Friday, December 01, 2006

More Mark Driscoll

Well, I found my 10-foot pole, so I'm going to post my thoughts in response to Mark's response to the meeting with Paul and Rose regarding Rose's response to Mark's response to his initial response to the Ted Haggard issue. Got that?

1. I do not believe that the trials that James is referring to in James 1 include the consequences of our inappropriate behavior. Yes the consequences of our mistakes may be trying and uncomfortable, but they are simply the result of inappropriate behavior, not the testing of our faith.

2. I am amazed that after all of the discussion, Mark has yet to acknowledge his actual offense. The issue was never that his comments were misapplied to Mrs. Haggard. The issue has always been that his comments were fully understood, as stated, and applied to the pastors' wives he so degradingly mischaracterized. The generalized manner in which he spoke of these women was wrong and rude.

3. Regretfully, the protestors have been characterized as a dangerous group of misfits, "living an alternative lifestyle," on a vindictive witch hunt to ruin Mark's witness to the lost people of Seattle. Whether you agreed with the idea of a protest or not, I felt that the people involved were not extreme.

4. Concerning Billy Graham and Charles Spurgeon, now we know where the critics-as-teachers verbage came from. Once again, we are reminded that the issue in Mark's mind is that he is so oft misquoted and misunderstood.

5. Regarding Carolyn Haggard - there you go, I bet you could hire a woman to fix the whole problem. :)

6. This was a good statement - "inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back." Then we are again reminded of how tragic it is that Mark is so often misperceived, misunderstood, and taken personally by those who find his remarks offensive. Plenty of blame-shifting happening here.

7. Finally, it is not his theology! That is not what offends people. We understand differing theology. The problem is his rhetoric. They are not the same thing, and it's kind of slippery to imply that people have a problem with your theology when they confront your rude behavior.

Humility, transparency, being quick to take responsibility and quick to apologize - these are qualities that I find admirable and to be respected.

Thankfully, there was plenty of that in Rose Swetman's gracious blog post.


Anonymous said...

Great post!

I just wanted to say thank you, Grace, for being so mature and gracious throughout this whole thing. You have been a voice of reason when so many of us (myself included) have lost their heads.

Thank you for approaching this so gently, yet not wavering on your position. We need more women voices like yours out there.


Anonymous said...

Grace, that's a fair assessment.

Driscoll comes across as if he's been caught and is looking for an easy way out. He seems to sound like: "I have to be nice to the sensitive outsiders because they can't handle or understand me. Don't they know I love them?" Somehow there appears to be a lack of depth in how he comprehends this difficulty and it looks shallow as a result.

As for point 7, what's interesting is that Driscoll hasn't considered that his views may partly shape his commentary along with the damage it can cause, so staying steadfast doesn't quite resolve the issue.

Cynthia said...

Great thoughts, Grace. This is what stood out to me:

Mark Driscoll says, "But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back."

My thought?

Ephesians4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Stephen said...


i don't know; he really seems to have been humbled through this and seems to understand that he's got some soul work to do and some work to do on his communication skills. Rose seemed pretty positive about her encounter with Mark as did Paul and they were both in the room.

but perhaps you and many others need to see actual change before there's much faith in mark's turnaround. covey's bromide "you can't talk yourself out of something you've behaved yourself into" may pertain.


Anonymous said...


Good post. He keeps saying "clarification," but I simply don't see one.

I've been thinking a lot about inflammatory rhetoric which has become so prevalent everywhere including the Christian community. Or should I say especially?

I happened to read Job yesterday, and was strangely struck by the tone of God's direct dialogue with Satan in the first chapter. There is no shouting match, or exchange of insults and "righteous anger." God actually listened to Satan and treated him with respect.

Brother Maynard said...


Extremely rare that I might disagree, but perhaps I'm just reading differently; perhaps I've found my own 10' pole ;^)

James says "trials of various kinds" which one might suggest provides enough latitude to apply the passage to a trial of any kind which can have the effect of producing steadfastness. I think it's quite appropriate to suggest that our faith is tested by our own frailties (I know mine is), so the passage Driscoll quotes as having been helpful to him in this season is not misquoted. And after all, the post suggests that God is teaching him through it.

