Debating Driscoll - Some Thoughts

You don't have to be interested in thinking about or debating Mark
Driscoll to find yourself pulled into the wave of his most recent
debacle. I am not interested in talking about the situation itself, or
even about Driscoll himself, but I want to make some notes about how
people react to him. I find it interesting that, for the most part, both
sides that debate Driscoll basically say the same thing. The issues
debated are not typically over justifying his actions, most people I see
interacting with him, on both sides, agree that he "goes too far," and
"lacks wisdom in what he say." The difference, I propose, has to do with
how we understand what a pastor is.

There is a growing belief in the evangelical church that "good"
preaching covers a multitude of sins. This is simple another way of
saying that the ends justify the means. The question we need to ask, I
think, is whether or not it is fitting for a pastor to lack humilty,
lack wisdom, and clearly project so many of his own psychological issues
onto God's work. Again, it seems to me that both sides agree to these
things, and both think they are at least regretable. The main
difference, as far as I can tell, has to do with how we view those
things in light of Driscoll's position as a pastor. One side, the
pro-Driscoll side, claims that everything else he does out-weighs these
particular sins, or else they invoke something like: "Boys will be
boys." The other side, believes that Scripture is clear about what a
pastor is like, and because he breaks these Scriptural mandates so
freely, frequently, and publically, that he should undergo, minimally,
church discipline.

At the heart of the issue is spiritual formation, and whether pastors
are called to humility, grace, and a higher level of scrutiny, or if
these things are more like desires that will never actually be
fulfilled.

What are your thoughts?