In particular, note the desperate stupidity of Driscoll’s argument, while he grilled Justin Brierley:

1. Women should not be in charge.
2. To prove this, I will ask Justin a series of questions about his church (asks the questions, none of them show that his wife is doing a bad job)
3. Yea, but, you’ve got a woman in charge!

Driscoll has done some good work, but he’s also a bully. As a result, I no longer trust him and cannot listen to his sermons without an acutely skeptical ear. Plenty of other theologians out there who don’t carry that kind of baggage.

Wait. Why does this formula look so familiar? (thinking……) (controversy = increased traffic = revenue) (Oh yeah!) It’s because it looks exactly like every ____ thing Mark has ever done.

Whew. I’m glad Mark has a grip on exactly what’s happening here.

Good work – I quite enjoyed this post; accurate and entertaining.

-Aaron

What’s most puzzling as a former member who heard his 2005 atonement series indebted to Stott’s work, Driscoll used to say there was no one way to understand the fullness of the atonement and that all the theories of atonement had something valuable to contribute. So “now” PSA must be the primary lens through which to understand the atonement? An Eastern Orthodox friend of mine told me last year that even in Eastern Orthodoxy penal substitutionary atonement is a given, but it’s not given the same emphasis it has received in Western Christian thought. I may be a Calvinist but emphasizing PSA at the expense of christus exemplar is crazy and it’s even crazier knowing that Mark preached on christus exemplar years ago. It was one of his better sermons. When Mark lays aside his fear of liberal/feminine theology cooties he can do some good preaching.

If Driscoll conflates a difference in emphasis for an absence then someone could ask him why, in fifteen years, he’s never done much with sermons on biblical poems that didn’t involve sex. 11 weeks on Song of Songs, one or two sermons on the Magnificat. No sermons on Psalm 139.