The protestors were characterized as representing themselves as Christians, after which Driscoll said, "Joining in the fray seemed to be an eclectic mix of non-Christians and anti-Christians who supported nearly every form of alternative lifestyle." He then goes on to speak charitably about his meeting with local pastors and leaders, including the organizer of the protest. In context, Driscoll is talking about local fuel to the fire which was causing some of his congregation to consider not attending his church this weekend. Whatever one thinks of the original protest idea, it sounds like the local bandwagon may not have shared the same ideals or objectives as the organizers. I'm only inferring from Driscoll's post, but I'd have been concerned too.

Driscoll's "misquoted" statements in his most recent post refer to Spurgeon, not to himself. This was not the only thing Spurgeon dealt with, but Driscoll says he found Spurgeon's (and Graham's) example helpful and instructive.

You say "rhetoric," he says "inflamatory language". Potayto, potahto, imho. I don't see blame-shifting here... what he said immediately after the comment you cite was, "I was also sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked." This isn't blame-shifting... taken with the rest of the paragraph which follows, I clearly saw the reflection of a man coming to grips with the wake that his words leave beyond his local Mars Hill context, something he wasn't fully aware of but is now learning. He even seems to be planning to hire someone to help him understand this in an ongoing way. Good on him for that.

Fundamentally, Mark was misunderstood... but I don't see any overtone of him whining that he's "so oft misquoted and misunderstood" in his post. I think you're insisting that you didn't misunderstand him, but in general, the judgement for that can only rest with the original transmitter of the message, not the receiver.

Perhaps Mark was misunderstood because he voiced something poorly... but that certainly doesn't mean he wasn't in fact misunderstood. Perhaps you can blame him for not speaking clearly, but it's not appropriate to insist that he did mean what he says he didn't mean. I'm not quite certain if this is the tack you're taking though.

At the end of the day, it's possible that not everyone defines Driscoll's "offence" the same way. I wasn't sitting in a living room with any pastors, leaders, protest-organizers, and Mark Driscoll, so I have to defer to them... and following the meeting, those people all have a better understanding of one another and the protest was cancelled. I think it would be naieve to think that the resulting blog posts cover everything that was said, but the end result seems to be that everyone is putting this to rest.

I do recognize that there are some who are going to feel as you do that Driscoll still hasn't apologized enough... and even if he issued one more statement that satisfied you and half of the other people who want more, there will always be others who won't let him off the hook, ever. Personally, I think it's time to move on. I like your list of admirable qualities, but I would add another... "quick to forgive". Reading Rose's post, I think it's fair to say that the whole thing got out of hand on all sides, but in person, wisdom prevailed, and the entire list of admirable qualities, including forgiveness, seems to have been exhibited in that room.

Obviously, I'm not reading Driscoll at all the same way as you are, and I could be wrong... but it seems to me that some of your responses could seem to mischaracterize what Driscoll actually wrote in his most recent post on the affair. Personally, I'm hoping we can all move on, and hope not to unravel the work that was done in their meeting the other night.

There's a lot of controversy within Christendom, but for outsiders, a major measure of our faith will be how we deal with it and what we overlook, rightly and wrongly.

grace said...

Lily, jadon, cynthia, and david,
Thank you for your comments.

I hope that the real people involved in this issue are truly satisfied with the results. I believe that reconciliation is an awesome thing.

Mark has nothing to prove to me. All of my interaction about this has been in response to words written in blog posts. Other than that, he is a stranger to me.

I pray that he grows and is blessed in all that God has for him. The people who are actually involved in his life will be the people affected by his change of heart.

Brother Maynard,
I am honored by your thorough response. It's just too bad you don't agree with me. :)

I would claim that the post was a result of a margarita followed by an Alka Seltzer, but I mostly still agree with it this morning.

Before I go much further, I will admit that my grid for Mark isn't the most favorable. However, that grid is only based on his 3 posts about this. I have no longstanding offense with him, I just find myself put off by his tone.

I agree that we can learn from our mistakes, so yes the passage in James could be applied this way. Is our perspective then that God is teaching us in our frailities or that we are the victim of the trials that others have brought upon us?

As to the protest, I'm glad it's called off. I don't think it was a good idea. And, as I said to Stephen, I am extremely happy that this was a positive outcome for the real people involved.

