Mark Driscoll admits being “chauvinistic”

Mark DriscollMark Driscoll has written these words:

I grew more chauvinistic.

This refers not to a time before he was a Christian, but to a period when he was already pastoring Mars Hill Church in Seattle. This was a period when he was having marriage difficulties. I’m not sure if he says he has now become less chauvinistic again.

The quote is taken from Driscoll and his wife Grace’s book Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friendship, and Life Together, and is quoted in Rachel Held Evans’ excellent review of the book, Driscoll, “Real Marriage,” and Why Being a Pastor Doesn’t Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist. I have not read the book.

Rachel’s review is by no means completely negative. She writes that

In places where Mark has been insensitive in the past, he seems to have softened a bit.

And Mark and Grace’s surprising candour about their sexual and marital problems reveals the background to that past insensitivity, explaining it although not excusing it. Mark writes of his own “bitterness” as he counselled couples enjoying very different sexual experiences to his and his wife’s. He also admits that this situation

affected my tone in preaching for a season, something I will always regret.

This leads Rachel to question not only Driscoll’s fitness for pastoring and counselling but also the whole celebrity-pastor culture, so prominent in the USA and growing here in the UK:

Meanwhile, evangelicals in particular need to do something about our celebrity-pastor culture. Mark Driscoll is simply not qualified to serve as a sex therapist—most pastors aren’t!

True maturity is marked not by how much a person knows but by the wisdom he or she shows in discerning when to speak with authority and when to hold back.  And when it comes to maturity, I’m afraid that Pastor Mark still has a long way to go.

Yes, Rachel, I agree with you.

Meanwhile Mark Driscoll needs to examine himself more carefully, to look for any ways in which he might still be even a little bit “chauvinistic”. Then he should examine his teaching and particularly his complementarian position, to see how much of it is based on the Bible and how much on his past chauvinism. This book seems to show signs of him moving in the right direction. Let’s hope and pray that he will continue this journey, and that before long we will see a new Driscoll whose teaching undermines chauvinistic stereotypes and exalts women as well as men, as equally made in the image of God.

Joel Osteen: human but not a false prophet

The sidebar of Joel Watts’ blog Unsettled Christianity currently lists as “False Prophets” about a dozen named Christian leaders, along with some Christian ministries and some less Christian ones. Among those named as false prophets are Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. And that is typical of the kind of criticism which many Christians routinely heap on well known megachurch leaders like these two, often without any real basis in fact. I can’t help suggesting that the reason for much of the criticism is jealousy of their success.

Joel OsteenSo it was interesting to read the post by Gez today on that same blog Philip Wagner defends Joel Osteen, with a long quotation from Wagner giving an essentially positive picture of Osteen and his church, including the following:

Joel does not teach classes on theology, the differences of Mormonism and Christianity or a thorough presentation of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. He’s a pastor with an evangelism gift.

Pastors at Joel Osteen’s church, Lakewood Church, disciple people, teach doctrinal truths of the Bible and train people for ministry. They teach people truth from error.

Indeed. The substance of most criticisms of the much maligned Osteen, apart from that he has enviably good teeth, is that his teaching is weak. Yes, perhaps it is, because his ministry is not that of a teacher. He is primarily an evangelist. Those who become Christians through his church and ministry then receive good teaching.

Philip Wagner, whose post Gez quotes, has a lot more to say about criticism of Osteen in his post What’s the Problem with Joel Osteen? He notes how “a well-known pastor in Seattle” (he means Mark Driscoll) used YouTube to “tear Joel apart” for “what he did not say” – the reference is probably to the same video that I discussed here in 2007, when I was perhaps trying to be more conciliatory than I am now. Wagner also writes:

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion – even if it is ill informed.
The disappointing thing to me is that Christian leaders speak out publically against Joel and thereby encouraging other Christians not to respect him or to doubt his authenticity.  They feel the liberty to publically attack those whom they don’t really understand or know.   It’s embarrassing.

As a Christian, I’m discouraged by the behavior of leaders who criticize, attack or diminish the significance of other Christian ministers. 

