Miller's summary of things indicated that it seems Driscoll recapitulated a mixture of things from "The Hardest Part of Ministry" and his Gateway Conference appearance and the stuff he said there. When Driscoll said the family had moved three times over safety issues he didn't specify what "season" meant and if "season" meant a decade then, sure, they moved a few times. The story about the chopper skimmed over how many military bases are in the area. Choppers are not uncommon and the idea that an eight year old whose father boasted that he worked as a professional journalist and that his wife had a degree in PR could imagine a news chopper constituted "bad guys" is hard to take at face value. The Driscoll kids were up on stage for a photo op in August 2014, weren't they? Did the kids get an explanation of what having their mugs put on Instagram entailed? In any case ...
It seems worth linking to the tagged series of Mark Driscoll's history of sharing woe and how it shifted over the 2007-2014 from "I was close to death" to "my family has been in peril". Wenatchee The Hatchet has at times commented about Driscoll using his family as a kind of social media meatshield
But the most glaring omission from Driscoll's stories about the troubles his family went through was that his own public stunts can't be discounted as having a role in what happened. Anyone who saw how Mark Driscoll reacted to people as William Wallace II would not be entirely surprised if emotionally unstable young men who were eager to prove themselves would react to WW2 with the understanding that it wasn't "just" some kind of joke.
After all ...
William Wallace II
Member posted 01-06-2001 09:01 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for William Wallace II
Click Here to Email William Wallace II
I love to fight. It's good to fight. Fighting is what we used to do before we all became pussified. Fighting is a lost art form. Fighting is cheaper than medication and more effective than counseling. Fighting always wins over compromise. Fighting is what passionate people do instead of killing. So log on, fight away. And if you are reading this and talking to yourself log on you coward and get in the ring.
It's worth repeating that Driscoll has expressed regret that he sinned and cussed a lot but he has never, not even once, retracted the substance of the things he said as William Wallace II. Moreover, continuing more finely crafted iterations of the polemic was what he went on to do over the next decade.
For Driscoll to lament that crazy people have threatened his family without conceding that his antics as William Wallace II "may" have been a variable seems problematic. It's like a kid complaining his brother spit on him while neglecting to make mention of the funny faces he was making to make fun of his brother. Driscoll's plea for pity through his family in 2013 without a word about his own provocations was a tipping point for Wenatchee The Hatchet, had Driscoll not done that Wenatchee The Hatchet would not have felt it was necessary to provide a more complete historic record of Driscoll's public ministry activity by publishing "Pussified Nation" back on July 27, 2014.
Driscoll's story about people throwing rocks over the fence at the house skimmed over where the house was a bit. Driscoll has indicated, it seems "the media" published the address as a news story. To date there has never been any clarification who published the address and what "media" means. Driscoll spent years dismissing bloggers so unless Driscoll's singing a different tune about bloggers now they don't count.
What's worth mentioning about that house is that Driscoll bought it during a season of layoffs that were doubled up with asks for more sacrificial giving.
If you want to review all that in the tagged posts, there you go. But the salient post regarding Bruskas and the purchase is here:
Even though the public narrative featured Driscoll saying of FY2012 it was the best year ever
That seemed to be after the fact. During that fiscal year it was one of the more difficult seasons and Bruskas' correspondence published by Throckmorton indicated there were some heavy layoffs. A memo drafted, it seems, by Sutton Turner in March 2012 described Mars Hill as teetering on the brink of financial ruin. It would seem that the more has been divulged about the inner workings of the organization the greater the chasm between the 2012 public presentation and the internal financial and political realities of the organization seems to have been.
One of the more biting ironies about Mark Driscoll's lament that his address was published by "the media" is that as a property owner the address was a matter of public record through county listings anyway. It was simply a matter of finding it and it only took about eight seconds to find the address. Finding the details about the instrument of purchase took a bit more time, but the point here is that having spent years telling guys to buy real estate it's a bit daft for Driscoll to lament that "the media" published his address.
Does Mark Driscoll think that an address being publicly accessible on county records is a problem? Why not address this year's earlier little controversy involving an email list Craig Gross said he bought that included the names and email contacts of people who at one time had been at Mars Hill? IF Driscoll wants sympathy for a set of stories he seems to have recycled from earlier accounts, why not have at least a little sympathy for the members who gave years and dollars to Mars Hill only to discover, this year, that somebody who had or was given access to their contact information seems, according to Justin Dean's account, given to some unspecified person(s). Somehow the list ended up for sale and when a refund or refunds were given Mars Hill's leadership culture by way of Justin Dean, basically gave away contact names and emails. It can look as though the leadership culture of Mars Hill could be the pot calling the kettle black there, maybe? Why would Driscoll not think of the problem of member names and info being SOLD? At least the press has a constitutionally protected right to disclose information it considers important to the public good. What's the excuse for whoever sold and then refunded that list?
That was discussed somewhat over here:
Driscoll may seem to feel it's a bigger crime against him that anyone in the media disclosed an