Probably the main point of my post is in number 2. It seems to me that a month ago, a simple apology for a rude comment would have prevented all of the ensuing drama.

My biggest question has been - why, from the very beginning, didn't we hear the simple statement, "My comments were rude. I'm sorry. That's not what I intended."

I admit to having a low tolerance for discussion that is circular and not straightforward. I am sure that this has colored my perception of these "clarifications."

The clarifications and explanations have seemed insincere and unnecessary to me because of the glaring lack of an apology. I understand that this is just my perspective as an outsider.

I don't believe that I am chronically dissatisfied with Mark and unwilling to let him off the hook, but I do regret that by posting my thoughts about this I have come across that way.

What Mark does from this point is between him, God, and the people in his life. While I may in the future comment on his public comments, I hold no grudge against him. Honestly, I will most likely refrain from reading his material.

It is always a judgment call deciding when and how to wade into a discussion. Perhaps I should have overlooked the latest post and not shared my perspective.

aBhantiarna Solas said...

My biggest question has been - why, from the very beginning, didn't we hear the simple statement, "My comments were rude. I'm sorry. That's not what I intended."

Grace, that's a very interesting question. In a very roundabout manner, I think MD has said this. One must search his second 2 blog posts piecemeal to find it. But I think it's there. That's the short answer.

The long answer is that we rarely hear this sort of humility and conciliation from our leaders (secular or Christian) anymore. We've lost the ability to reconcile our failings in public. One would imagine that Christians as fallen but forgiven would be able to admit failings in public and ask forgiveness readily. But I think we're even less likely to do so. I think we ask more perfection of our leaders because of the culture we've built up around them. I think this whole discussion has been really important and has shown not only MD's failings as a pastor, but our cultural failings as a Body. I think it's the same pressures that kept Ted Haggard captive in his sin are what kept Mark Driscoll from coming out and directly apologizing to those he knows he's hurt. It's really quite a sad commentary on all of us.

I've appreciated your perspective on this even when I haven't quite agreed with it. So please keep sharing. Iron does sharpen iron, but the process throws off a few sparks ;-)

Jude said...

Mark keeps trying to clarify and explain, while those who oppose him want him to apologize. In the end, I have to think that he really believes he has nothing to apologize for. I have yet to read a single person who felt his remarks reflected badly on Mrs. Haggard, yet this is what he thinks went wrong.

Either he doesn't understand how his remarks are offensive, in which case I question his ability to think clearly and logically.

Or he totally understands it but really believes what he said (that certain pastors' wives are lazy and feel that they have trapped their husbands and can let themselves go) One can't apologize for what one truly believes so he keeps trying to deflect through clarifications that have nothing to do with the true offense.

Brother Maynard said...


What a fine response... you know, it's more fun to disagree with you than to agree with some people: better conversation. ;^)

My comments mostly left your #2 point alone, recognizing it for what it is; that was intentional.

Comments by aBhantiarna and Jude are helpful I think in understanding what's at play. I think the sought-after apology isn't coming, not in the desired form. The difficult part is that as Jude points out, it's possible Mark can't apologize for the remark any more than he would apologize for a theological view of man as totally depraved... it doeesn't matter who's offended by the view, no apology is due.

Brother Maynard said...

...because in context, that's just the way he sees it.

(It's been a long day, I'm leaving stuff out now!)

grace said...

I appreciate having blogging friends who are willing to comment even when they don't agree with me.

Do you think that as the Body, we would see Mark as diminished and weakened if he were to truly apologize? I had a friend who believed that a leader should never admit mistakes publicly. I have trouble understanding that way of thinking. If that is our culture, I hope it changes.

I guess that's the bottom line, one doesn't apologize if they don't believe they are wrong.

Brother Maynard,
I'm glad you're enjoying the conversation. I think you are right in that Mark isn't willing to see his error in this situation. As far saying he "can't" apologize, I would suggest that he won't.

Most of us teach our children in the preschool years the basics of apology when an offense has occurred. It is not difficult, but does require sincerity and humility.

And I agree with you that forgiveness is possible and necessary whether or not there is an apology.

Brother Maynard said...