This behavior and attitude is why many people do not want to be a part of Christianity or go to church because they feel that when they go to church they will be criticized the way our leaders do to each other.

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.  Gal 5:14-15 NIV

I believe the main thing leaders should be “called out for” is the arrogance and the divisive example they promote by publically dismissing the relevance of another person’s ministry.

Have these very public leaders, who take the liberty to bring these unfair assessments of Joel Osteen, spoken to him or one of his pastors in private about their concerns?

I may be wrong – but I don’t think they have.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.  Matthew 18:15 NIV

Now Joel Osteen is not perfect. After all, he is human. I happen to think that his remarks about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism were unfortunate, although that could be because they were reported out of context.

I also think Philip Wagner is wrong about this: it is a major election issue, because many evangelical Christians will not vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is a Mormon.

Nevertheless this does not warrant Osteen being demonised in the way that he has been by so many Christians. He may be a flawed prophet, but that is not the same thing as a false prophet.

So, Joel Watts, please can you now take the lead of your friend Gez and remove from your sidebar the accusation that Osteen and other respected Christian leaders are “false prophets”. I don’t expect you to take down old posts, but I would like to see a new post expressing your regret for what you have written about these people in the past.

And please can that be an example to other Christian bloggers, and writers in other media, who are bringing the Christian faith into disrepute by their often ill-informed mud-slinging.

Driscoll’s two faces: God loves you, God hates you

JanusWhich does Pastor Mark Driscoll believe? That God loves everyone, or that God hates most people? Like the Roman God Janus he seems to have two different faces, and he can’t make his mind up which to present to the public.

Scott Bailey has quoted from a video by Driscoll, which was formerly posted at his church’s website but has since been taken down (annotations apparently by Zack):

Some of you, God hates you. Some of you, God is sick of you. God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you. He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t think your excuse is “meritous” [the word he’s looking for here is “meritorious”]. He doesn’t care if you compare yourself to someone worse than you, He hates them too. God hates, right now, personally, objectively hates some of you.

The sermon this is taken from is new, but there is nothing new in Driscoll’s sentiments. Here at Gentle Wisdom I reported him saying much the same in 2007, in my post What Driscoll really said about God and hate, which included

GOD HATES SINNERS. …

The whole “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” — that’s the wrong place to start. “God hates you and its going to go really really bad forever!” – hey now that is true…

But a completely different face of Driscoll is seen in his response when Fred Phelps and his family threatened to picket his church, a blog post from June this year with the long title Westboro Baptist Church, This False Prophet and His Blind Lemmings Welcome You to Our Whore House for God’s Grace and Free Donuts. (Thanks to Jeff commenting on Scott’s post for the link.) In this post when Driscoll writes:

God does not love everyone—in fact, He hates the majority of mankind, and has purposed to send them to hell when they die.

he is quoting, and then rejecting, the teaching of Westboro Baptist Church. Driscoll continues:

The whole ”read-the-words” of the Bible thingy is actually pretty good advice. And in reading the Bible, we see that it says everyone is loved by God, and though not everyone is saved, anyone who turns from sin and trusts in Jesus will receive eternal life. Additionally, we know that it’s not God’s hatred that leads people to repentance but instead his kindness (Romans 2:4). Here are some Scriptures that speak plainly about God’s love for people:

  • John 1:29: “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”
  • John 3:16–17: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
  • 1 Tim. 2:3–6: “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…”
  • 2 Peter 3:9: “He [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Good teaching! Here Driscoll sounds almost like an Arminian, choosing to quote the Bible verses most commonly used to refute Calvinism.

Driscoll offers a more nuanced presentation in his recent FAQ: Predestination and Election. Much of this is a fair presentation of the issues between Calvinists and Arminians. In it he mostly avoids the “hate” word. But the generally Calvinist tendency becomes clear in the section “Answers To Common Questions About Predestination & Election”, which omits from its long list of Bible verses discussed the “Arminian” verses Driscoll chose to quote to the Westboro Baptists. Just before he confirms that his own position is more or less Calvinist (although he calls it Augustinian), Driscoll writes:

Does God love the non-elect?

