Let's not dance around the real issues
Doug Wilson acknowledges that Driscoll's assertions and allegations are, well, bizarre. But from Doug's perspective, it seems, the disagreement itself is an even more troubling and more pressing problem. Doug says there's wrong—serious wrong (perhaps even equal wrong?)—on both sides.(read more at Team Pyro)
But Doug believes the whole conflict might be cleared up with a parley: "I would like to see us work out the protocols for how to talk about such things," he writes. "[And I] think it would be good if Phil and Mark could get together to work it through."
Doug recommends (and evidently concurs with) a post by Toby Sumpter, who likewise acknowledges that Driscoll's claims are "weird and goofy." But, says Toby, "I don't believe [Driscoll's misdeeds] rise nearly to the level of sin or scandal that [Phil] Johnson suggests."
Really? If it's not grossly sinful, certainly scandalous, and probably blasphemous to recount to one's congregation the play-by-play details of an adulterous couple's secret tryst (up to and including the coital position) and then claim one knows those details because God Himself revealed them through a prophetic peep show—then I wonder what kind of claim one would have to make to rise to the requisite level of opprobrium.
Incidentally anyone that likes Phil Johnson, Executive director of John Macarthur's Grace To You, ought not to have any trouble with my level of sarcasm. It's just a thought that God laid on my heart here...
Another thought "God laid on my heart" is now WHO is going to ever want to talk to Mark Driscoll or even pass by his line of sight EVER again?
Doug's offer of working through differences through conversation and dialogue sounds suspiciously like the emergent church. This is not a personal conflict. This is public rebuke of public false teaching. There's no need for dialogue over a cup of latte.