Talk:Mark Driscoll/Archive 1

"Rough Neighborhood" mention
I found it interesting that the section mentions that Mark grew up in a rough suburb of Seattle. The area he grew up in--the Riverton Heights area of Seatac, WA--was and is hardly a rough neighborhood or area. In fact, I would venture to say that it was most likely a much safer place during the time he lived there, made up of mostly working-class families.

Is this an attempt to portray his upbringing as rougher than it actually was? I don't know. Perhaps just a inacurrate piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirhcdeer (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd Link
Just wandering through and don't understand why the 'sky fairy' link (in the quotes section) points where it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.173.100 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i changed the link to point to sky deity  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Linking "Emerging Church"
Note: there is a big difference between "emerging" church and "emergent" church! AFAIK Driscoll ascribes to one and not the other.

I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "Emergent Church," but I thought that the term was inextricably linked to post-modernism, something I thought that Mark Driscoll decries in his books and sermons. While Driscoll isn't a modernist, I would argue that he isn't a post-modernist either, and that linking Emerging Church is inaccurate.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to research and prove my point. However, I'd appreciate it if somebody else could concur and perhaps provide the necessary documentation (or, equally, prove me completely wrong.)

--Jamesreggio 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Driscoll is associated with the emergent church because he started with the group of people who are most commonly identified as the movers and shakers within the emergent church. In several of his sermons he makes reference to it and basically says he's stepped away from that group because of certain theological differences. --Anonymous guy who needs to get a login.

Currently, Driscoll's main method of distinction is couched in an distinction of [semantics].

--AnthonyMartin 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes
I removed a bunch of quotes that an unnamed person added, as the source link provided went to the home page of www.evangelicalright.com which did not contain the quotes referenced. Also, it was fairly obvious that the quotes were specifically chosen to support a biased (negative) opinion of Mark Driscoll, which is not NPOV. I left the one quote that did properly link to its source (his blog). Squidge37 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the quote section yet again, as a (different?) unnamed person re-inserted the quotes without addressing the source issue here on the talk page. I'd like to avoid useless revert wars. If there's a source for your material, let's get it so we can keep this eneyclopedic. Squidge37 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point I don't think the heckler filling the quote section with biased quotes from a single source is reading the talk page, but just so there is a record of what I'm doing, I've changed the quote section to 1) correct the "God hates you" quote which was taken out of context, and I linked it directly to the sermon as the source, 2) removed a couple of the quotes from the Evangelical Right source since there should be a diversity of sources and not a bunch of quotes all from one source, and 3) added a couple other quotes from other sources to keep it diverse. The current version, at the time of writing this, contains article and quote sources from people who like Mark and people who don't.  It's balanced and should stay balanced.  NPOV needs to be maintained. Squidge37 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as you have sources please keep posting a few more Driscoll quotes. These are great. Or maybe he needs a wikiquote page. Kategorian 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed quote sourced at EvangelicalRight.com which in turn isn't sourced Jmc41 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the quotes are taken out of context and fail to be a reliable source for his beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.70.156 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another revert war?
Rather than simply reverting someone's changes, how about using the talk page to come to an agreement? I removed an unsourced POV comment in the theology section from someone with an obvious axe to grind against Driscoll, suggesting that "many" evangelical leaders think his theology reduces women to sex objects. Without even getting into the discussion about the "sex object" accusation being straight out of nowhere, a statement that many evangelical leaders think this will need to come with some kind of source. Otherwise, it is not encyclopedic and will be removed. Also, there is no reason to truncate the quote being reverted, unless the intention is to take a snippet of a blog out of context to make someone look bad, which again is not encyclopedic. If you've got something against Driscoll, keep it in your blog. Wikipedia is not the place for POV. We need to remain balanced Squidge37 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Examining Mark's Views
I'm surprised that a number of Mark's "fans" continue to delete properly attributed quotes and relevant information. These "fans" continue to delete information that is fully cited and in a majority of the cases are taken directly from Driscoll's blog. I understand the embarrassment and the need to hide his views, but Wikipedia is designed to give individuals an accurate portrayal of individuals and not a white washed version. KevinDLum 13:06, 13 November 2006

