Summarily the bullet points are:
The anti-elder is a dictator.
The anti-elder is short-fused.
The anti-elder is an addict.
The anti-elder is a bully.
The anti-elder is greedy.
Over at Old Life ...
For a second or so Challies had me worried. Was he thinking (all) about me? But since blogging was not on his list, the editors of Old Life must qualify as godly elders.
and courtesy of the Mad Hungarian, the surmised subtext ...
Typical eeeeeevanjellyfish dog-piling (does that qualify as a mixed metaphor?), once Driscoll has been exposed and is down and out it is now permissible to jump on the anti-Driscoll bandwagon. Where was this post a year ago? Two years ago? Three? you get the drift.
Challies post about Driscoll focused on “character” — and this post is written long the same lines as the earlier post from August — if you don’t have a biblical form of church government (ie Presbyterian) then you have to hope that your pastors have good character. We now know that Driscoll was playing the tyrant for years thanks to poor church government and his YRR celebrity buddies.
The entire CEO-pastor phenomenon is based on a low view of sin and a high view of popular personality. If one takes stock of the reality of our sinfulness and of the tendency of power to corrupt, then one would want a system whereby the pastor is really accountable and church members have a right not only to trial, but also to appeal.
If the subtext was Driscoll it's just a case of someone appropriating the term evanjellyfish turning out to be one. Doug Wilson may only have been safe from Driscoll's downward spiral by dint of not being important enough to anyone beyond Idaho to have garnered the same kind of acclaim.