Of course Jason is right that we shouldn’t descend to vulgar name-calling in critiquing ‘Pastor Mark’. For me, it’s one of the toughest things about trying to be a Christian that we are commanded not to repay evil with evil, not to stoop to our enemies’ tactics. As an Englishman raised on and steeped in the satirical, often sarcastic, not to say sardonic humour of the likes of Peter Cook and the Monty Python team, I personally have to bite my tongue far harder and more often than I ought in these sorts of situation (and it’s quite painful, I can tell you).
I could probably agree with Jason that ‘Pastor Mark’ is a “teacher who contributes a lot of positive things, too” if I could be bothered to find out what those things were. And I certainly agree that we shouldn’t be provoked into offensive ad hominem responses by Driscoll’s rants.
But I’m sorry, the guy has really got under my skin! As Alex pointed out early in this thread, his (Driscoll’s) attempt at fire-fighting in his blog post was pretty mean-spirited towards Justin Brierley, who by all accounts is a thoroughly good, honest, polite Christian chap (as you’d expect from us limp wristed, effeminate Brits, ‘Pastor Mark’). It was also pompous (so he’s got a lovely shiny degree in communications from somewhere really important, has he?; gosh I’m really impressed!), self-serving and, in my opinion, bordering on dishonesty in its selective and subjective interpretation of the facts of what was said. (Which we can all judge for ourselves, as the whole interview is available as a podcast.)
But dishonest rhetoric seems to be a bit of a speciality of ‘Pastor Mark’. Consider his take on universalism, for example, which I quote verbatim from his published sermon on ‘limited unlimited atonement’ (my emphases):
Now either this gross misrepresentation is a sign of Driscoll’s laziness and ignorance, or it’s deliberate dishonesty designed to discredit an increasingly popular doctrine (UR) that threatens to undermine his own personal theology (and power and influence, but that’s another story). I leave you to make your own minds up … 
And when it comes to peddling his personal brand of neo-Calvinism - as exemplified in the aforementioned sermon on ‘limited unlimited atonement’ (which is, as it sounds, oxymoronic nonsense, pure Calvinistic limited atonement in all but name) - his eisegesis, his utter mangling of scripture is breathtaking.
As I said in my earlier post, I’m going to start a proper thread on Driscoll’s theology soon, but in the meantime I’ll give you a short taster of what I mean. In preaching his ridiculous ‘limited unlimited atonement’ syncretism - which is basically some tosh about Jesus dying for *everybody’s *sins but only electing to save *some * of the people he died for - he adduces just two verses of scripture to ‘prove’ it is more Biblical than either orthodox Calvinism or Arminianism (or any other soteriology). And guess what those two verses are? Okay, I’ll tell you, because you won’t be able to. They are:
1 Timothy 4 v10: “That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.”
2 Peter 2 v1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.”
Now I can just about follow how Driscoll twists the 1 Tim verse to support his specious argument. But the verse from 2 Peter? Huh? What on earth has *that *got to do with the scope or efficacy of the atonement?
I’m still angry!!!
Shalom
Johnny
PS Hi Pilgrim, love your avatar!
Shows my age, as well as my disconnectedness from the popular world of the big-time preachers, I guess. (Er, that’s what he is, I take it?) 