It's not that the quotes aren't properly sourced, (although I have had to deal with that a couple times); it's that they are carefully picked and isolated and grouped together with other tidbits in an attempt to portray a biased view and unbalanced picture of Mark Driscoll's character. It's not too hard to figure out that you don't like Mark, and that's fine, but what I'm doing here is trying to keep things balanced because this is an encyclopedia article. It's possible to take snippets and actual quotes to paint a picture that isn't entirely accurate, and that seems to be what's happening here. It's a straw man argument, trying to piece together a picture of someone that is fit to receive the types of shots you want to throw at him. Mark has serious quotes on Biblical theology, quotes in a sarcastic/joking tone, and quotes in the category of "controversial personal opinions that have biblical backup". If we're going to maintain this quote section, it should have a balanced amount of these different types, to portray an accurate and balanced picture of the person in question. And by the way, thanks for taking this to the talk page Squidge37 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this: it's obvious that Mark's strong view of male headship in the home and church is indeed important and bears mention in this article. At the same time, the over-abundance of quotes (regarding this and other views) in comparison to actual content simply makes for a low-quality, unencyclopedic article. If we could collaborate and improve the quality of the article, incorporating discussion of Driscoll's theology (including his view of gender roles) in the "meat" of the article, rather than just rattling off random quotes, everyone will be happy. What say you? raekwon 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. I'll try to add some stuff tomorrow. It has to be informative and non-biased, (meaning, it shouldn't say "...and this is right" or "...and this is wrong"), and it can't be full of other people's opinions and drawn conclusions (such as "he says ___ which of course leads to...") I mean, for goodness sakes, the internet is full of biased blogs on Mark Driscoll, either for him or against him. We don't need another one here. We need an encyclopedic article. Squidge37 04:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a techie and am just learning all of the different aspects of Wikipedia. My appologize for not bringing this issue to the talk board earlier. Like I said, I am not a techie, but I am a theologian by training. I understand Mark's views on woman fully. I understand the difference between what he believes to be a biblical view of complementarian relationships as opposed to what others view as an egalitarian view of relations. I get that. Complementarian theology was the accepted norm by most fundementalist and for a time by some evangelicals. I get that as well.

What I don't get, is the degrading view of woman I sense from Driscoll. I encourage you to read his full blog from which the quotes are lifted. He begins by saying luckily his wife his beautiful and then talks about times he could have been unfaithful. He basically says, "If my wife was not beautiful, these temptations may have been a reality." This interpretation follows the logic of the article. He then continues to say that woman need to fix themselves up for their husbands. This is sick! It's not a complementarian view of theology, but reduces woman to nothing more than sex objects. I appreciate it when my wife fixes herself up, but it is by no means expected, and further more is degrading to require woman to fit certain societal norms (which is how beauty is determined). Therefore these quotes are vital to understand Driscoll. It goes much further than a biblical view, but is a view that is completely distorted by a culture that glorifies beauty.

I am sometimes shocked that Mark(who is a smart guy) fails to see that his ideas about feminity and masculinity are culturally shaped. His idea of a man's man is completely based upon an American midset of what a man is and should be. A male from Europe or Africa would look very different. To make his views biblical is to do injustice to scripture and its conter-cutlural message. But I have digressed long enough.

In regards to the misogyny. I have no idea whether Driscoll is a misogynist, but I do know that a growing number of people feel that he is. This is important again for understanding both who Driscoll is and how his teachings are perceived. Therefore I would hope the quotes and the line about misogyny will be left as is. [User:KevinDLum|KevinDLum]] 6:06, 14 November 2006
 * RE: charges of misogyny and/or a degrading view of women -- I have read the blog posts in question, and I listen to Driscoll's sermons weekly. Having this larger view of how he views gender, I have a really hard time agreeing with those who want to charge him with misogyny or having a low view of women.  At the same time, though, I can understand why some might think so if they've only heard soundbites, or have only read a blog post or two, etc.  Also, while there are many who disagree with Driscoll's theology on this matter, not all of those people would say that he (or any other completmentarian) is necessarily a misogynist.  This is why it's important to have a balanced, neutral view of Mark's viewpoints in this article. raekwon 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: charges of misogyny / degrading women -- there is a good article on CT about Driscoll which addresses this controversy - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/30.44.html - apparently the main thing was one comment he made in giving tips to pastors about not taking fidelity for granted. I don't think you can take this comment as just a general "women always have to fix themselves up for their husbands" - he was talking about women who "let themselves go," which men sometimes do too, which can also prompt women to talk about finding something with less of a beerbelly or less haggard.  The issue was particularly with regarding to pastors' wives, who are probably more likely to feel pressure from other women to show their "spirituality" by not tending to the "physical" - basically gnosticism.  So the point wasn't to encourage fixing up, but rather to counter a different, and unsettling trend amongst certain Evangelicals. Jmc41 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * raekwon, thanks for the cleanup and expansion. You beat me to it ;)  It looks really good right now, with a neutral viewpoint and a clearly stated section about complementarianism, with brief mention of how some others respond to his views on it.  This is much more informative than a slew of quote snippets. Squidge37 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. If you see room for improvement, feel free to edit my changes.  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all.  I'd like to expand this article some more.  There's more to this guy, his background, and his theology than his views on gender. raekwon 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job! Well balanced. [User:KevinDLum|KevinDLum]] 7:06, 15 November 2006
 * RE: charges of misogyny and/or a degrading view of women -- Raekwon's comments on 5 November 2006are absolutely correct. The signs of misogyny are unfounded and subjective.  Driscoll's opinions about Mars hill permitting only men as pastors could be argued as subjugating women but his sermons consistently stress the importance of woman in churches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Books in Progress
Driscoll has mentioned at various conferences (Resurgence in particular) that he is writing a book on the atonement with the working title of "Death by Love" that will be published by Zondervan. Should this be included in the Bibliography section?
 * Just source it. CyberAnth 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm Using Your Quote
I've copied your quote from Driscoll about his involvement in the emerging church movement and am pasting it into the Emerging church movement article. I know this is not plagiarism but it still somehow feels like cheating. I think the editors working on this article have done a great job. Thanks for the quote!Will3935 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Complementarianism
I have no references to back this up, but I am sure that many Biblical complementarianists would disagree with Driscoll's beliefs about gender and gender roles. This article seems to paint him as exemplifying complementarian beliefs. The term complementarian has a very broad scope. It would be more appropriate to say that Driscoll labels himself as complementarian, and then to describe his beliefs on this (especially if it is its own section then there is room). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.175.184 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Weasel words
A potentially good article which could be better by slightly modifying this: "... provide a good understanding of what he believes. Furthermore, it can be inferred that the doctrinal statement of the church planting network he co-founded, [1], is a reliable overview of his beliefs"