Thanks, Grace. To clarify, I'd probably say he can't see and therefore won't apologize. Not sure he isn't willing to see, that's beyond our ability to tell from a distance. It's quite possible (probable?) he sees the issue but doesn't agree with the heart of it, so wouldn't be apologizing.

I recall a (controlling) leader pointing out something he didn't like in me, wanting me to repent, apologize, whatever. I declined to do so, explaining to him that I could not repent of something I couldn't see or didn't agree was wrong... and to do so would not be genuine, would not have integrity. He went away disappointed and I went away in integrity. Had it been a public issue (it wasn't, but I can't even recall what it was) it may have been different and I may have been able to issue an apology for the effect of my words or actions, since they perhaps would have caused results I was sorry about because they were unintended... whether or not I thought I'd done anything wrong to begin with.

I think that may be what Mark Driscoll is doing here... nobody's going to get him to apologize for what he believes, but he seems to be sorry about the consequences of his words, which is important. Many will say it's not enough, but I wouldn't want to see the importance of that step diminished.

It took a long time for the leaders of the shepherding movement to apologize and recant, because they didn't think they were wrong... and it took a long time for them to see it. Driscoll won't be apologizing for a complimentarian view anytime soon either. I don't know if that's the root cause of the misunderstanding here, but it seems likely that they're intertwined. Compimentarianism may be distasteful, offensive, or hurtful to some, but at least it doesn't devastate people's lives to the extent the shepherding movement did.

Now I'm probably going to get flamed about complimentarianism, but it's not something I would want to delve into here... and I'm not going to defend it anyway. ;^)

Corrie said...

Brother Maynard,

You say that Mark was misunderstood but I missed where Mark clarified his statement about the pastor's wives he knew and helped people to understand what it was that he was trying to say. So, he wasn't saying that pastor's wives have let themselves go and most of them were sexually unavailable in the way of Song of Solomon?

What did he really mean/say? I still don't understand how he was misunderstood.

I would really like him to define what "letting one's self go" means? What does that look like? Can churches assume that if a pastor's wife doesn't look like Mark's wife or Mark's idea of what a woman who hasn't let herself go looks like has a pastor who is more prone to struggle with wanting to have sex with other women? Mark made a comment in one of his sermons about telling his wife that she has to go shopping because she looks "too much like a mom".

What does that mean? What does that mean for other women? Moms should look like.......what?

I am sincerely confused as to what Mark means when he talks about a woman's appearance. I would like him to give a few examples of what it means for a woman to "let herself go". Plenty of his defenders said people read all kinds of things into that phrase but how do they know that he didn't mean those things when he has never clarified it?

The problem isn't that any of us thought he was speaking of Mrs. Haggard. We knew he wasn't because he clearly was speaking of the pastors' wives he knew PERSONALLY.

Grace, I think you covered many of the things that still concern me. Thank you. He might change his rhetoric/inflammatory language but has his attitude changed towards women and how a woman should look in order to keep her husband faithful to her. What concerns me is where he gets this attitude from. I don't find it in scripture. I do find it to be worldly. What influences his thinking concerning these things? Has he allowed the Lord to transform his mind according to Romans 12:1 concerning the over-emphasis on looks? Doesn't our world already put way TOO much emphasis on the looks of a woman? Are we supposed to be thinking like the world?

If I have misunderstood Mark and what he meant, could someone show me where he took back what he said about the pastors' wives that he knows and how he has apologized to those particular women?

grace said...

Brother Maynard,
I don't think that someone should have to apologize for false accusations. Questioning someone's motives can be very unclear and subjective.

The paragraph of Mark's words that most people found offensive has been obvious by the public response. It is a concrete offense, written in black and white.

While he may regret the reaction his words have caused, he has yet to take responsibility for saying them and to apologize for the hurt and drama they caused.

I think that those who expect Mark to apologize for his complementarian beliefs have an unrealistic expectation. The fact that this is being demanded by some only complicates the matter.

I haven't been upset with Mark in any of this. Like all of us, he is ultimately responsible for his words and behavior.

I hope that the people who are actually in relationship with Mark will continue to hold him accountable for his attitudes and comments concerning women.

Trish said...

I think Brother Maynard is correct and you've made a mountain out of a molehill. I'm a woman and found no insult much less any harm done. Sometimes the truth hurts but love rejoices in the truth.

