There are very few people outside of Mars Hill leadership who can still be considered Mark Driscoll “apologists” but there are still a fair number of people in the world of conservative evangelicalism who would be very prepared, even eager, to welcome back a restored Mark Driscoll who can convincingly claim that he has learned to not be a mean-spirited or abusive leader. This post nicely sums up where a lot of people in the evangelical-reformed camp are with Mark Driscoll: he’s screwed up, pretty badly even, but at least he’s not like Rob Bell. John Piper’s contrasting tweets about Bell (farewell) and Driscoll (paraphrased: please come back soon, everyone should be rooting for you) have been pointed out by at least a few people. Geiger’s post draws the contrast that I think many have implicitly drawn: sure Driscoll has messed up in his leadership style, but at least his doctrine is solid.
It’s strange to me that so many in Driscoll’s tribe think that he’s come through all of this with his doctrine intact, since that same tribe appears to take a very great interest in pastoral epistles. One of the centrepieces of the “young, restless, and Reformed” movement (which is fast becoming the “middle-aged, grumpy and still Reformed” movement, but I digress) has been its emphasis on complementarian theology, which is largely derived from the qualifications for elders that are laid out these same pastoral epistles. It would be beyond bizarre for a group that holds to and carefully justifies male eldership (something that they need to do in an age that is much friendlier to the egalitarian position) for them to not have noticed that in the same books there were all these other qualifications for eldership that Driscoll did not meet. Contra Geiger I must say that Driscoll has guarded neither his life nor his doctrine.