Yes, he does, and does so with common grace (Matt. 5:45). Yet he also has a special affection for the elect. So, God loves everyone in a general way, and also loves the elect in a saving way.

In other words, as 4xiom interprets this in a comment on Scott’s post,

God brings a person into the world to be tortured endlessly as an object of his vindictive hatred, but his love for said person is clearly demonstrated by a brief period of ‘common grace’?

If Driscoll really believes what he wrote to the Westboro Baptists, why isn’t this material included in his FAQ? And why is there no explanation of how he apparently believes in two contradictory things, that God hates many people and predestines them to hell, and that God loves everyone and wants them all to be saved?

So why the contradiction? Could it be that Driscoll is just so naturally combative that he always takes the contrary position to anyone he is discussing these matters with? Perhaps more probably he does in fact take the moderate Calvinist position outlined in his FAQ, but sometimes in his preaching he gets carried away with “God hates you” type language and so goes against his own theology. That would explain why the offending video was taken down.

But what does it say about Driscoll as a preacher if he is so little in control of what he says that he makes unintentional public statements like this? With this hate speech he is not only denying his own theology, he is bringing the Christian faith into disrepute. At least Fred Phelps is consistent in how he spews out hatred. If Mark Driscoll really doesn’t have the same beliefs, why does he sometimes say the same things?

Newfrontiers elder condemns Driscoll, Virgo silent

What Mark Driscoll wrote on Facebook a week or two ago was shameful. Indeed even Driscoll himself seems to have realised this it was inappropriate, as, without apologising properly, he has admitted “I need to do better” and “I’ve erred”. Indeed about the only person who has mentioned Driscoll recently without condemning his words was Terry Virgo of Newfrontiers.

Among those who defended Virgo in comments here, perhaps out of loyalty to their leader, was Newfrontiers elder David Matthias, otherwise known as Blue, with a hint of amber. So it is good to read in David’s latest blog post a clear condemnation of Driscoll’s words, and of his failure to say “Sorry”.

It would have been better still if Terry Virgo had written at least a little of the same, on his blog (now working again) or in any of the his dozen or so tweets since his one about Driscoll. Then perhaps other Newfrontiers members would understand that their complementarian position is not a licence to express sexist or homophobic sentiments. And maybe even outsiders like Dave Warnock might start to be convinced that they are serious in wanting to welcome radical feminists.

The devil isn’t a slanderer – nor am I

Anthony BradleyYesterday Anthony Bradley accused me of slander, against Mark Driscoll. He didn’t name me. But he did name Rachel Held Evans for a “slanderous post”, and he wrote of “the way in which many other believers jumped on the slander bandwagon”, obviously referring to my post on the matter among many others.

In my response to Bradley yesterday I argued that Rachel and I, among many others, were right to stand up to Driscoll and name him for his unacceptable bullying behaviour. I regretted only using the word “bully” in the title of my post, suggesting that this was Driscoll’s character rather than his behaviour. I have now adjusted the post title to add quotation marks round this word, to indicate that it is a quotation from Rachel: Standing up to the “bully” Mark Driscoll.

I also want to argue that Bradley is totally confused about what is meant by slander. Yesterday I rejected part of what he wrote on the basis that

Bradley cannot support his argument that all accusations, or all public ones, are wrong, on the basis of a Greek word, diaballo, used only once in the New Testament.

I now want to look into this point in more detail. I note that this rare Greek verb diaballo is the basis for the rather more common noun diabolos. The noun is found 35 times in the New Testament with the meaning “devil” and referring to the devil or Satan; once of Judas (John 6:70); and three times of ordinary people, in the plural (all in the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 3:3, Titus 2:3). In RSV these last three occurrences are all rendered “slanderers”. KJV and NIV 2011 are oddly inconsistent: the former offers “slanderers”, “false accusers” and “false accusers” respectively, whereas the latter has “malicious talkers”, “slanderous” and “slanderers”. And it is often taught that the word “devil” really means “slanderer”, and therefore that Satan’s chief activity is to slander people.

