John Piper and Mark Driscoll: lessons not learned?

by Dan Phillips

NOTE: this week's SHST is pushed aside by a recent turn of events. To wit:

A recent "Ask Pastor John" segment is titled "Do You Regret Partnering with Mark Driscoll?" An answer to that question could have been very helpful. However, once the question is asked, the word "partnering" never recurs. Piper instead poses and answers a question of his own: "Do you regret befriending Mark Driscoll?"

I don't doubt that question was more appealing. Low-hanging fruit always is. However, it is is a question I've heard no one ask. I asked my Tweeps if anyone had heard that question asked, and no one had. (I also offered some other thoughtlets on Twitter: here, here.)

"John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll," Piper said Bob-Dole-ically, answering the question he alone asked himself. Piper did go on to admit that he regrets not being a more effective friend. But then Piper somewhat undoes that admission, by saying that Mark knew he had flaws of leadership attitude, unsavory language, exegetical errors, and that Mark knew Piper knew. Piper says he always hoped the relationship would be redemptive and helpful. So it's really Driscoll's fault. Which, of course, ultimately is true...and, once again, was not the question.

Then, somewhat oddly, Piper stressed that Driscoll gave Piper a lot of time and counsel and "guidance." Driscoll gave guidance to Piper and his elders. "He certainly gave me more time and counsel than I deserved." Oh? What is this? Taken seriously, this rather subverts the perception that Piper was an elder brother taking Driscoll under his wing to sober, mature, guide and mentor the famously loose-cannon leaky-Canoneer. Instead, Piper depicts them as equals, giving and receiving counsel to each other.

Would that make Piper still less responsible for the direction Driscoll took? Is that the intent?

But this is all wide of the mark (no pun intended). The issue is that Piper had, as far as I know, a well-earned stellar reputation. He was regarded as a sagacious elder statesman. He lit the fires of devotion to God, delight in God, open celebration of God's sovereignty. He did and represented much that is really great and good. I myself have often admitted with enthusiasm (and do so again, here) that Piper's writings have done me great good, particularly Future Grace.

So when Piper extended his embrace to Mark Driscoll, all that gravitas and bona fides was added to Driscoll's resume. Driscoll had been "the cussing pastor" and all; now he was "John Piper's protegee," "John Piper's partner." When anyone started to express misgivings about Driscoll, he might hear the response, "But John Piper embraces him. Piper's working with him. Driscoll must be OK." Driscoll himself had that card to play, as needed.

Good men cautioned Piper privately and publicly, warned him, begged him to reconsider what he was doing. But Piper resolutely brushed them all aside and stayed the course. And so has Driscoll.

So now where are we? We are exactly where Piper's friends warned him he'd be. Driscoll has come to a sad place, yet remains defiant and undaunted, and it's Piper who has to explain their connection.

But Piper still doesn't seem to take it all that seriously.

In a way, Piper seems to ackonwlege that things are sort of bad now, though for unspecified reasons. Piper says he sees why Driscoll's books might be off of shelves temporarily. Yet he also immediately goes on to say he sees a day when they could be replaced and stand on their own merit. Which underscores something I'm going to say, below, about "echo-chamber":

Piper says Driscoll's books can stand on their own merit if they're true and helpful? Sir, they're PLAGIARIZED! They're someone else's work!
— Janet Mefferd (@JanetMefferd) November 13, 2014

Before we leave that paragraph, Piper says, "If he is disqualified from being an elder should he still exercise the teaching office of an elder through his books?" "If"? Is he, or isn't he? Driscoll himself insists that he is not disqualified. His hand-picked committee that was supposed to be counseling him insists that "we do not believe him to be disqualified from pastoral ministry." Is Piper saying differently? If so, he is not saying it very clearly.

Despite all that publicly known information, what Piper does say clearly is that he has "no regret." Hear Piper:

John Piper has no regret for befriending Mark Driscoll, going to Mark Driscoll’s church and speaking at his events, or having him come to the Desiring God conference. I do not regret that.

