On the other hand, though “People Against Fundamentalism” (which was started in response to Mark Driscoll specifically) has cancelled its protest at Mars Hill, I think it’s appropriate to recall what Paul Chapman et. al. told SeattleST were their goals in protesting:
What’s the ideal outcome of the December 3 activity?
1) To see Mark removed from his position of influence in Seattle. We are ashamed and sorry that our faith is associated in the minds of the people of Seattle with such bigotry. We would like to see Mark fired from his position as a columnist with the Seattle Times.
2) To see him lose his power within the Christian Community at large. Unfortunately, Mark is seen as a bit of a wonder boy within Evangelical Christianity and trains hundreds of pastors to act like he does. We would like to see Evangelicals become so outraged over his disgusting comments that he is no longer given a platform to spew his garbage.
3) Mark has surrounded himself with men. Ultimately, we would like to see Mark fired as Pastor of Mars Hill and forced to work in the real world where he has to interact with women on a regular basis.
It originally blew my mind that Christians were contemplating a protest against other Christians, until I read the Seattlest interview. Chapman describes his church as a “a small spirituality group in our house (something Christians might call a ‘house church’, though [we] have people with many different understandings of faith).”
My question is this: “Why spend your energy fighting this man—without following the guidelines of Matthew 18, I might add—when there are people out there doing real damage to people?”
EDIT: I should have at least noted that Chapman’s apology to Driscoll for calling him a misogynist seemed sincere. Or at least as sincere as a blog post will allow. (I still lament the tendency in Christianity toward preemptive vilification.)