First we need to clarify the meaning of “slander”. According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, the meaning of the noun is

1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

In other words, a fundamental part of the meaning is that the statement is false, as well as malicious. Now Anthony Bradley quotes the 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (s.v. “slander”) as saying that “in the Bible”

As a rule [slander] is a false charge (compare Mt 5:11); but it may be a truth circulated insidiously and with a hostile purpose (e.g. Dan 3:8, “brought accusation against,” where Septuagint has diaballo, “slander”; Lk 16:1, the same Greek word).

So ISBE tries to redefine a good English word concerning false accusations to include truth spoken maliciously. On what basis? Not KJV, which has “accuse” at Luke 16:1, as does NIV 2011. It looks to me as if the only basis they have is the presumed meaning of the Greek word diaballo, which they gloss as “slander”.

So what is the meaning of Greek diaballo and diabolos? According to my 1884 edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon abridged for use in schools, the verb means, in the relevant sense,

to accuse falsely, slander, calumniate: to accuse a man to another

and the noun means

a slanderer; esp. … the Slanderer, the Devil.

Very likely D. Miall Edwards, who wrote the ISBE entry, would have learned these or similar definitions at school. They both seem to imply falsehood spoken maliciously.

But it is interesting to see a shift of emphasis in the more complete Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon online at Perseus, which has been updated to 1940. For the verb diaballo the relevant parts of the definition (citations omitted) are now:

V. attack a man’s character, calumniate, …; accuse, complain of, without implied malice or falsehood, …: c. dat. rei, reproach a man with . .,
2. c. acc. rei, misrepresent, …: speak or state slanderously, : generally, give hostile information, without any insinuation of falsehood, …
3. δ. τι εἴς τινα lay the blame for a thing on . ., .
4. disprove a scientific or philosophical doctrine, .
5. δ. ἔπος declare it spurious,

In other words, although the word can be used of slander, it does not in itself imply “any insinuation of falsehood”. This fits well with the biblical use of the verb, in Luke 16:1 and Daniel 3:8 LXX, for apparently true information passed on with malicious intent.

So what we see in the ISBE entry is Miall Edwards trying to redefine a good English word on the basis of its use in a misleading definition of a Greek word used only once in the New Testament. I think he got something backwards there! And then we have Bradley citing Edwards, writing nearly a century earlier, as an authority, and on that dubious basis accusing of slander people like myself who wrote against Mark Driscoll. Meanwhile the misleading definition has been corrected, but is still being quoted by Bradley, in the form “diaballo, ‘slander'”.

But what does diabolos mean? The LSJ entry for this word, primarily an adjective but also used as a noun, seems oddly inconsistent with the one for diaballo:

A. slanderous, backbiting,
II. Subst., slanderer, ; enemy,: hence, = Sâtân, …; the Devil,
III. Adv. “-λως” injuriously, invidiously, …

Now the meaning of an adjective or noun is not always tied to that of a related verb. But it seems odd that in this case the definition of the verb was updated between 1884 and 1940 but the definition of the noun was not. I think it would be reasonable, if not provable, that the noun, like the verb, should not imply “any insinuation of falsehood”.

To put it simply, the noun diabolos does not mean “slanderer” but more like “malicious accuser” or “denouncer”. So Christian authors and preachers should stop saying that “devil” means “slanderer”, and realise that its sense is very similar to that of the Hebrew Sâtân, “adversary” or “Satan”.

As for Rachel and myself, we are not slanderers either, because we were speaking the truth, and doing so not maliciously but in love (Ephesians 4:15): love for the homosexuals, women and others who were demeaned by Driscoll; love for those who might be led astray by his bad teaching and example; and love for Driscoll himself, in the hope that this amazing preacher and leader can accept correction and become all the more effective for the kingdom of God.