Instead, Piper sees himself as in a position to issue lessons that he says he has learned, and which he says we should all take from the whole affair. Having admitted no errors in judgment, and detailing nothing specific that he would do differently, he's ready to bid adieu to the whole thing, it appears, with this list. Here it is, and I shall add my own brief thoughts in brackets:

1. People are very complex. Some of our sins are hidden to ourselves. [Amen. But I didn't need this, to know that; and all the harm that has been done was not necessary for this point to be made.]
2. We need to take very seriously what wise counselors tell us about ourselves. [Ironic. The advice of wise counselors to Piper himself that he should distance himself from Driscoll, or be more public in his rebukes, apparently is excepted.]
3. Sometimes you can see what others are saying about yourself, sometimes you can't. If you see it, you repent and fight the sin. But if you can't? What then? You have to go with what you see, or you'd be hopping to everybody's varying opinion, something neither Paul nor Jesus did. Says Mark stood down instead of a fight (implying he did the right thing). [This paints Driscoll's stepping down as a noble act, given Driscoll's inability to get what his critics are saying. Putting it mildly, I do not see it that way.]
4. Biblical leadership structures are not luxuries. [Amen. Yet Driscoll was unwilling to follow the counsel even of his hand-restructured structure.]
5. Salaries shouldn't be huge. Corporate mindset, beware. [Like a pastor seeing himself as "the brand"?]
6. Same theology on paper can coexist with very different personalities and leadership styles and sins. No theology on paper or merely in preaching that keeps a man from sin. See Peter — what he did in Galatia had nothing to do with his theology. Peter and those who erred with him believed the truth, but did not walk in step with it. [Amen.]
7. God's kingdom and his saving purposes never depend on one man, church, denomination. His word is not bound. [Amen, and thank God. But is it not also true that "one sinner destroys much good" (Ecclesiastes 9:18)?]
8. Let him who is thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall; restore such a one. For Mark's detractors to sniff "Good riddance" is sin and un-Biblical.  Renew and restore all, including Mark. [Already? It's time to talk about restoring Driscoll, already? To what? After what process? After assuring ourselves of what, and how? Should repentance play a part in restoration? Shouldn't we be talking about what repentance looks like (— like this, and this, and this, and this) before moving on to restoration?]

I'm not reassured to see that Piper thinks these are the main lessons he should learn from this. He did not already know these things? If not, what would he have done differently, knowing them?

Here are the lessons I'd like to suggest might be more helpful to learn from this. Were I someone whose judgment meant anything to John Piper, I'd be putting this before him:

1. To whom much given, from him much is required (Lk. 12:48; Jas. 3:1). Piper should have been much, much slower to extend his good reputation to someone with such a genuine and palpable cloud around him (1 Ti. 5:22, 24). Piper made a mistake. I have no trouble believing that it was good-hearted and well-intentioned, but it was a mistake. I think it he should own it, not double-down about it. That would serve him and the church better.
2. To turn a deaf ear to wise and godly counsel, as Piper did, is not wise (Pro. 11:14; 12:15; 15:22; 26:12).
3. Widen your circle and get out of your bubble. The echo-chamber clearly did not get the word through to Piper. They did not serve him well. So I'll just say it, and take the hate that will come: what if Piper had read Pyro? What if he'd really thought about what (for instance) Phil Johnson was writing, years ago? What if Piper were to say, "Someone pointed me to this blog nobody'd ever told me of, it's called Pyromaniacs. Years ago, Phil Johnson and others warned that exactly this would happen. I wish I'd been reading and listening; I've learned I need to widen my circle among those sharing my core convictions but seeing things differently. I regret that I didn't do that then, and urge others not to repeat my mistake." Would that be constructive, specific, and perhaps admonitory to others who keep making the same sorts of errors?
   