Probably true, but it's really impossible to prove that what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RE:

if it's impossible to prove that "what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe", then i can't even be sure you believe that "it's really impossible to prove what a person says or writes mirrors what they believe", and therefore, why take you seriously, Pgagnon999? (your statement seems to be self defeating and postmodernistic)

Added Jesus in Scientology to See also links
Because the author has written upon that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Driscoll has written on a myriad of subjects, and this one is not one for which he is particularly notable. Linking it makes no sense, and seems to be more of a coatrack than a legitimate connection.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NYT article
Just thought I'd let you guys know that there was a rather substantial article about Mark Driscoll in the New York Times last week []. It probably has some useful information to add to this article. I'm reading it now. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed an extended quote with an synthetic intro. This needs to be severely trimmed, and likely needs more sources to flesh it out to avoid issues with wp:nor, WP:blp, WP:undue and wp:npov.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the characterization of the article is wp:nor, the length of the quote is wp:undue, and Driscoll has commented that the NYT has mischaracterized what he said and the circumstances. It is murky whether or not this belongs in the main article (its notability).  It would be better to determine a) its actual relevance; b) its notability; and c) additional sources, since the subject of the article has questioned its veracity.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor article
This is a terrible article, it makes assertions without references, and the sources that are used, have been created by Driscoll. There is nothing independent or verifiable in the article. Besides the unreferenced claim:

"Driscoll is a continuationist and thus holds that miraculous gifts such as prophecy and healing  are for today." Any independent source to verify such outlandish claims, except the subject themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.23.223 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I agree. There isn't nearly enough critique for it to be balanced. Maybe someone could add a section about the controversy he made when he preached a spiel about James Cameron's Avatar being demonic on Valentines day? --Pstanton (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article uses blogs as a source. While it doesn't seem damaging, the blog information should probably be removed? Basileias (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, Basilieaias, but at the same time, Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll both keep blogs. I'm not sure what the official policy on using personal blogs to source information on Wikipedia is though. Just thought I'd point out that some of the blogs might be those "official" ones. --Pstanton (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the policy:
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
 * Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.
 * With that pointed out, "official" are acceptable to a degree. I didn't examine all sources closely and I wasn't going to perform any major editing until I saw what some consensus could be and a clear good read of the article. Basileias (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fulbright scholarship?
Aren't Fulbright scholarships for foreign study? How did he get a Fulbright to WSU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.227.92 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but that what the source seattletimes.nwsource.com states. Basileias (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.199.13 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoga in belief section.
This section is very relevant to Mark Driscoll’s view of the world. Please stop removing this saying it doesn’t matter, this is not a good reason. There was an article in a well-respected large newspaper, The Seattle Times, on this very subject.TimDM85 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has never been a notable topic. It may be more appropriate in a yoga article. I believe this subject fails the WP:BLP.

