In the wake of the Mars Hill meltdown, you have Christian pundits who tell us what we can "learn" from the debacle. The takeaway lessons from that debacle.
I'd just point out that this way of framing the issue is presumptuous and prejudicial. It casts readers in the role of dupes who were taken in by Driscoll, and now have some hard lessons to learn from their disillusioning experience. He betrayed their faith in him.
No doubt there are some former fans of Driscoll who fit the bill. There are, however, Christians who never cared for him in the first place. In addition, there are Christians who appreciated the good he did, especially before he began to go off the rails. But it was never unconditional support. It was the same implicitly qualified support for any minister who's doing good at the time. It always made allowance for weaknesses. And it was always provisional. Always subject to retraction.
Driscoll has had plenty of critics, many of which can now breathe a sigh of relief that their criticisms are now validated. That's kind of a sad way to be proven right.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see that. Those who who criticized him saw this coming.
DeleteSome may have, but I wouln't generalize it. I for one didn't see it coming although I had my suspicions when Acts 29 distanced themselves.
DeleteThe Atlantic recently posted a good article on this topic. Meltdown is the right adjective.
ReplyDelete