In Response to Defending and Contending's "I've had it with Mark Driscoll"

I ran across a blog call Defending.Contending. Specifically, I ran across this article dealing with a broadcast featuring Mark Driscoll.

It's short, as long as you don't read all of the comments.

I actually don't have a lot to say about it. After reading many of the comments I began to realize the type of follower the author caters to. This statement says a lot: "All the Driscollite defenders who patrol the internet and swarm blogs such as this to offer excuses for their Golden Calf will have to find another soundboard for their approval of and winking at sin as their comments will no longer be welcome here. I refuse to provide a platform for their calling evil good and good evil."

I don't know if there are those who patrol and swarm, but I didn't want to get swarmed myself for only partially quoting the statement. My point being, the fact that he only allows prohisopinion (save the most vulgar, extreme comments that make all opposers sound crazy) says a lot. If all he allows is positive feedback, how could he ever engage with someone enough to change their mind.

Mostly I just want to address this:

"My wife told me about a sermon Pilgrim Radio was playing on the radio as she was returning home from the grocery store with our young children in the car. She said that the man preaching (she had no clue who he was) was talking about “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “lesbians” and that he kept using these expressions as if trying to be shocking."

And:

"She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point, what did Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll do? Why, he did what apparently comes so natural for him: Driscoll expounded on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!"

I tried to find the broadcast to listen for myself but it's from 2009 and couldn't find it. Either way, these are issues that people are bombarded with in this world. While young ears need to be protected, it seems that if she heard the first three words and tuned in for that much of the submission conversation then she should have had plenty of time to change the channel before her kids heard something she didn't want them to.

Depending on the age however, these are issues the should be and must be addressed from "the pulpit" and the church. When this was said over the airways, the average age of pornography exposure for boys was age 11. Ted Bundy, the serial rapist/murderer grew up in a Christian home and attributes his downward spiral of bad choices to pornography. This started with soft core exposure in the super market. 

All I'm saying is yes, protect your kids ears and minds. But it also needs addressed for many. So don't persecute those who speak truth to a depraved world and to believers who struggle!