No thanks. I've got no drive to assasinate the character of someone.
Again, not flying with me.
If you haven't done your homework then you are not qualified to defend him.
That you don't want to do the homework, instead pointing fingers at others and accusing us of not doing our homework looks rather hypocritical.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what he really meant, I'm just saying that it's quite common for someone who ticks off the wrong people to have his words twisted and taken out of context.
And it's irrelevant. Sometimes that happens. It's not happening here. And until you take the time to listen to and read what Driscoll has actually said you are in NO POSITION to even suggest that we're twisting his words or taking them out of context.
You could not possibly know that, ignorant as you admittedly are.
I'm not the one making assertions about someone's character, it's not on me to go look for evidence that supports those assertions.
Yes, you are. You're saying that others are just doing "character assassination". You've presumed that we're wrong about him.
You've made a judgment. You've decided that our complaints against Driscoll are ill-founded (without bothering to research the foundation yourself).
And then you've gone and decided it's appropriate to chastise us for what you (without evidentiary basis) believe is a jump to conclusions or unfair assessment on our part.
And when we tell you that you can look up the evidence for yourself to see that we're not drawing hasty conclusions about the man, not twisting his words, not misunderstanding them - but basing our assessment of his character off the Biblically correct model (i.e. his fruit, as Jesus told us to judge by), your response is "I'm not going to look it up, I'm just going to keep telling you guys that you're wrong."
Sorry, but either you're really lazy or you're just trying to throw out red herrings.
If you want me, and others to take the assertions seriously, it's on you to provide the supporting evidence. I have access to the same information you do, that's true, but it's not my job to support the assertions you (and others) are making.
Nah, see, because you defended him. So you made assertions, too. You asserted (by implication) that we're just twisting his words or taking them out of context.
You want to accuse us of taking his words out of context, then go listen to or read his words in context and then come back to us and tell us in what way you think we've done that.
I've said that I'm not going to hunt down links to public knowledge/information to prove what most of the posters in this thread already know when you're the one who admits that you're unfamiliar with Driscoll.
I'm just not interested in playing those kinds of internet discussion forum games.
All I'm saying is that in every case like this that I've ever seen, much of the so called evidence is either out of context or based on what someone else said about what the person said.
Irrelevant. You cannot possibly know whether we've taken the man out of context if you can't be bothered to look up the context.
Again for clarity, for me this isn't at all about defending Driscoll specifically, it's about how I believe it to be wrong to take snippets of what someone has said and things said by other about what they said and make the judgement that someone is not Christian.
Okay, fine. Then have the decency, before you accuse us of doing this "wrong" of taking a gander at the evidence BEFORE you reach a conclusion. Again, without bothering yourself to read or listen to the context of Driscoll's words you are in NO POSITION to even begin to accuse us of taking him out of context.
Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." He said "you shall know them [false prophets] by their fruit."
The fruit of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfullness and self control."
I've seen enough of Driscoll, in context, whole sermons in fact, in which he not only displayed arrogance, spitefulness, violence, unkindness, crudeness, etc, but also taught others to behave the same way.
There's enough evidence, in context, to judge the man as being immature and unChristlike at the very least. (Although I agree with Luther about drawing the inevitable conclusion about any person who claims Christ but acts completely contrary to Christ).
My point is that you likely don't know what he really meant either. Not if you are relying on snippets from the internet and/or things other people have said about what he said.
Nope, Driscoll doesn't get this excuse.
Anyone who makes a living off of public speaking and book writing is presumed to have the skill and ability to SAY WHAT THEY MEAN and MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.
Anyone who claims to have a gift and a calling for teaching and preaching in the Body of Christ better understand that he/she will be held accountable for his/her words. So they better by golly learn how to say what they mean.
And again, Jesus told us that people say what is in their hearts. Driscoll says hateful things because Driscoll has hate in his heart.
And again, I'm not defending him, I'm decrying what I see as character assasination.
You've made a judgment call that it is, indeed, "character assassination" while you admit that you haven't actually weighed the evidence.
To say that we're just doing "character assassination" is to assume that Mark Driscoll actually has a good character and we're not being fair.
But the evidence of Driscoll's character is that it is, indeed, bad.
I assure you, if anyone assassinated Driscoll's character, it was Driscoll.
I've said time and again that it's fine to disagree with him. I actually disagree with more of what he says than I agree with. But that's not the point. Unlike some here, I don't believe that it's necessary to unfairly judge and attack someone I happen to disagree with.
Wait..... have you or have you not listened to and read Mark Driscoll's teachings?
If you have, then why are you not familiar with his outrageous behavior?
If you are familiar with it, then why are demanding proof? Surely if you know enough of him to know that you disagree with him more than you agree, then you must be familiar with his displayed character traits and the specific instances mentioned in this thread?
Yes, actually, being a lawyer does make me more qualified than you to recognize when someone is defending someone. It's my trade, I know what it looks like. It's what people pay me to do for them.
