…of the meeting recently between Mark Driscoll and his peers, this one on Dwight Friesen’s Blog. It is rather revealing, I think. A few thoughts to make, after a lengthy excerpt:

If we had simply met and nothing tangible would have resulted I still would have been thrilled by the fact that we met face-to-face as our Scriptures invite. But as further evidence of the grace of God, I’m delighted to report that the meeting was a time of frank and honest discussion, where everyone had opportunity to hear, to speak and inquire.

Mark demonstrated a desire to hear and to learn, and told a number of stories of the impact of the response to his language that illustrated his need for change. He told the story of his contact with a member of the Haggard family after his comments went public and how as a result of that conversation Mars Hill Church will have a female researcher read his blog posts prior to publication. With tears in his eyes Mark spoke of his fear for his family’s safety as a result of the public response to his language . . . threats of violence must stop. Please, if you or anyone you know has responded to Mark or (anyone) with such threats of violence please, for the sake of Christ and the love of humanity explore your heart and repent of your sin. Violence is not the Way of Christ. Also, Mark’s pastoral heart was evidenced as he spoke clearly about the need to model humble leadership which appropriately acknowledges failure; he even confessed his need for wisdom as he wasn’t sure how best to proceed. Although the primary focus of our conversation was the tenor of Mark’s comments in recent years, he wasn’t the alone in making movement during the course of this conversation. Paul, the organizer of the protest, asked Mark’s forgiveness for labeling him, “Mark the Misogynist.” Not only that, the protest was called off. Further, for those in that conversation who had seen Mark as something of an an adversary prior to our meeting there was movement toward being advocates one for the other. I left that meeting with greater hope for a reconciled church in Seattle, and beyond. For all of us the proof will be in the pudding. How will Mark use his wit and prophetic platform in the future time only will reveal, but I do believe that he loves God and is desirous to serve Christ and to finish well the race he has been called to run.

We all know that actuating lasting change is difficult and slow as our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses. And so the very things that brought us together for this meeting may bring people together again around future matters; and this is the nature of human experience. It is also the hope of Christian reconciliation that our differences and disagreements can bring us together at the foot of the cross. Our goal is not to agree on points of theology, as clearly we don’t, rather our goal is to grow in love and to move toward reconciled union because of God. This is just one of the many reasons why Trinitarian theology has such practical application in our lives. Three Divine differentiated persons in humble service of one another, and simultaneously one God: genuine plurality/genuine oneness. As followers of Christ we must disagree with another and we can still move toward one another in grace, love, humility and curiosity while recognizing that our oneness does not rest in our creeds but in our Creator.

I’m moved by this account. I’m glad that some practical, systemic measures are being taken to work on Driscoll’s public blogging (though, again, I hope he really has heard what the biggest complaint was; I don’t know if he has). I’m deeply troubled that Driscoll has received threats of violence. And I agree, this is a great model for future health of the church community in Seattle.

Driscoll’s latest on the controversy he sparked and his later response is up. Like his last post, I’m impressed by the spirit he brings to this latest message. I have no doubt that he has experienced these few weeks much like he mentions from the Book of James. That is impressive. I have no doubt that he has seen the effects of his words and might temper them in the future. I get his desire to mature more slowly, and am fascinated by his thoughts about how his sort of ministry in the 21st century is impacting that.

Still, while there’s quite a bit admirable in this post and what he’s learned, there’s nothing substantively new here on the original matter, and so far as I can tell there likely won’t be. An excerpt:

I came to the meeting expecting God would speak to me through fellow Christians and had much joy because He did. I learned that my theological convictions, even the most controversial ones, are as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back. I was also sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked. A female pastor had a very good insight: as my platform has grown, so has my audience, and that in some sense I need to consider myself the pastor of two churches. In Mars Hill where I labor as a pastor who deeply loves his people, they are gracious with my faults and flaws because they know me and they know of my love for them. But outside of Mars Hill, for those who do not know me or my pastoral affection for people, the perception of me can be very different. Therefore, I need to learn how to function most effectively in a new role as someone given a broader voice to speak for Jesus. There is much to learn. To be honest, this is all new to me and comes quicker than I would have hoped for; I wish I was at this place in my fifties or sixties, following a longer period of maturing. However, Jesus obviously has something different planned for me.

Either he still thinks this is just about him singling out Carolyn Haggard, and thus he’s missing the larger impact of what he wrote and what it means to say about women, or he’s got that and actually believes it. Either way, I think he’s likely done commenting on it. I note, also, that he’s a good and clearly thoughtful writer, and in nothing he’s posted on his blog has be apologized or retracted what he wrote about wives letting go for their bound-pastor-husbands. But I’m ready to move on.

Also helpful is this blog entry from one of the pastors who recently met with Driscoll about this matter, Rose Madrid-Swetman. (h/t Scot McKnight) As she says, “We are all life long learners on this journey where confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation is one of our highest callings.” Amen and amen!

And I’ll reiterate what I said before: no one should protest a church’s worship service. I hope the concerns about that he expresses in this post don’t come to pass. Driscoll, Mars Hill, and those who are upset with him all have my prayers.