As readers of things on the internet may now know (if they care), iMonk and Frank Turk have debated whether Mark Driscoll should repent and, if so, for what. I have read the series with interest and will not write about what I think of it all just now. I do take it as a sign that writing about Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill is coming to a point where it is not mere hagiography of the Thor Tolo sort or the varied indignation that comes from the Macarthur/Camp camp or The Stranger sides of the opponents of Driscoll spectrum.
This is merely to indicate that I will collect my thoughts and write them later. Driscoll and Mars Hill are emblematic of the paradoxes and contradictions in a particular stream of American evangelical Protestantism. These paradoxes and contradictions are not necessarily more or more varied than those of other communities of faith or non-faith but I believe they have tended to be misunderstood and misrepresented by people who see them as the perfect thing for grinding their axes against. I am going out on a limb and giving a clue to what I will write later by saying that Driscoll is a vulgar pietist. That may only sound controversial to people so spectacularly nerdy about theology they will probably rightly believe they have better things to do than read this blog.