Mark Driscoll Goes Another Round Against Mark Driscoll

There’s an exciting new twist to the latest book-promotion push by Mark Driscoll. It appears that Driscoll felt his authority was disrespected by some British interviewer. Others have done a great job responding to Driscoll ham-fisted approach to this controversy that he made up by himself before the interview was even released.

(Note: As a communications strategy there is no downside to saying that an interviewer is biased against you – if they write a hatchet job attacking you, you’ve already inoculated yourself against the worst of it, and if they don’t then you can say, “look even the haters had to give me their due” or something to that effect. As a matter of integrity, attacking your interviewer is another matter.)

There are two things that I want to say about this little scandal of Driscoll’s making:

Is it not curious that Driscoll claims that he wants men to contend with each other, be “manly,” and have the courage take stands. Here we have an interviewer who will tell Driscoll his opinion on a number of issues. He does not fit in with Driscoll’s American New Calvinist views on atonement, hell or gender, but does fall well within the range of what Christianity has historically taught about the first two and holds a position on the third that many Christians find very defensible. So is Driscoll saying that his tribe should firmly and clearly state their views and that everyone else should shut up? Is the only “manly” stance vigorous agreement with Driscoll?

This brings me to my second point. Perhaps what happened here was that Driscoll was not prepared for the British interview style which tends to take some stylistic cues from Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Parliament – it can be more pointed and more truculent than American interviews – even if the interviewer agrees with the subject the idea is to play devil’s advocate. American interviewers are far more likely to lob softball questions at people they like (and cut the mics of those they don’t). They also don’t stick to the guest’s most recent material, everything that they have written is fair game. Again Driscoll appear to have discarded his own advice. I thought that Mars Hill was supposed to be missional and understand context and so on and so forth. Maybe if Driscoll had watched a single episode of Hardtalk¬†or a similar show, he would have maybe expected an interview that was something other than a puff piece – no matter how sympathetic the interviewer.