Why Are Mark Driscoll’s Followers Satisfied with an Apology, but Not Repentance?

Why?  I’m wondering.  After all, Ted Haggard had to resign.  But then back years ago Jimmy Swaggart simply apologized and that was that.  So, why do some Pastors stay in pulpits with mere apologies and no signs of repentance while others are sacked?

What is it about certain churches which enable certain pastors to retain power even after they’ve been exposed for some deception or gross sin?  Have these pastors such control over their congregations that they’re willing to ignore the biblical precept of repentance?  Or have they mislead their congregations for so long, feeding them improper pseudo-theology that as long as the pastor says ‘I’m Sorry’, it’s sufficient?

Again, why are Mark Driscoll’s followers willing to give a wink and a nod to his plagiarism?

One thought on “Why Are Mark Driscoll’s Followers Satisfied with an Apology, but Not Repentance?

  1. Most of these “churches” do not follow what me and you understand about what a Biblical Church is with a system of ecclesiastical discipline. I have first hand experience from the time I worked as a TV guy and voice over lip-sinc interpreter for at least one of the men you mentioned (although on this one I saw what I consider genuine repentance). However way one looks at it, it is not a Church; it a family business and the shareholders, the board of directors are all in the family and often are supportive of their “C.E.O.” That not to call straightforwardly “La cosa nostra”… So, an apology, a couple of tear drops, but nothing else. A manageable loss on the donations and that’s all the “punishment” they get. Sad!

    Like

Comments are closed.