4. Re-think your enabling of Charismaticism. And then withdraw it. If you had read this (and additional comments like this and this), and had thought it through, you would have seen. Please, please consider what I am about to say very slowly and very seriously: there is a very short and straight line between (A) thinking God tells you stuff He tells no one else, yet (B) taking no responsibility and accepting no consequences for your claims to such revelation, and (C) abusive, egotistic, narcissistic, damaging leadership. History's told many such tales, and you just witnessed another firsthand. With such rotten fruit, shouldn't the tree be reassessed?
5. Force yourself to admit the extent of the damage caused.

I don't begrudge Piper's befriending Driscoll, for my part. I have been befriended by men much, much, much better than I. Thank God for them. I feel like they're all slumming, having me for a friend. So what I do is (A) I try to learn all I can from them, and (B) I try not to make them regret their friendship.

So what I am sad about is Driscoll abusing the friendship Piper extended. And what I particularly regret is that Piper simply is not admitting the extent of the bad public decisions he made, the damage that resulted, and the utter preventability of the whole thing.

Which simply assures more iterations. And does nothing to correct the specific situation we're discussing.

Thus endeth the post that, of all my many posts, I probably most hated having to write. I hope it does someone some good, for the sake of Christ's name and church.

---

Some here, some there — October 17, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Howdy amigos and amigas.

• We'll start out on a happy personal note. Wednesday (September 45, Phillips calendar), just a bit more than an hour after our church had prayed for her, my beautiful daughter Rachael and dashing husband Kermit welcomed my beautiful granddaughter, Zoé Isabelle Allen, into the world. Zoé weighed in at 6 lb 15.8 oz, and was born at home. Here's pictures I have at post-time; will add more if I get more!

• And here's my beautiful wife and my beautiful granddaughter.

• Ahh.
• Now, from the sublime to... well, Mark Driscoll. You'll know by now that he has resigned as pastor. Here is Mark's letter, which I would characterize as defiant, unhumbled, and resentful. He makes sure everyone knows he's still qualified to be pastor and has a clean bill of health; any unspecified "imperfect" aspects have been all taken care of. His accusers are the real problem; nobody but Mark comes off very well, in his telling.
• Here's the letter from the Mars Hill overseers. They agree with Mark that, though he's got his problems, he's really a great guy.
• Of many articles I've seen, I think the crispest insight is from Michael Newnham, who says "In the corporate world, you cut your losses, protect your resume, and move on to the next opportunity." Does that not pretty well capture the Driscoll situation?
• Now surely the most surreal note comes in a post in, of all places, The Gospel Coalition, written by Trevin Wax. If you hadn't read it, and I summarized his third point for you, you'd say I had to be making it up. So here it is, verbatim. The point is "Character Matters as Much
  as Doctrine," and part of what Trevin says is (bold added):

Every tribe has its blind spots. It’s human nature to assume the best of your friends and worst of your enemies. I have seen this club mentality when well-known evangelicals with good reputations and solid character are dismissed simply because their biblical exegesis differs from ours. And I think some Christian leaders were slow to see the problems with Driscoll because he ”believes the right things.”

If anything, evangelicals gifted with discernment and biblical doctrine of sin and grace should have been the first to expose these problems. I know some of this critique happened behind the scenes, inside and outside Mars Hill. But more could have been done sooner to warn and protect the flock.

• So...

Trevin Wax at TGC says oh! if only SOMEONE had said SOMETHING about Driscoll's dire trajectory! IF ONLY! < buries face in hands >
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) October 16, 2014

• Prompting:

@BibChr Someone = Top men. IOW, John MacArthur ≠ Someone. Carl Trueman ≠ Someone. The Pyromaniacs ≠ Someones. @JanetMefferd ≠ Someone.
— Tom Chantry (@tjchantry) October 16, 2014

• And perhaps:

John MacArthur Reads “Too Little, Too Late” Comment in @TrevinWax’s Mark Driscoll Post-Mortem; Literally Smacks Forehead
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 16, 2014

• And of course:

Trevin Wax Launches Satire Column at http://t.co/WTWlW5RzPy
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 16, 2014

