Embattled and Thriving
I am convinced after watching the “controversy” unfold this week that he thrives off this conflict. I mean we’ve all met people like that right? Most of them are dysfunctional in some way, some are overcomers and overachievers. I think Driscoll is the later. He overachieves through thriving off how polarizing he is. I mean taking on Bill Hybels, one of the most liked guys in Christendom is pretty hardcore. As the facts fall out it seems Driscoll and Acts 29 are overstating their side of the story![via Jason Smith]
I’m pretty sure they don’t strategically do this. That is, I don’t think they sit in a room and think, “this will be really good for our BRAND!” I just think Driscoll is fiery enough to pull it off and when he does this crap, it repels a majority of the world, but to his fans, it makes them bigger fans. It’s like Apple/Mac or Nike or any other Brand that depends on its fans to promote their product. Yeah, they have great commercials, but the rubber hits the road when the product is used, liked, and self-promoted.
I mean, I watched Driscoll’s video and just laughed. If some didn’t know what he was about, they would think it was a parody. Especially considering Virgina Tech.
Posts
Where did Driscoll take on Hybels? It was quite the opposite as Bill took a cheap shot at Mark when he wasn't even there.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that this particular blogger was referring to Mark's blog post on the subject. Driscoll mentioned that Hybels criticized the video after it played before starting his speech, and also seemed to insinuate that this influenced the event organizers to ban the video from being distributed. To my knowledge, Hybels was merely acknowledging the gifts of the women present, considering there was no particular reference to this in the video itself.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the video in question was not banned per se, but that there was not a convenient time after Hybel's speech to offer copies to the participants. As well, the Acts 29 group supposedly set up in such a way where most participants may not have been able to access the video directly. That's my understanding, anyways.
It does seem quite evident to me, however, that one's sympathies will dictate how one sees this situation. If one prefers Driscoll's position on women's leadership, then it is likely that Hybels will appear to be the offender. Driscoll's blog post about the event will appear satisfactory and restrained. On the other hand, if one prefers Hybel's position on women's leadership, then it is likely that Driscoll's blog post about the event will appear self-indulgent and exaggerated. Hybel's comments will appear satisfactory and restrained as a result.
As Jason Smith has mentioned here, Driscoll's response may not be strategic, but it does not seem to overcome significant shortcomings and thus comes across as self-promotion for his ideas.