Gary Means said...

Thank you so much for your calm and reasoned exploration of this situation.

Mark is a troll. (but then again, some would say that I am too.) I use the term loosely. One definition of a troll is someone who intentionally posts inflammatory messages online without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. While Mark's arenas of choice are his pulpit and his blog, it appears that Mark likes to be cute, clever, and/or controversial when he makes statements, like saying that all women pastors are ungodly and possibly demonic.

Here are more Mark Driscoll quotes. Perhaps I may be misunderstanding his intent, but I find them to be offensive. Of course, Mark would certainly refer to me as a "chickified dude" (one of his oft-repeated phrases) because of my sensitivity on these statements. Notice how the word "chick" is used as a pejorative term there.

Driscoll quotes:

"Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them."

"Every single book in your Bible is written by a man... Priesthood is reserved exclusively for godly men.";

"There is no occasion where women led a society and were its heads, and the men complied and followed. ... It's a matter of Biblical creation.".

"some women think they can do everything on their own, and that if men sit by idly like cowards because they don't want to get into with with their hot-headed, emotional, wives, eventually the women will take over the church, and then the church will go to hell."

"No woman wants a man to treat her like another man because if we do, you cry. Men are horrible to other men. And they don't cry. And if they do we mock them and tell everyone. That's probably not what you want. True story, right men? Right? My wife she tells me all the time, 'I'm not one of the guys,' which means I do not treat her like a man, does that mean I treat her with-- no, I treat her like a lady. See this whole gender conflict is if men-- you know, we're not about chauvinism, we're not about feminism, we are about chivalry. Men loving women in their femininity and not treating them like men but treating them like ladies. That's what we're about. The problem with women, though, who want to be treated like men, is as soon as you do, they say, 'You know what, you hurt my feelings. I'm a girl.'"

"Does it say, 'Ladies, don't have any questions'? Does it say that? No. Does it say, 'Ladies, don't disagree.' No. Does it say, 'Ladies, don't think for yourself.' When you disagree, when you're super-theological, when you're all fired up, the first thing you don't do is start yellin' at the pastor and yellin' at the church, firin' nasty e-mails, and declarin' war and puttin' together a, a, little group of, you know, feminist women with guns who are gonna make a difference....If you're married, you go talk to who? Your husband. .... 'Honey I was readin' the Bible, I don't understand.' He should say, 'Let's, let's study that together. Let's take some time, and study -- together.'"

And, in a public debate at Seattle Pacific University on the role of women, Mark stated that he would prefer an uneducated male farmhand to be a pastor rather than any seminary-trained woman pastor. When asked how the farmhand would do the job without being equipped for the job, Mark replied that God would give him the abilities to fullfill his make headship responsibilities as a pastor. Mark was then asked if there would be a role for the seminary-trained woman in that church leadership. He replied that there would be. She could lead a children's ministry or a women's group. At that point many women in the audience walked out.

This may seem like a molehill to some people, and many women at Mars Hill may be very comfortable with being viewed as inherently inferior to any man on the planet because of their gender.

I am not a woman, but from my perspective, this is spiritual abuse, and this is simply disrespectful. I have a very difficult time accepting it.

I believe Mark gave the best, most sincere apology he was capable of giving. But I don't believe it really means much. Even his supporters have said in various forums that Mark has a tendency to just shoot from the hip. The proof will be in the pudding.

Paul from PAF said he will not be conducting a "Mark watch" to make sure that Driscoll does not go back on his word to tone down the rhetoric. But I suspect that Mark will no longer easily be able to spew forth inflammatory and demeaning comments about women at will without attracting somebody's attention.

KSG said...

Grace, I posted this over at RobbyMac's blog but wanted to post it here as well (just to make sure you got it).

I agree, your conversation with Bro. Maynard was good. Thank you both for thinking differently but agreeably.

I look forward to reading more of your posts, your personal story resonates with me (similar to mine in many ways). I appreciate your experience and perspective. (I'll post this on your site as well)

Thanks Robby for allowing me to hijack this thread.

grace said...

In light of the wonderful reports from Rose, Paul, Dwight and others, I found Mark's post undermining of the reconciliation and disappointing. I still feel that way, just my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.