• Some commenters asked Trevin to be more specific, but as of this posting, it hasn't happened.
• I don't know of anyone blocked or blacklisted by the TGC who's been contact by them, or "followed" by them in Twitter (to signal that they're opening up their echo chamber). But those were really nice words Trevin wrote.
• Not all comments passed moderation. Like Tom Chantry's.
• Carl Trueman has now weighed in. Some "money-quotes" [bolding added]:

It is interesting that the crisis finally came only when the aesthetics flipped the other way, when Driscoll and his antics became more distasteful than the words of his critics. It is important to notice that it was not the embrace of a Unitarian prosperity teacher and that decision's obvious doctrinal significance [on which see here, among many others by all three of us] which brought things to a head. Rather, it was the numerous allegations of bullying and loutish behaviour which finished him off -- things that are aesthetically displeasing in the current climate. The whistleblowers, however, are still not regarded as vindicated, despite having spoken the truth. I suspect they can -- pardon the pun -- whistle for an apology from the Top Men or for rehabilitation by the mainstream of YRR evangelicalism. For they can even now still be dismissed as smug (an aesthetic word if ever there was one) or simply forgotten because, whatever the truth they spoke, they were nonetheless engaged in the activity at a point in time when the aesthetics of the marketplace made their criticisms easy to characterize as unloving and thus distasteful.

When it comes to an instinct for staying ahead, the Top Men and their camp followers are masters of the taste-driven dynamics of the evangelical stock exchange: winsome and loving when the market's aesthetics demand such, then wise and discerning when tastes change. Like the secret of great comedy, the secret of being a respected leader in the world of Big Eva is really very, very simple: it's all a question of timing.

• Christmas is coming.

• I think that if something like this had been attempted when I was a student at Talbot, there would have been a very vigorous response. It reminds me of the classmate who said, back in the 80s, "I'm afraid that one day I'm going to have to explain my degree, like guys who went to Fuller have to do now."
  
• More news from the dominant, ever-broadening "fringe." One reads these revelations and accusations about 93yo Charismatic "prophet" Ernest Angley — who admits requesting to view mens' privates — with horror, but not particularly with surprise. See, here's the thing: in a healthy church, one would have watched Angley for about 5 minutes, to be generous, and dismissed him. He would never have been able to earn a living, let alone such a lavish lifestyle, from Christians.
• Except that Charismaticism gives him cover. And Christians who ought to know better (the "open but clueless" set) give Charismaticism cover. It is just as simple as that.
• Which BTW is a drum that John MacArthur has banged yet again and again. God bless him for his stand. I have no doubt as to what sort of ministry — enabling, or discerning — will stand better in that Day, in terms of how it dealt with the Charismatic movement.
• Too cool to miss: a Lego telling of The Hobbit in 72 seconds.
• Fred Butler hates Christmas, but loves "impact" as a verb.
• Wait, that's not quite right. The first part isn't, anyway. Fred Butler hates it when people read into Christmas trappings things that were never intended by their originators, even with the highest motives. There.
• Hm. How do I get my cats to do this?

• (...or, for that matter, my sons?)
• Ahhh, contextualizing...

Study Reveals Campus Ministry 57% More Phat Since Campus Crusade for Christ Changed Name to Cru
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 17, 2014

• Contextual street evangelism. Watch this evangelist reaching out to a Michael Jackson impersonator, contextualized-style:

• (Actually, that's not it at all. The note says it's a Mormon missionary. Emergo-Morms?)
• City officials subpoenaing sermons by pastors not even involved in a lawsuit, to see if they criticized city policy allowing sexually perverted individuals into bathrooms of the opposite sex. Sure, you say: in Sweden. But no. San Francisco? Not this story. England, France, Seattle? Nope. Try Texas. Try Houston, Texas. No lie.
• People think of Texas as conservative, and largely we are. But Austin and Houston teem with liberal, totalitarian, anti-Christian officials fighting their own war with God.
• Doug Wilson comments on the Houston situation. So does Carl Trueman. (Both men actually know a Houston pastor personally.)
• David Allen brings a good word about real men, touching on Driscoll and related matters.
• "How do I know if I'm elect?" Here's a pretty wonderful answer from Joseph Alleine.