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
 * Basileias (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know know one person that would ever call The Seattle Times a tabloid. He his quoted, and has held seminars on his beliefs of him and his church. Perphaps read the article before throwing it out. Why would the ABC Nightline Special be more in favor with you over The Seattle Times? I'm detecting bias views from you. How about take out the Haiti section too, it's not cited. --TimDM85 (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs, for exactly the same reasons I laid out in the discussion on Mormonism - see below. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Calvinist View
Given that there are many Calvinists who think Driscoll's view on Limited Atonement is the orthodox Calvinist view, why does the article take sides on that debate? This is the position of Dabney, Sproul, Carson, Grudem, Piper, Packer, and a host of other Calvinists both contemporary and historical. Even John Knox has been known to have said things like what Driscoll says, and he's usually the one who is given as primary support for the other view. This is a debate, and such a statement is therefore POV. Parableman (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think calling LA "orthodox" is POV - it's certainly the creedal position, regardless of how many people hold it today, and regardless of how many good men have either denied it or modified it. "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (WCF, ch. 3). I've gone and added some confessional quotes into the LA article. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Calvinist section is mutually contradictory: that small section suggests he holds mutually contradictory views. As to LA - I would argue that D's view is simply the 'unlimited sufficiency- limited efficacy' in a straightforward soundbite; therefore making him novel in his way of expressing himself, but certainly within the bounds of the broad stream of Calvinist (or better still, Reformed) orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.168.184 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Westboro
Just a heads up about a development that may (or may not) merit mention in this article or the Mars Hill Church. As I'm not familiar with this article I won't propose any changes myself. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a mention might be more appropriate in the Mars Hill Church article since their protest is, or seems, largely against Mars Hill Church. Basileias (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism
Driscoll recently came out with the assertion that Mormonism is a "cult". He tied the release in with reflection on the Mormon candidates running for President in 2012. My original intention was to add this in a new section but I don't think it warrants it, organizationally. Instead I'm considering changing the "Calvinism" subsection of "Beliefs" into a "Theology" subsection. He went out of his way to frame his comments in a theological paradigm and this organizational change will allow both the incorporation of the Mormon commentary and allow for easier growth in the future. Thoughts? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this notable? I would have thought that's the mainstream opinion of Mormonism within Reformed Protestantism. See Christian countercult movement, etc. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think it was notable I wouldn't be talking about where to include it. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it is. You will need secondary sources, I think, demonstrating a reaction to it. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Theology sections generally grow and become the focus of the article. So that will not be good. The Seattle Times is a solid source, but lets see if there is more. It is not uncommon in other articles to include a view of Mormonism from popular Evangelicals. Joel Osteen would be an example. Basileias (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I note the Seattle Times didn't even ask anyone else for a reaction. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure and that is why I want to see if there will be more. Basileias (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been further coverage since the initial posting. The Seattle PI noted the Times story, the local CBS affiliate did an independent piece tying in a recent controversy over signage, Christian Post has picked it up in a dedicated piece that is framed in the wider discussion of Mitt Romney's religion playing a role in his run for President. The Washington Post also noted it in a wider story on Romney's faith. It's clearly notable, I'm suprised there's been any question of that. To return to my original question: where does it best belong? I still like changing the Calvinism section over to a Theology section. The response to Driscoll's assertion has taken on the tone of controversy but I really don't like controversy/criticism sections, I believe they act as magnets for trouble. Alternative suggestions? TomPointTwo (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see enough coverage here to warrant a mention. It's certainly an issue that needs to be discussed in relation to Mitt Romney (and is, here) - but the thing is, lots of people are questioning his Mormonism. This would not be an issue if it wasn't for Romney. Which is a sure sign that it doesn't belong here. StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of your reasoning. It seems you're saying it's not notable because the catalyst for the comments and some of the ensuing coverage involves a contemporary event. Additionally, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the prevalence of a concept diminishes it's notability, regardless of the source or context of the concept. Neither of these assertion are correct, the second actually being the opposite of how to establish notability. As for your later concern I think you'll find your concerns about "enough coverage" laid to rest by the guideline on notability which says that the "significant coverage" of an event is that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. With addition of the actual commentary posted to Driscoll's website we also have a primary source. For all of these reasons, and others, I will be adding the material. If you insist on removing the material on Notability grounds I'm confident that outside editors will establish a consensus to restore it. I hope to avoid the additional hassle and headache involved there so, if it's not a huge sticking point with you, I'd prefer to collaborate on the manner of its inclusion instead. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At this stage, there is no consensus to include it - please do not add the material contrary to consensus. We are talking about "notability" here, but that means something different on wikipedia - perhaps we should say "significiance". I am saying the prevalence of the concept diminishes its significance as far as Driscoll is concerned. There are many things he has said that can be reliably sourced - why do we select this one? We don't want to give the matter undue weight. Looking at the sources, it looks like the response is "evangelicals don't like Romney". In other words, the secondary coverage is much more about Romney than it is about Driscoll. This is very different coverage to that Driscoll received regarding his comments on gender roles. