason, I think the answer to your question depends on whether or not anyone ever asked him why he was "a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN."
Posted by: Timbo | 03/27/2006 at 09:27 PM
Dear Paul,
We, the Jeruslam Council are a little unnerved by your strong language and use of bathroom language in dealing with the Judaizers. They are not dogs, they are people too. And to suggest they should just cut the whole "thing" off is just mean-spirited! You have not been gracious enough and such language may get in the way of the obviously fruitful work you are enjoying. Nice is the order of the day. Sure, they are heretics but be nice. Tell the Colliseum "hey" for us!
sincerely,
Lucius for the Jerusalem Council
p.s. James thought you would enjoy the enclosed Sudoku puzzle book. I sent the stress ball myself.
Posted by: matt | 03/27/2006 at 10:23 PM
good for mark.
now, will all who lambasted him publically acknowledge this publically?
Posted by: david | 03/28/2006 at 08:23 AM
Once again, I ask: was it just the sarcasm that was considered so bad or did he make personal attacks?
PS - I find it odd that McLaren didn't respond. Maybe he's waiting 10 years for that too.
Posted by: J.Gray | 03/28/2006 at 10:00 AM
Joel and J. Gray have both asked the million dollar question.
Posted by: Matt Stokes | 03/28/2006 at 10:42 AM
Why is there so much hesitation to just commend Mark for following the leading of his elders? Praise God that he has repented of his sinful approach, which was brought to his attention by lose he submits to and serves with (he never apologized for disagreeing with MacLaren).
Well done Mark this is a trait of a man of God. Thank you.
Posted by: jason | 03/28/2006 at 10:50 AM
amen jason. i think you hit the core of the issue. mark's apology is indicative of a man who is humble and submissive, two things most people don't consider him to be and two things he seems to want to be known for. in my opinion, his submission to the elders of his church is a huge indicator of his authentic desire for a humble heart.
Posted by: nate | 03/28/2006 at 11:20 AM
Funny Matt.
Posted by: anthony | 03/28/2006 at 12:05 PM
I was deadly serious...
Posted by: matt | 03/28/2006 at 01:09 PM
Steve,
Does this change your opinion (or that of any of the others that justified Mark's behavior and saw little wrong with it) of what Mark did, since he has come to believe it was sinful (as many of us felt before)?
No disrespect, wondering, especially since some of the commentors above seem to still find no fautl with Mark's behavior and want to use this as a time for something other than applauding Mark's repentance (see the remarks of Matt, Joel, Jason, J, et al.).
Posted by: Rick Bennett | 03/29/2006 at 09:22 AM
I won't speak for Steve, but in response to Rick's post, I have to distinguish between the tone and content of Mark's original post. Mark apologized for the tone, as he should have. He did not apologize for the theological and cultural core of his post in wondering why McLaren had not (and as far as I'm aware has not yet) clarified his position on the legitimacy of homosexual behavior.
While homosexuality is not the only issue in our day, McLaren would be well served to give as honest and clear of a response as possible. There are layers of issues involved here and the manner and matter of McLaren's answer would give great insight into some of the questions that a growing number of people have about Brian and all things emergent.
Posted by: Matt Adair | 03/29/2006 at 09:38 AM
I think Rick's question is a good one. Several people thought nothing of Mark's tone and comments on the earlier thread. If he now sees his actions as sinful and you had applauded or excused them where do you stand now? How do you see your own actions in this? Please don't deflect to "But MacLaren needs to ..." Look at your own eye first. Sorry if this come off strongly don't want to argue want to encourage genuine searching and repentance if lead by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: jason | 03/29/2006 at 10:32 AM
I am sorry Matt. The apology and Mark's godly response to correction is what I thought this was about.
I guess I was wrong.
I am with Jason. This is about Mark's original comments and his response. My question concerns how we respond to a brother we thought was right now saying he was wrong.
Posted by: Rick Bennett | 03/29/2006 at 10:35 AM
Rick: I can't speak for the other Matt or anyone else, but I am glad for Driscoll's apology. I admit to having grinned at his initial responses to McLaren, but I know the tone was inappropriate.
But this whole issue is about more than Driscoll's tone and everyone knows it. Mark Driscoll can apologize and repent all day long, but that doesn't let McLaren off the hook.
Posted by: Matt Stokes | 03/29/2006 at 11:50 AM
Rick,
You certainly don't need to apologize to me as I agree that this post was about Driscoll's apology. And I echo Matt Stokes' sentiments in being thankful for Mark's apology, and more importantly, the grace of God in granting him the humility to listen and to offer his apology at all.
What I was trying to communicate is that your question about how we respond to someone's actions that we believe are correct but which are later confessed as sin have to be seen through two different lenses. The resounding consensus is boisterous agreement that Mark's tone, while humorous to many (including me), was not only largely ineffective as a means of persuasion, but also offended many. My amusement should not be confused with agreement (in much the same way that I have been known to laugh occasionally at certain comedians who don't exactly exhibit biblical holiness!) and since I didn't agree with Mark's approach in the first place, his repentance hasn't caused me any pause of conscience in the least.