• Doug Wilson seems to argue, not for the first time, that believing in justification by faith should prevent us from being too critical of Roman Catholics and others who claim to be Christian despite many and grave doctrinal and practical errors. After all, are they justified by faith, or by correctness and precision?
• Doug expresses admiration for a somewhat similar "magnificent" post by Mark Jones at, of all places, Reformation21. Jones, who has recently been defending the practice of "baptizing" people who have no faith at all, makes a more nuanced case than Wilson.
• What of it, then? For one thing, it seems to rest on a definition of faith that tears it from the realm of truth and doctrine. It seems to me to reverse what believers have argued since Schleiermacher, that saving faith must have content, and not just any content. For another, it makes Paul's attitude towards the Galatian errorists incomprehensible (I don't find Wilson's dismissal persuasive). For yet another, it leaves me wondering how we can criticize Zane Hodges and the rest of what chapter 10 of TWTG calls "gutless gracers." And isn't that an odd turn of events, when the nuanced and deep thinking of some Reformed brother leads them to stand pretty darned close to dispensational antinomians who are rejected by dispensationalists who affirm the Biblical Gospel of God's sovereign grace?
• I asked that question over at Doug's place, btw; no answer. He wrote more about it yesterday in an attempt to explain, but didn't allude to or answer my question.

As usual, check in later. This post usually grows through the day.

---

Janet Mefferd: The Alternate Ending

by Frank Turk

UPDATED 05 Dec 2013: Yesterday at the start of the 2 PM hour (central time) Janet Mefferd issued an apology for the interview with Mark Driscoll, and also removed all the links and files related to this incident.

For the record, my assumption is that Janet has acted inside her own good conscience and has reached this conclusion based on her own review of the events. Until/unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should all operate under that assumption for two reasons:

1. It speaks best of Mrs. Mefferd. It assumes that she is neither a victim nor the kind of drive-by hooligan some in the blogosphere have made her out to be.

2. It keeps our own consciences clear, and avoids acting like rumor mongers and people with hard hearts.

If there is more to discuss here, I'll come back to it.

Yes, I know.  I should be doing something else, Like Ministry.  This is the third of 3 posts on this subject, tracking back to yesterday and earlier today.

Back on Thursday, I got a tweet from some of my magic helpers that I needed to listen to the next segment of Janet Mefferd when it came on the web (recorded).  So I waited for it to go to the archive, and it took a little while, but here's what I found:

I have a few comments about this video and the ensuing firestorm, so what else have you got to do? Prepare for Thanksgiving?

The first comment is this -- Mark Driscoll is obviously a fantastic historian.  I have covered that in the previous post.

But let's forbid that we seem too harsh.  Mark may be battling the flu, or be on cold medicine, and he may be too weak to take it.  But the uncut video reviewed there seems to be less than congruent with the events Pastor Driscoll has described.

In that context, Janet certainly went after Mark in her radio interview -- something, let's face it, Mark has never allowed before.  Maybe no one has ever really had the audacity to try since Driscoll is well-known as a manly man. But Janet addressed the appearance of wrong-doing at the StrangeFire conference in the first segment, and then moved on to Mark's new book in the next segment.

Put on your Big Girl Pant-TAYS!
If you want to DANCE!

That brings me to my second comment: I think it's a lot less than credible for Driscoll to believe nobody would eventually call him on his antics if he gave enough interviews.  Let's be serious: he did what he did for publicity, and it was exactly what he wanted.  For him to feign suffering indignity at this point can only be accounted for as part of the show -- not as any actual loss of dignity.  He doesn't have a scrap of that left to lose.