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need a pre-consensus to add something, I simply need to make an assertion of notability and then source it. If you want to remove it that's your prerogative but it won't end there. I'll say that since you wear your religious convictions on your digital sleeve you're probably not working to keep the material out simply because it could reflect poorly on a preacher of your faith; such a POV-push would be rather obvious. I also have to say, though, I'm left puzzled at your refusal to take this subject's notability at face value, you've yet to point out any facet of WP:N or WP:BLP which it's inclusion would violate. Still, if you're not willing to discuss the manner of the material's addition and wish to cease collaboration at the point of opposing its inclusion that's fine. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will read the other articles you noted, but at this point adding something like "Driscoll, like many Evangelicals, considers Mormonism a cult", is about all I think is warranted. The sources supplied definitively would back a statement like that. Anything about notable Mormons like Mitt Romney, unless its something specific, would be way out of scope for the article. This article has been a POV playground for some in the past until I cleaned it out. That is probably why some are being a bit protective of it. Basileias (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I'm not looking to write a dissertation on his views on Mormonism or anything. I was looking for a simple synopsis of about how Driscoll considers Mormonism to have once been a cult and now a modern faith "that believes in cult theology apart from the common christian faith" or something similar to that effect. I'd probably want to tie in a note about how his explanation was couched in the Mormons present in the run for the Presidency but not a lot. Something concise enough to fit into a DYN for example. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. If you look at the article as it stands now, if you were to sum up Driscoll's views, you would say he holds to a modified Calvinism, has some problems with the emergent church, and has very strong views on gender roles. IMO, that is a fair summary of what he's on about. Now, if you were to say that he holds to a modified Calvinism, has some problems with the emergent church, has very strong views on gender roles, and is against Mormonism, then you've skewed the presentation. The other three things are things he's mentioned repeatedly, and are known platforms on which he stands. The Mormonism thing is not a central theme in his speaking. StAnselm (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a central tenant of his faith or sermon doesn't make it any less notable as its notability is framed in the larger consciousnesses of the position, not simply as a component of his theological paradigm. A brief mention of a position he's gone out of his way to expound upon doesn't violate WP:UNDUE and you still haven't provided grouds for it failing any portion of WP:N. Would you prefer it outside a "Theology" section? Do you want a new section altogether or possibly incorporating it somewhere else? TomPointTwo (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not legitimate to appeal to WP:N here - that is quite clearly an article notability guideline. But the "larger consciousnesses of the position" is minimal compared to say, Rob Bell's view on hell, which has had at least two book-length responses. I think the interest in Driscoll's view of Mormonism is a flash in the pan. I could be wrong, of course - he could end up on national TV debating Joel Osteen on the subject. But please don't assume it's a done deal to include it in the article - I'm still opposed to that. StAnselm (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with StAnselm here, as Calvinist/Evangelical rejection of Mormonism as a cult is a pretty standard and uniform belief within the movement, and Driscoll isn't notable for this particular position - at least at this point in time. It's not a soapbox he consistently bangs on like he does w/ gender issues and some quarters of the emergent church.  He's talked about abortion, creationism and all sorts of other politically relevant topics, but those aren't included here, either, because they're not overly emphasized, they're within the mainstream of his theology, and he's not seen as a movement spokesperson on the issue.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A little bit more - I'm puzzled why this is notable on an article about Mark Driscoll. You could round up every living Calvinist pastor listed in Wikipedia, and I'd be fairly certain that you wouldn't find a single one that doesn't believe Mormonism is a cult.  They would also go on to list Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Hare Krishnas and a few dozen more groups as religious "cults".  Why is it notable that Driscoll believes this?  If it is only because the question arises out of a discussion on Mitt Romney, then it is not notable in a wikipedia article.  In general, Driscoll is not politically active (to my knowledge he's never personally supported any particular candidate or party), though he does comment on current topics (as all pastors do) from time to time.  Driscoll's opinion on Mormonism isn't unique or notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorta on the fence right now...but thoughts for discussion.
 * I'm puzzled why this is notable on an article about Mark Driscoll.
 * I think one could *almost* claim, Driscoll has a national platform, possibly even worldwide. All the other small timers do not.
 * Why is it notable that Driscoll believes this?
 * This is not anywhere near a notable reason but some Evangelicals, Baptists, Fundamentalists seem to be on a semi war path at the moment...having convinced themselves that there is an agenda to advertise Mormonism as Christian in sort of a cabal like fashion. I am not plugged into any of those groups. I do have friends that keep me in the loop and I appreciate it; mostly for the entertainment factor. Basileias (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mars Hill "Shunning" Incident(s) in early 2012
The following edit was suggested to the main article:
 * "Driscoll remains both the teaching pastor and one of three executive elders who govern church policies at Mars Hill Church, which came under fire in early 2012 for the "shunning" of church members and attendees at Mars Hill in at least three specific cases. The current church by-laws, approved in 2007 after the firings of two elders who disagreed with the changes, do not allow for an appeals process in church discipline procedures and centralized leadership at Mars Hill among the three executive elders."