As you said, hopefully as a result of the latest meeting, Mark will take more responsibility for his public comments.

I have no expectation for him to change his theology concerning women. Mark's teaching is colored by his underlying theology, therefore I don't expect to agree with the things he says.

However, I believe it is possible for him to hold his theological views and also demonstrate a greater degree of love, kindness, and respect toward women. Admittedly this is more difficult when influenced by his underlying belief in the inferiority of women.

I believe that those who have experienced spiritual abuse are more watchful for the signs of healthy systems and healthy leaders.

The vagueness of Mark's apology and indirect manner of taking responsibility for his comments are a red flag.

Considering you are in the same town, I'm sure this affects you more directly.

It's nice to see you here. I've enjoyed reading your comments at Robby's blog. In fact, in the past I have clicked on your name a couple of times only to discover, you don't have a blog!

KSG said...

No blog (yet), just some of my photos...
I'll probably do a family blog soon but I think it will be fairly tame - limited to what's going on in our little world (we're moving soon and we'll be far away from most of our family).
Due to current church circumstances I'd have to do an anonymous blog (such as your own) if I wanted to speak my mind on those things.

radioguy said...

Politically Correct Censorship?

Here is a link to the KIRO News interview of the instigator of the protest against Pastor Driscoll. Judge for yourself:

Gary Means said...


No, it was not politically correct censorship. No one was trying to stop Mark from preaching his complementarian theology from his pulpit or on his blog. The intent was clearly to get him to refrain from inflammatory language which demeaned women.

I listened to most of the mp3 file of Dori Monson interviewing Paul Chapman. It was realy painful to listen to. Paul was an unarmed man against a seasoned veteran of the airwaves.

I like listening to Dori. I even agree with him much of the time. But Dori is consistent in his derision toward all whom he would claim "whine about being victimized" by some other group. This includes minorities. In many ways Dori seems like a classic Libertarian.

Dori felt that none of the Driscoll quotes provided were offensive. He also felt that Mark posed no threat to anyone, and that he really has no stature or influence in the community. He kept repeating, "If you don't like what Mark says, don't go to his church."

Dori dismissed the idea that Mark represented Christians, and Evangelicals in particular, to the broader, secular community because of his column in the Seattle Times. Dori laughed that off, saying that Mark only speaks for himself. Dori said, "I'm a Christian, and Mark Driscoll certainly doesn't speak for me." (may not be the exact wording)

I think that even if Paul had provided more quotes from Mark (which he declined to do for some reason), Dori would have essentially just told Paul (and anyone else who finds Mark Driscoll's comments to be offensive) to just avoid listening to or reading Mark Driscoll, and to stop whining and get a life.

Radioguy, I would guess that you would second that suggestion?

If this was just a bunch of liberal, politcally-correct whiners being hyper-sensitive, then Mark had nothng to apologize for. If so, then why did he apologize? Or did he really?

Anonymous said...


Here is what Michael Spencer has to say about telling the truth to people. You can find the whole essay, The Little Brothers of Saint Archie Bunker, at Btw, this article was written well before the Driscoll comments and has nothing to do with him, personally. Although, Archie Bunker is not a bad analogy now that I think about it.

"Third, the truth, even when it's true, can be cruel. And it's wrong--sinful, my pastor friend--to be cruel with the truth. It's a simple lesson in ethics. We don't tell a drooling madman with an ax where our children are, even if he asks and even if we believe it is wrong to be less than truthful. We don't have to say everything we think about Sister Bertha's suddenly purple hair or Brother Eddie's hair that appeared out of nowhere. We don't have to say everything we think our kids need to hear when they do something wrong. The employee under us isn't being treated right when we scour her every action for fault and announce it to her at the beginning of each conversation.

And it is not right, or loving or good, to bring the truth of your own theological or Biblical insights into every situation that strikes you. That may just roll over you the wrong way, and you may have scripture to back up your view. But I'm going to stand by that one. What's needed is an apt word. A timely word. A patient word. A word heard in the context of respect and relationship. What's not needed is the blinding light of opinion--or even truth--carried along by human energy rather than spiritual timing and preparation."

jeremy zach said...

This is exactly what I said. I did not even read your post right before I posted my comment about Driscoll.