But let's turn to the second segment for a moment just for the sake of finishing this post well.  It's one thing to mention you have heard something from someone you know (and to do so in print), and it's another thing use those ideas without attribution.  That, ultimately, is the hazard of writing non-fiction.  Over the weekend, Wade Burleson weighed in about his view of the documentation problems with Driscoll's book.  I don't know anyone who would write a book using someone else's ideas without fully attributing them at all points.   I think Janet's argument gains full force when she cites the Mars Hill web site's fair use statement and points out that it seems like Pastor Driscoll may have the problem of a double standard.

Further, let's also remember that Mark Driscoll is a man and not a venerated saint.  As Carl Trueman points out in his piece from this weekend, someone ought to tell the Emperor when he's not wearing any clothes -- and if that's not politically correct, we have a problem of Christian ethics to deal with when it comes to the lifestyles of the Young, Restless and Reformed.

However, what has surfaced, apparently through Mark's publisher, is this alternate version of the last 2 minutes of the audio:

DOWNLOAD THE MP3 RIGHT HERE

What's unusual about this clip, I think, is that it turns out that it was allegedly recorded by the fellows at Mars Hill.  I had no idea that was ever done when one does an interview, but everyone lives the way they live.  It's obviously different than the end of the interview which went out live, and it bears another strange artifact: the voice of Mark's producer during the end of the interview.

That artifact is strange for one reason only: plainly, Mark's voice is over the phone; his assistant (I am told it is the voice of Justin Dean) is plainly not on the phone -- his voice doesn't sound like it's coming over the phone line but from another (better quality) mic. If they were doing a remote or some sort of studio-to-studio broadcast, that makes sense, but a phone interview?  Obviously they do it differently than many.

It seems to me we have to clear this one up, too.  By "we," I don't mean tiny, unable-to-hiatus me and then DJP.  I mean "we" the people tossing out accusations who are public people.  And I think there's an easy way to do this.

The version published to YouTube by the Janet Mefferd Show and Salem Radio has the breaks cut out, as podcasted radio often does. That audio is an air check, recorded from the output of the board in Janet's studio.  It is recorded on the Dallas end of the line.  While Ms. Mefferd's people have been adamant that they did not use the kill switch at any time for this interview (it's clear this is true during the interview earlier as Janet and Mark talk over each other a couple of times), it's possible, I guess, that someone's finger slipped.  However, it's unlikely that any fingers slipped on the Seattle side of the phone.  Since they were plainly recording the show, I say they come forward with the whole thing including the breaks so we can see what Pastor Driscoll was doing while the listeners were listening to commercials.  I'm sure he got moral support from Mr. Dean as the interview was not conducted from a position of genuflection on the part of Ms. Mefferd, and it will speak to the authenticity of the whole "alternative ending" now provided by Mars Hill and Tyndale.

What we certainly don't want to find out is that Mark Driscoll hung up in frustration, Mars Hill lied to Tyndale, and has caused Justin Taylor to promulgate a lie and accuse Ms. Mefferd of a few things he might regret having said.  What we want is to bring all the facts to light, exonerate Mark Driscoll, demonstrate that he doesn't live in a fantasy world where he is the dictator of thing past, present and future, and that the rest of us can retire since the only safe future for the Church is the one in his hands, according to his book, with or without a footnote.  That's the safe path, and I pray that we can all take it -- because after the events at StrangeFire, Mark's batting average is at stake. (which is not to say: again)

Can we live with the consequences of what we find when all the facts come to light?

The Mark Driscoll Experience

by Frank Turk

Do you know how I expected to spend my weekend?  Moving furniture around my house and watching WAY too much Doctor Who.  That's all I wanted -- maybe a nice visit with our prospective new Family pastor at church, a decent morning of worship on Sunday, and a couple of walks with my dog.

Instead, due entirely to my own fault, I am writing blog posts.

What I am actually trying to do is to show some solidarity and good will to a long-time friend of this blog, Janet Mefferd.  Janet is a radio host out of Dallas, and has been a fan of fellow Pyro Dan Phillips, for years. Up until Friday, Janet was a well-respected broadcast personality -- but then she had the audacity to be less than submissive toward Mark Driscoll on her radio show.  We can all guess how that went.