Not Driscoll’s Jesus, nor Jim West’s, but the Bible’s

Jim WestJim West offers a rather double-edged endorsement of Gentle Wisdom, to which I replied in a comment, which he has not (yet?) approved, starting with these words:

Thanks for the wonderful endorsement! But don’t make it too obvious that you are trying to revitalise a fading blog by getting link love from a rising star.

Jim writes about me:

He’s a bit too fluffy for me. I imagine his image of Jesus is something of a Jesus who carries a bunny, and a flower, and never says a cross word to anyone.

Well, Jim certainly has an active imagination. I have no idea where he gets this image from. True, I rejected what might be Mark Driscoll’s Jesus, because this is not at all the biblical picture. But on exactly the same basis I reject any image of “a Jesus who carries a bunny, and a flower, and never says a cross word to anyone”, because this clearly contradicts the biblical picture of our Saviour. As Jim correctly states as he continues,

the actual Jesus we know from the Gospels … called people hypocrites, was quite unfriendly to Temple businessmen, and regularly mocked the religious leaders of his day.

Indeed I could have used Jesus’ example to defend calling Driscoll a bully: Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees much worse things. This confrontational aspect of Jesus has been important to my faith since the 1970s, when I read John Stott’s book Christ the Controversialist, which helped me to see the inadequacy of the image from my childhood of Jesus who “never says a cross word to anyone”.

Mark Driscoll is right to regret that

increasingly, the least likely person to be found in church is a twenty-or-thirty-something single male.

Among the reasons for this may well be that the image of Jesus which Jim attributes to me is so widespread. So Driscoll is right to try to present a different image. But the image he should be presenting is not of someone who might advise: “ridicule those who disagree with you, despise people of other orientations, denigrate women, and above all be arrogant and rude!” Instead he should find and preach the true Jesus as presented in the gospels.

Was I wrong to call Mark Driscoll a bully?

Mark DriscollAnthony Bradley writes in World magazine that Libel is not love, and therefore that bloggers like Rachel Held Evans and myself were wrong to call Mark Driscoll a bully. Here is part of Bradley’s article:

There is nothing loving about calling a pastor a “bully“—that is, “a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.” That is a serious charge. In her post, Evans describes why she believes Driscoll to be a bully, implying that he, his teachings, and the elders at his church are not functioning in ways consistent with Scripture. While it is more than reasonable to understand why someone would take issue with Driscoll’s post, Evans’ way of responding cannot and should not be encouraged. What was even more disturbing was the way in which many other believers jumped on the slander bandwagon to feed on the carnage once it went viral.

But why exactly is it wrong to make this kind of charge? The evidence is there, in public. At least, it was on Facebook which is not technically public but, as Pete Broadbent discovered last year, might as well be where public figures are concerned. And Bradley is not disputing the facts. But he is disputing whether it is right for Christians to comment negatively on such facts.

Bradley tries to present a biblical argument that what Rachel and I wrote counts as slander and so is wrong. In law a statement is neither slander nor libel if it is true, and no one is disputing the truth of what she and I have written. A true statement can be an accusation, but Bradley’s argument depends on it being wrong for a Christian to bring any kind of accusation against anyone else, whereas in 1 Timothy 5:19 such accusations are specifically permitted – where there is adequate evidence, as there is in this case. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul writes of how he publicly accused Peter of wrongdoing. Bradley cannot support his argument that all accusations, or all public ones, are wrong, on the basis of a Greek word, diaballo, used only once in the New Testament.

Now that doesn’t make it right to make public accusations in this case. It would be better, although perhaps difficult in practice, to bring the matter to Driscoll in private first. No doubt some of the at least 610 comments made on Driscoll’s Facebook post, and which presumably went back to Driscoll, did point out to him how wrong what he wrote was. But although Driscoll deleted the post no one has claimed that he showed any regret for it.

Bradley makes a stronger argument in a tweet:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. (Prov 26:4) should govern how we disagree w/people.

Here Bradley implicitly calls Driscoll a fool, surely just as serious as calling him a bully. But indeed arguing with such a person can drag one into a vicious circle of folly. Nevertheless, as the very next verse teaches,

Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26:5 (NIV)

Sometimes fools need to be shown their folly so that they do not continue in it. And that surely applies especially when the fool is in a position of leadership, whether in the church, in business, or in a nation.