What I'm afraid is that Mark's apology will be seen as an excuse to sweep the content of his critique under the rug and for McLaren and other friends of ours to continue to ignore the question of the legitimacy of homosexual behavior.
Posted by: Matt Adair | 03/29/2006 at 02:20 PM
Why pick sides when both went about things the wrong way? Should this be Driscoll's team vs McClaren's team (I'm of Apollos, I'm of Cephas, etc)?
What I hope for:
a) Us all to recognize true repentance when we see it, be sharpened/convicted/whatever is needed by it, and not to parade Driscoll's apology as some sort of trophy of vindication
b) Pray that McClaren would follow Mark and repent as well.
Posted by: Michael Foster | 03/29/2006 at 02:32 PM
I'm glad Mark apologized. I think it was the right thing to do and a good example for all of us. I find myself apologizing more than I used to as well, not because I do more wrong (maybe I do), but because I'm less (I hope) stubborn.
I never tried to defend what he said directly, but only in principle as there are times to use humor, sarcasm, etc for bite. I have always said I would have done it differently and I trusted that he knew what he was doing and knew how to speak to those men. I left it between him and God, and focused on the point. Knowing he feels he did it wrong, I'm glad he has repented. I have throughout tried to convince people to listen to his message even if his tone and rhetoric were bad. Once again, everyone is talking about everything but the point EVEN AFTER Driscoll has wisely softened his approach.
Other than that, I encourage everyone who is on a witch hunt to move on. The Holy Spirit is much better at convicting people than you.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 03/29/2006 at 03:53 PM
Steve, I certainly respect you as the host of your own blog, and as such offer my own apology if I in fact wandered off course. Knowing that Mark's comments were spurred by the whole homosexual debate, I simply addressed the whole issue when I posted. I understand your point about the Holy Spirit being the One who convicts of sin, and I'm honestly not on a witch hunt. I just felt that so many were so hard on Mark for his sarcasm (which I have said from the beginning was wrong) but saying little about McLaren's move from the text. This is at best an inconsistent approach to confronting wrong. What's good for the goose . . . .
And Rick, with all due respect, if you honestly think I find no fault with Mark, you didn't read carefully enough. I am elated that Mark apologized 1. because it was the right thing to do, and 2. because now we can move away from the TONE to the SUBSTANCE of the debate.
That said, I found it interesting that during this whole fiasco, no one called for a "moratorium" on making pronouncements about sarcasm. It seems that some find Mark's response to heresy more offensive and sinful than the heresy itself, and that is what I find heartbreaking. Love and truth must always be held in balance.
Posted by: Joel | 03/29/2006 at 07:55 PM
My respect for Mark has just gone up. And while I rather like his humour, I think that he does go in too hard, and that the apology was in order. Good on ya Mark
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | 03/30/2006 at 01:05 AM
Should Paul have apologized for calling the Judaizers "dogs'?
This is not a question born out of rebellion or cruelty. I lead a young couples in which we have been studying Philippians. And we cannot get over some of Paul's comments and how unique they are in our cultural milieu.
Should he have apologized?
Posted by: Matt R. | 03/30/2006 at 10:19 AM
joel, with respect, since when did not stating a position on homosexuality become heresy?
there'd be many who would say that the real heresy is to try to hold love and truth in balance. The bible says, repeatedly, that God's love tips every scale in its favour.
Posted by: nick | 03/31/2006 at 02:44 AM
Nick, with respect, if the Bible has a position on homosexuality (read Stott) then we do not get to play the Agnostic, no matter how comfortable that position is.
And you are assuming that Love and Truth are in tension. Which again ignores the Biblical position of "God is love" and Jesus saying, "I am truth."
An example would be that it is "true" that homosexuality (according to Paul in Romans) is a sin. To not adhere to this truth is to be unloving to God and neighbor. Go figure.
Posted by: Matt | 03/31/2006 at 07:06 AM
Nick,
In response to your questions to me:
1. In not stating his position, McLaren has, intended or not, taken a position. A few examples in his own words: "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us."
"Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex."
Legitimate context for some homosexual relationships? Come on Nick! If you are open to such a thing, as McLaren seems to be, then you are by default setting yourself against the clear teaching of Scripture. Our silence when Scripture speaks is every bit as heretical as our speech when Scripture is silent.
2. Sorry Nick, but I don't see a dichotomy between love and truth. What I mean by "proper balance" is that each defines the other. Truth not spoken in love will be less than true, but "love" without truth is in reality something else as well. If "God is love" isn't "true," then what is the big deal about God's love?
My post at http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2006/01/mclaren-morality-and-moratoriums.html will more comprehensively detail where I'm at in all of this, and I'd love to talk more, and/or clarify some things if you want. Just email me. Since I'm already pushing the limits of Steve's original post here, I'm not going to wear out my welcome by continuing to post on his cyber-turf. But let's talk via email if you want me to clarify anything.
Posted by: Joel | 03/31/2006 at 11:59 AM