Anyway, I intended to do one blog post about that interview, but that turned into quite a ride -- and may have been unreadable in one sitting.  You can imagine how long it was to say that here.  So here's the agenda for today:

YESTERDAY, I gave credit where credit is due to Steve Cha, who provided the raw video which is featured below in today's post.

THIS POST TODAY is about that video vis a vis the other account floating around the internet, which happens to be Pastor Mark's account.

THE NEXT POST will be about Janet's interview with Mark because she has received a good deal of flack for it -- and most of that criticism  is, frankly, worthy of the dung heap.  More on that next time.

In a very muddled and expansive mess of a post, Driscoll attempted to do ... well, something.  Was he trying to be nice to John MacArthur? Helpful? Inviting? Collegial? Or self-serving and obsequious? It's hard to tell because while it starts, "Dear Pastor John MacArthur," is has a pretty long (about a third of the letter by word count) excursus on how he was bullied in the parking lot by security.  One wonders how Chris Rosebrough's treatment at ER2 missed his notice.

As always with Pastor Mark, it's a gripping tale in which he is the hero:

As you may have heard, I dropped by your recent Strange Fire conference. I happened to be in the area speaking at an Act Like Men conference in Long Beach. I intentionally came during a break so as not to interrupt the sessions, and I met some great people. I got to pray with a number of great young leaders in your seminary who also podcast my sermons. Out of respect for you, I said nothing unkind about you or your ministry to anyone on my visit.

Your pastoral staff was very gracious and hospitable. I met your executive pastor, Michael Mahoney, who offered me water, asked if I needed anything while signing books, and was very gracious. I also met Austin Duncan, your college pastor who hung out for my entire visit and was very enjoyable.

The volunteers on your security team, most of them seminary students, were also very kind. They helped me park and enter the event, and some came by for a photo or a free book and brought great practical questions about their future ministry and how they could serve Jesus most effectively.

Everyone I asked who is attending your seminary said they chose your school because they wanted to learn to preach the Bible. As a Bible preacher, I rejoice in that. I actually considered attending your school myself after I finished my undergraduate work, but I was newly married and could not afford any seminary at the time. Some years later, I was thankfully able to get my master’s from Western Seminary.

The only difficult moments on my visit came during my interactions not with your pastoral staff, but with a few of the apparently staff security personnel. I had been handing out advance copies of my new book for free; the pastoral staff said I was welcome on campus. They were kind, and some of them even asked for photos and books, which I gave them and signed with a pen I borrowed from your son, Mark. He kindly lent it to me, we visited, and he too was very kind, very welcoming, and very gracious.

However, there were two security guards who seemed to operate in a manner inconsistent with the permission I received from the pastoral staff. These two men took turns approaching me as I was talking with and praying for people, and things got confusing.

Security said I could not hand the books out, so I stopped. But people started helping themselves to the books that remained in the box, so security said the books had to be removed. One of the security guards said if I did not remove the books, he would “have to take it to the next level.” I asked him what that meant, curious, as his tone was different than the pastoral staff I had encountered. He admitted he did not know what the next level was. The other security guard then approached, saying the books had to be removed. He told me that they were taking them to put them in a Mustang, which they apparently thought was my vehicle. I did not know what Mustang they were referring to. In any case, it was obvious that my gift books were being removed.

It was at this point that I told the security guard that, since they were going to confiscate the books anyway, they could just keep them as a gift from me. Apparently, someone recorded the final words of this conversation on video, but nothing of the prior conversations that led up to it.

As Bible teachers, we both know that people often arrive at the wrong conclusion when they extract a line out of an ongoing discussion, ignoring the context, and then wrongly impugn someone’s character. I am guessing the security team and pastoral team were not entirely rowing in the same direction, and that security thought they were just doing their job.

Mistakes happen. I understand. And since no one owes me anything, I am grateful I got to hang out for a bit and meet some of the pastoral staff and your son. I would’ve been glad to have met you as well.

Maybe that can still happen?