But all of this needs to be done in love. And I would agree that it is does not show love to write negatively about another person’s character rather than their actions. So, while I would consider it quite justified to accuse Driscoll of bullying in his behaviour, it is not right to call him a bully, thereby impugning his character. So I was wrong.

Thanks to Brian Leport for the link to Bradley’s article, and for retweeting his tweet.

Terry Virgo of Newfrontiers thanks Mark Driscoll

Terry VirgoTerry Virgo, founder and leader of Newfrontiers, in a tweet yesterday just retweeted by Adrian Warnock:

Thanks @PastorMark for your courage & clarity in motivating us in Newfrontiers to move forward. Here we go!

“@PastorMark” is of course the “bully” Mark Driscoll.

So, is Virgo oblivious to the current storm about Driscoll’s bullying and generally unacceptable behaviour? If so, he needs to keep up better with the Christian news. Or is he endorsing such behaviour as the direction for “us in Newfrontiers to move forward”? I certainly hope not!

Virgo’s blog is currently not accessible, redirecting to a holding page with a circular link. Perhaps he needs to hide like this to shelter from the storm which might now blow in his direction. But can he hide from Twitter?

 

Mark Driscoll’s Jesus?

Is this the Jesus that Mark Driscoll follows? One might think so from his bullying.

The new Jesus?

Oddly enough I have never seen these words in the Bible.

From David Hayward via Henry Neufeld, with thanks.

PS I have the Add Link to Facebook Plugin as recommended by Jeremy Myers. This should mean that comments made on this post here appear on Facebook, and comments made on Facebook appear here. I hope there won’t be too many teething troubles. And I am waiting for a similar plugin for Google+.

Standing up to the “bully” Mark Driscoll

Mark DriscollRachel Held Evans writes Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him:

Mark Driscoll is wrong. 

Godly men stick up for people, not make fun of them.

Godly men honor women, not belittle them.

Godly men love their gay and lesbian neighbors, not ridicule them.

Godly men celebrate femininity, not trash it.

Godly men own their sexuality, not flaunt it.

Godly men pursue peace, not dismiss it.

Godly men rise above violence, not glorify it.

Godly men build up the Church, not embarrass it.

Godly men imitate Christ—who praised the gentle and the peacemakers, who stood up for the exploited and abused, who showed compassion for the downtrodden,  who valued women, and who loved his enemies to the point of death.

This was prompted mainly by what Driscoll wrote on Facebook:

So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?

But the links Rachel offers show that she has collected a lot more evidence that Driscoll is a bully. She concludes:

Mark’s bullying is unacceptable.

Stop talking about it and do something.

Yes, but what can we do? Sadly I don’t think it will help much to join Rachel’s campaign requesting the elders of Driscoll’s church to take action against him. The website of Mars Hill Church states that

Pastor, Elder, and Overseer are all synonymous terms in the Bible

and names three “Executive Elders”, the first of whom is the “Preaching and Vision Pastor” who is none other than Mark Driscoll. The other two, the “Executive Pastor” and the “Mars Hill Network Pastor”, are surely Driscoll’s personal proteges and are very unlikely to turn against him on this matter.

But if we can mobilise a tide of public opinion against this kind of bullying, maybe we can persuade leaders whom Driscoll does respect, like John Piper, to have a word with him and rein him in. Piper was a guest preacher at Mars Hill Church last year. But he has not been afraid to rebuke Driscoll publicly before, on a rather trivial matter. Now is the time for Piper to rebuke Driscoll again. I’m not saying this needs to be public. But if it is not, Piper needs to keep an eye on Driscoll to make sure he stays within acceptable bounds. He should also try to obtain what even the macho Mark has been known to offer in the past: a public apology.

Rachel is right that we need to do something about this. But in this case the best thing to do about it is to talk and write about it.

Thanks to Joel and Scott for the link to Rachel’s post.