next time it might be you.
I commented on the Mark Driscoll issue at the old site. I conceded that some of what he was accused of was intemperate and indecorous and unbecoming of a pastor. I also conceded that it is likely he does have a “domineering” leadership style. Why? Because you can’t run a huge organization without being somewhat domineering. At the time I speculated that there is probably an ideal size for a church, as there is likely an ideal size for a republic, and mega ain’t it. So mega churches will always lend themselves to domineering and/or charismatic leaders.
But that said, I was hoping for Mark Driscoll to keep his job because his underlying point, that men and women are different and thus have different roles, is a fact that is supported by Scripture, tradition and biology and has always been the position of the Church. It is the rise of political correctness and its ethic of equality as the highest of all possible goods that has brought this idea under fire, not a change in understanding of Scripture, tradition or biology.
Someone needs to be saying what Mark Driscoll was hounded out of a job for saying, they just need to say it in a more temperate and decorous manor. Driscoll’s resignation is a victory for the forces of political correctness. Somewhere evangelical turned liberal equalist Rachel Held Evens is dancing a happy jig, so anyone interested in upholding the traditional teachings of Scripture should see this as the defeat that it is whatever the flaws of Pastor Driscoll may be.
Here is the resignation announcement. It says he was not asked to resign, but I suspect for him to continue on would have been unworkable.
Here is an interesting question. How much of the real negative fallout that Mars Hill has felt from this controversy (vs. being called names in the national press and blogosphere by PC enforcers) is based on it being located in liberal Seattle? Would he have kept his job if Mars Hill was in Alabama for example?