Quite an account, yes?  You would think that there was nearly a street fight the way he tells it.  The reason he has to say anything about it, of course, is because this is how he summarized it on Twitter:

Right?  I mean: the story we find ourselves in here started with Driscoll's tweet on 18 October that GCC security took his books, and it's paired with a photo of a fellow who, frankly, looks like security.  To that end, I'm sure it's right of Mark to let everybody know that, in spite of rough treatment, he's OK -- in fact, in spite of rough treatment, he's actually coming back with a kind and brotherly spirit.

Which is a great story -- if any of it is true.

If only we had a way to check the story.  If only we had ... Steve Cha's video.

Now, a few caveats:

[1] Yes: Steve's video is only 4 minutes, and Driscoll was on the campus about 30-45 minutes, so this is at-best a 10% sample of the whole visit.

[2] Yes, some of the audio isn't great.

But I think these 4 minutes of video do tell us something.  Let's watch:

Now: so what?  What's that video tell us?  Mostly, it tells us that the Mark Driscoll Experience at the GCC campus was, to say the least, cordial.  Even his interaction with Mr. Tom Hatter was almost entirely friendly and uneventful.  But it also tells us when the photo posted on Pastor Driscoll's Instagram/Twitter account happened:

Oh wait -- no, that's a frame from this video with three guys not Tom Hatter called out for reference.  This one is from Driscoll's Instagram:

These photos are snapped within moments of each other, and plainly: this segment of the video shows there's no confiscation going on.  So the Tweet wasn't quite a historical account.  Wouldn't it be great if Driscoll actually said, "I was wrong to say the books were confiscated.  I apologize as I made it sound  like your people were out to get me.  Please forgive me?"  I think it would.

But let's ask ourselves: how about the blog post?  Is the blog post any better than the tweet?

Well, of the 30-45 minutes he was there, we can admit that most of it is missing.  Most was not recorded.  But let's be fair to all parties: the sort of confusion and tense situations Driscoll describes also seems absent.

It could be that the fix was in, and Steve Cha was only recording nice stuff.  It could have been a set-up by the GCC staff, right?  See: that makes sense if somehow they invited Driscoll or intended for him to be there.  But somehow, since Driscoll's tweet is transparently false based on the video evidence, how much stock should we put in his blog post?  "the Next level"?  What is this - an off-broadway production of Roadhouse?

My only purpose in rehearsing this clown show is this: the experience at GCC was for publicity only, and of course Mark played it for the cheap seats.  The phony tweet, the obsequious blog post, the phony invitation to his conference -- all of it entry-level stunts.

After all these, he appears on the Janet Mefferd Show.  As he says, he does Janet a favor.

And that's the subject of the next blog post.

---

Credit where Credit is Due

by Frank Turk

I realize that this space is normally a burning white-hot two-day Spurgeon homage, but this week we have a few pieces of housekeeping to take care of.  The first one is the video below.  It's one of the stories in the life of evangelist Steve Cha.



Steve Cha is an author, speaker, and evangelist. He is most known for spending three years in Hollywood preaching the gospel message to famous actors, actresses, directors, and musicians. These true stories are documented in Steve’s debut book, Hollywood Mission: Possible, which has been featured on such media outlets like CNN.com, Christian Post, and Korea Times.

Steve graduated with a B.A. in Asian American Studies from the University of California Los Angeles. He currently attends The Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley, CA, where he is currently working towards a Master of Divinity. Steve is a member of SAG-AFTRA One Union, and is founder of Project A-List, a Facebook and Twitter Christian community devoted to saving Hollywood celebrities with the gospel message of Jesus Christ.

Steve is obviously a friend of the blog-family via TMS, but the reason I'm featuring Steve today is simple: Steve is the fellow who shot the video of what happened to Mark Driscoll when he crashed the StrangeFire conference.

Thanks much to Steve for his ministry, and also for his fast-on-his-feet decision to shot about 4 minutes of footage which many of us will find instructive over the next couple of posts.

---