The sad conclusion to a hit piece.

So, I finished listening to @christianitytoday 's "Rise and fall of Mars Hill" a few days ago, and I have to say, they are definitely living up to their name.

They are focused on Christianity as it exists today, rather than the timeless, inerrant Word of God.  In fact, one sound bite they chose to include was something to the effect of:  "When you believe the word is inerrant, Mars Hill is the inevitable result", then gave no pushback.

Christianity Today used Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill as a hit-piece to bash evangelicals, complementarianism, and conservatives while promoting deconstructionism, progressives, and feminism.  Their use of music was not subtle.  Whenever talking about Driscoll and the things he believes in, it's all minor keys.  

I laughed when they brought in the author of "Jesus Feminist" to give her opinion.  Like she was going to say anything like, "You know, I can see both sides."

Cultish had an interesting teardown of the podcast here (special thanks to @andrew for bringing it to my attention):  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M3p8mRmJIc

and here:

https://thecultishshow.com/podcast/mark-driscoll-cult-of-personality

In it, there a few things of note:

1)  The only scripture in the entire series up to that point was when they pulled a Driscoll soundbite.  None of the points of accusation referenced anything of a scriptural shortcoming.  Their entire condemnation of Driscoll was done with current cultural mores that they feel he violated.

2)  Christianity Today has a real problem with war metaphors as Driscoll used them.  This is despite the extensive use of war metaphors in the New Testament.  

Now, I do agree with some aspects of their depiction of Driscoll; however, as they stated in their podcast, why should we focus on any of the good stuff when there are people bleeding?  In a similar vein, why should I focus on any of the things I agree with them on when they are wrong on others?

This is just conjecture on my part, but I suspect that the concept of a Jesus that is either a baby, a willowy hippy, or hanging on the cross is their preferred image of The Christ.  Their version of Christ is someone they could beat, so they don't have respect for Him.  They can give lip service to the New Testament, but can talk around it because they don't really feel the need to be put under His authority.  The concept of Jesus as a strong man frightens them, because they might have to pay attention to EVERYTHING he said.

Without this fear, they selectively pull from verses about being at peace and love, while ignoring the verses about removing those that claim Christianity but walk a different lifestyle.  They can also not envision the terrifying image of Jesus violently removing the people that had desecrated His Father's house.  

Jesus famously said that if anyone caused one of His little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and plunged into the ocean.  

Christianity Today does this throughout the podcast by treating deconstruction as just another kind of walk a Christian can take.  I think the most telling is in the closing episode, where they refer to some of Driscoll's former parishioners as "Embrac[ing] a life without faith", rather than the tragedy of people having lost their faith.  I think Jesus' words were specifically intended for the makers of this podcast.