I would suggest that this not be in Driscoll's article, but that it *might* be argued that it is notable enough for inclusion on the Mars Hill Church article, instead. Driscoll has published comments that he was not directly involved in the "shunning" incidents, so they aren't specifically relevant to his article. The church's response included the statement "Our central leadership, which includes Pastor Mark Driscoll, is not involved in the discipline process, as it is handled at a local level. We’re reviewing our current church discipline cases to make sure all our local leaders are operating within the spirit of love intended to be present in our existing policies." and has been fairly clear that Driscoll wasn't involved with these incidents. As such, they don't belong on *his* Wiki article.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be included on the Mars Hill Church article. Since he is the founder, primary teaching pastor, and executive elder there, it is relevant to this article as well.  Perhaps the wording should include "under the Driscoll administration" since this happened under his leadership but arguably not directly by his own doing. --ArturoDan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
 * It has been included on the MHC article now. Typically (see Rick Warren/Saddleback Church and articles on other notable pastors/churches), information about a church is kept on the church's page and the items about the church that do not directly involve the pastor do not migrate to the pastor's page.  In most churches, the pastor is not the "CEO" (as we are familiar with corporation), but a board (or multiple boards) manage the affairs of the church.  In this particular case, MHC has noted in multiple channels that the elders & Driscoll were not involved in the shunning incidents, which would also argue against its inclusion on Driscoll's page.  There is no need to blur the two into one quasi-entity.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * However, Driscoll teaches such church discipline in his Doctrine book and the church elders who defended the incident quoted his teaching from the book as justification. Driscoll is one of 3 executive elders, and the only executive elder who remains after the rewriting of the church bylaws which put the church discipline procedures into practice.  Though the church says Driscoll wasn't involved, he wrote the doctrine they are following and the by-law procedures they are implementing.  It's directly tied to his leadership.--ArturoDan (talk)
 * This sounds like past grips from former members, which Wikipedia isn't to be the sounding board for. Basileias (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like writing off relevant history from reliable news sources. Wikipedia regularly refers to relevant controversies when properly documented. ArturoDan (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that Driscoll teaches church discipline (most evangelical pastors do), as this is not really notable. With the specific cases you are wanting to add, it has been made clear that Driscoll wasn't involved, but that campus pastor(s) were and had no communication w/ Driscoll on the subject.  Therefore, these aren't germane to Driscoll's article.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Misogynist Statements
"When the Evangelical leader Ted Haggard left New Life Church in Colorado, Driscoll raised an uproar with the comment on his blog: "A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either."[7] Driscoll later apologized for his statement.[15] Driscoll revealed in his 2012 book, Real Marriage, that he was sexually frustrated with his own wife during the time he made comments about Ted Haggard and apologized generally for misogynist statements he had made during that time. [16]"

