Tuesday, March 24, 2015

reactions to the Craig Gross spam and the gossip statement, cross-referencing Craig Gross' post-Driscoll-resignation statement with Driscoll's 2012 pre-emptive statements in the wake of the Brierley interview publication


One of the things that has been mentioned is that Gross' email was, basically, gross.  There have been complaints that it took advantage of a man down and out to make a point and promote something.  Having read the spam, it was fairly tacky but perhaps having spent so very many years connected to the culture of Mars Hill it's simply impossible to believe that what Craig Gross wrote seems all that troubling.

After all ... it's not like Driscoll didn't have a history of inciting some controversy on social media. Back in 2006 Mark Driscoll used the occasion of Ted Haggard's fall to sound off on his own concerns. Because robots.txt still applies to things resurgence:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/07/revisiting-that-2006-post-that.html
The full text of the notorious Ted Haggard-occasioned blog post is at that link above.  Driscoll went on to apologize for the implication some people read into the content that he had said or implied anything about Gayle Haggard.  Driscoll didn't really address the Haggards (a point he insisted upon in an interview with Justin Brierley, if memory serves, which is something we'll get to presently).  What Driscoll did do, however, was use the incident of scandal connected to the Haggards to talk about the stuff he cared about.

It may be worth noting that while some have been upset that Craig Gross said things about Driscoll that could be considered gossip we should not too soon forget "A Blog Post for the Brits".  Wenatchee The Hatchet has at least some of that stuff around ...
 http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-driscolls-interview-with-justin.html
http://pastormark.tv/2012/01/12/a-blog-for-the-brits
January 12, 2012

There is reportedly an article coming out in a British Christian publication that features an interview with me. As is often the case, to stoke the fires of controversy, thereby increasing readership, which generates advertising revenue, a few quotes of mine have been taken completely out of context and sent into the Twittersphere. So, I thought I would put a bit of water on the fire by providing context.

...

 I have a degree in communications from one of the top programs in the United States. So does my wife, Grace. We are used to reporters with agendas and selective editing of long interviews. Running into reporters with agendas and being selectively edited so that you are presented as someone that is perhaps not entirely accurate is the risk one takes when trying to get their message out through the media.

With the release of our book, Real Marriage, we have now done literally dozens of interviews with Christians and non-Christians. But the one that culminated in the forthcoming article was, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective. As a result, we’ve since changed how we receive, process, and moderate media interviews.  

The interview in question had nearly nothing to do with the book or its subject matter, which in my understanding was supposed to be the point of the interview. My wife, Grace, was almost entirely ignored in the interview, and I felt she was overall treated disrespectfully. The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic. It felt like a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me.

Things got particularly strange near the end of the interview. I was asked a question about, if a woman was the pastor of a church which that pastor’s husband attended, would that be emasculating to him. The question was asked in such a pointed way that it was odd.

At the end of the interview, I started asking questions of the interviewer. He admitted that his last questions were really about himself and his wife. Apparently his wife is the pastor of their church, he’s strongly committed to women as pastors, disagrees strongly with our complementarian position, and takes it to some degree personally.
If it seemed crass of Craig Gross to opine on Mark Driscoll in the year after his resignation, let it not be forgotten that at the pinnacle of his celebrity a few years ago, Mark Driscoll felt at liberty to issue what could be construed as a pre-emptive attack on the character and doctrine of a journalist who interviewed him during the promotional campaign for Real Marriage. If there is outrage amongst Driscoll's supporters at what Craig Gross has decided to say after a resignation, where was the outrage for what could be seen as a pre-emptive character attack on the part of Mark Driscoll back in 2012?

No comments: