Has too much hubub been made about the articles, responses, counter-responses, and counter-counter-responses with McLaren v. Driscoll? If you've missed it you can get it here. Andrew Jones has the most insightful responseto all the dust and smoke stirred up by all the bantering. Here's an appetizer:

Both men are disappointments. Brian McLaren is the worlds worst liberal - He may smile like a liberal and he certainly has the tone of voice of a liberal, he may even aspire to become a liberal to reach liberals but he frustrates his critics by not claiming to be a liberal nor holding liberal beliefs. He certainly reads their books and listens respectfully to their arguments - as we all should do - but at the end of the day, he is not a liberal and he certainly is not a pan-entheist. Many of his critics (who are many) solve this problem with a guilt-by-association game, which could be called "Six Degrees of Separation From Matthew Fox", which is interesting but not always convincing. Because when Brian eventually comes to what he is trying to say, there is scant real evidence to back up the claims that he is heretical.

Andrew continues:

Mark Driscoll is also disappointing as a radical. His emerging church has an unexpectedly traditional structure. And, moreover, his angst-ridden antics on stage (and now the blogs) attract those looking for blood but it turns out that he is actually a big softy and a loving pastor and friend - a nice guy who enjoys riveting, extreme conversation bordering on the violent.
Rude? Yes.
Spiteful? No!
Up to something? Probably, but love believes the best.

READ MORE...