Why is this getting deleted? ArturoDan (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still see it in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ted Haggard again?
Why are we adding more information to an old controversy? Part of WP:BLP is trying to maintain WP:NPOV, and it just seems that this is placing WP:UNDUE weight on a single incident. Am I missing something?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To expound just a tad - the topic in the subsection is Driscoll's beliefs regarding gender roles (he is a strong complementarian and not an egalitarian, in this regard), that are not all that unique for the Reformed churches, which are almost all pretty rigid complementarians. As it is, there are already twice as many words documenting criticisms/complaints in the section than there are describing his theological stance on the issue. I'm not sure why it's notable/encyclopedic what was going on in Driscoll's life when he made a controversial statement on the Haggard matter.

Also, it's been awhile since I've proofread the entire article, and in this section, the phrase "raised an uproar with" seems non-NPOV, and should probably changed to "received criticism for".--Lyonscc (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be under Driscoll's beliefs on gender roles. I agree it makes better sense to leave only descriptions of his complementarian beliefs under that heading. There needs to be a separate heading for Controversy.  I think the Haggard statement, Episcopal statement, and Real Marriage statement better go under that. ArturoDan (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As for undue weight on a single issue, I would note that his comment about his chauvinistic statements isn't limited to a single issue, but covers a number of noted incidents, including the two that remain on his entry. ArturoDan (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, adding a criticism/controversy section is the opposite direction of Wikipedia's project (see wp:criticism). The desired practice is for editors to integrate criticisms into relevant sections of an article, in such a way that truly notable criticisms might be noted, but not given undue weight.  In this particular case, a lions' share of this section is already devoted to criticisms of his complementarian views, with only a short blurb as to the views, themselves.  As it is, the article already notes that Driscoll apologized for his comments, so adding several more sentences about potential causes/motivations for that apology seem redundant.
 * Also, as you note, the comment about his complementarian-based statements encompasses multiple criticisms of his expression of this belief. There are two examples given in the article, of which one is probably sufficient (his comments about the US Episcopal church could probably be trimmed, but the reference is short and concise, so I'm not going to argue that point).  Undue weight is based on the volume of "critical material" versus the descriptive material about the subject's actual belief.  In this particular case, the article in question is about Mark Driscoll, not Ted Haggard, and not the incident w/ his comments about Haggard (which is not significant enough to have a page of its own), so exploration of the finer details of this example of Driscoll's complementarian views don't seem all that particularly warranted.Lyonscc (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the complementarian section should be expanded with more explanation of exactly what he believes, since it's not a monolithic position--there are a lot of variables among comps. Someone pointed that out earlier in the talk section. That would then make the noteworthy statements for which he's received negative press and his own explanation of his motivation fitting. ArturoDan (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The complementarianism article is currently wikilinked to this article. I just jumped over to read it, and when I read the "Christian" section of the article, it seems to (rather accurately) sum up what I understand to be Driscoll's position on the issue.  Few positions are truly "monolithic", and his primary deviation in orthopraxy (having his wife on stage, teaching with him - something he's been criticized for, from more conservative quarters) is already noted in the article.    Perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain why the article on Driscoll is inaccurate/incomplete without more exposition behind a tangential statement/apology (already noted in the article).  I'm honestly struggling to see why it is notable, and not just  axe grinding at this point.  (For example - I'm not going to object to them, but your recent edit to the Mars Hill Church article to differentiate membership #'s at MHC from their weekly attendance #'s (the latter being the more common metric in measuring the size of churches), seems to be hair-splitting for the purpose of shedding a more negative light on MHC/Driscoll.)  If I understand the whole of your edits correctly (which, as one of the other editors remarked, seem to fit the definition of a single-purpose account), you've got some sort of beef with Driscoll.  Everyone it entitled to that, but wikipedia is not a soapbox.  What is it I am missing regarding why Driscoll's potential motivation for an old comment (about another minister) and his apology is so important for inclusion in a biography page on him?  I edit more than a hundred biographical pages, and this particular edit seem particularly odd in having an editor pushing for the inclusion of something so tangential.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, it's not tangential. He's given recent commentary in both a book and sermon on the way he has spoken of gender roles, and it is relevant to much of what is already in the Gender Role section.  The idea that I have a beef with Driscoll because of my edits is a red herring.  My page on Real Marriage has gotten labeled "sounding like an advertisement."  I can't win.  Actually the Real Marriage page does sound like an advertisement and I'm interested in figuring out wording to make it sound less like that.  But it's ridiculous to accuse me of having a beef with Driscoll because of my edits.  And it's also confusing to me why adding the exact membership numbers as reported by Mars Hill Church itself would seem negative.  It's a fact that they themselves gave out.  That you would read it as negative indicates your own bias. I'm interested in Driscoll's page because, frankly, it seems inadequate based on the wealth of things he's written and recorded, especially in light of the attention he's received in the press over the last 3 months. There is no reason I can think of that is neutral for NOT including his commentary from Real Marriage on the way he has spoken of gender roles. ArturoDan (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few things about Driscoll (and other BLP's I edit) that I disagree with (and one reason I edit biographies across a wide spectrum of belief is so that I can try to be fair - and learn to be fair - in dealing equally with those I agree with and those I don't. One of the issues we run into with WP:BLP's is that of WP:recentism, and while there has been some minimal coverage of Real Marriage, it hasn't changed the events referenced in the current article, and the additional information hasn't really changed these events, either.  All Real Marriage has done is give some potential excuses for the comment/apology regarding Haggard.  Just because something relevant to an old event has recently been commented on doesn't make it relevant and notable to an article on the subject.

In general, there are churches that compare numbers with one another. Some churches with very loose membership policies (i.e. "if you've attended here in the past year, you're a member") will use their inflated "membership" number to look larger than they are. Other churches with very strict membership policies (like MHC, where one must sign a statement of belief and submission to the church's authority) have much lower numbers, which tend to get cited by critics (or other jealous churches) to make the church look smaller. Thus, publications, like Christianity Today, typically report "weekly attendance", which is much harder to fudge. The MHC article already had the "weekly attendance" figure included, so (after insertion of "shunning", highlighting of complementarianism, and criticisms of Driscoll, all of which have an appearance of POV-pushing), so inclusion of the less comparitive "membership" number could be reasonably viewed suspiciously in the same light as the POV of the other edits. (As for it showing bias on my own part, I have been involved in the pages for some churches which have tried to use the inflated "membership" number with the same observation about statistics. I'm an engineer by profession, and am quite familiar at how numbers are used to push a point-of-view).

A quick Lexis-Nexis search doesn't turn up all that much about Driscoll recently, aside of a couple articles on MHC's shunning incident and the normal articles you'd find when any book is launched. There is certainly quite a bit of blog-traffic about the book, but blogs aren't verifiable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article on Driscoll contains his view of gender roles as complementarian and not egalitarian (with the exception of his wife in a co-teaching capacity). The Wiki article on complementarianism gives a definition that is, part and parcel, what Driscoll teaches. I'm not sure why it's notable to expound on this any more than has already been done. It is already in the article, so there's no need to further expound without running afoul of giving it undue weight.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Driscoll's death bus
There's an editing war brewing over the section on Driscoll's "death bus" remarks.

While it's clear Driscoll made these remarks (there's a video), and that they were controversial, all of the sources provided so far are self-published blog posts, which are not suitable for making claims about a living person.

Unless there's a secondary source that picked up on this controversy (e.g. Christianity Today), this section will have to go, per Wikipedia policy. Since it's about a living person, it has to go right away unless we can find a secondary source to substantiate the claims.

User:Keepstandingfirm, can you find a secondary source or a source that is not self-published that deals with this issue?

-Sigeng (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking down "issues" banner
I think that my recent cleanups have dealt with most of this article's citation problems. I am planning to remove both issue tags if there are no objections. Both tags are old. A bot mysteriously moved to Talk:Mark_Driscoll_(pastor)/Archive_2 bypassing Archive 1 if anyone wants to examine the Archives, but little of it is pertinent now.

At this point the article is flagged for use of primary sources, and for citations needed. I believe I've filled in everything that should be cited, so I don't see any reason that tag can't come down.

Regarding primary sources, we have these categories:
 * Driscoll's Confessions
 * Press releases and statements from MHC or other Driscoll-affiliated organizations, accompanied by a nearby secondary source or used specifically to describe how this organization responded
 * Scanned images of Mefferd's plagiarism search, accompanied by multiple secondary sources for interpretation.... I think this is notable and helps verifiability of that section

The one primary source that should probably be replaced is [1], which refers to the Gospel Coalition for the size of MHC. That information should come for a party with no interest in exaggerating the numbers, just in case. I'll look into that.

Comments? -Sigeng (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Couple years late, but the archive ordering mentioned above has been fixed now (caused by misconfigured counter when it was added). Archives should now list as expected in the relevant templates. Aidan9382 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Too soon to talk about "Pussified Nation"
Two editors have tried to add material related to the Pussified Nation rants that Driscoll wrote in 2000 and were released in late July 2014. (Driscoll has confirmed that he wrote the material under the handle "William Wallace II" and he repudiated his past actions.) Because it's so recent not many reliable sources abound.

Here are BLP-acceptable sources (in my opinion) if someone really wants to write about it now.
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/august/mark-driscoll-crude-comments-william-wallace-mars-hill.html
 * http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Mars-Hill-Dissenters-plan-protest-release-vulgar-Driscoll-rant-269299031.html?tab=video&c=y
 * http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/former-members-protest-mars-hill-church/ngrWp/

The Seattle P-I blog also wrote about it, but it's a blog so probably not acceptable.
 * http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/07/29/mars-hill-dissenters-plan-protest-release-pussified-nation-driscoll-rant/
 * http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2014/08/01/famous-quotes-from-mark-driscoll-of-mars-hill-church/#888101=0&17906103=0

The material is connected with a group planning to protest Mars Hill Church on Aug 3. I think we can at least wait until the conclusion of the protest before attempting to weigh the importance of this development with respect to Driscoll. -Sigeng (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As promised I wrote about the recent protests. -Sigeng (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Photos of Driscoll?
Most photos of Driscoll are under copyright. It would be great to have a good portrait for the top of the article (Mars Hill Church removed Driscoll's publicity photo from Wikipedia) and some shots of him delivering sermons, since that is what he is most known for. -Sigeng, 2014
 * For the record, Mars Hill didn't remove the photo, I nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation and an admin deleted it. Images are presumed to be copyrighted by their creators unless proven otherwise.--JFH (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It looks like someone added the image when WP policy permitted press kit photos under a fair use exemption. Under the new rules changed your decision is correct. -Sigeng (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mark Driscoll which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)