|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mars Hill & Bethel
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
I've been hearing a lot about the churches "Bethel" and "Mars Hill" lately, and I was wandering what the ship thought about them?
For what its worth I can safely say that my encounter with Bethel has been via its very repetitive music...
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is no collective 'Ship' take on these things ... although I suspect most Shippies would be wary of both Mars Hill and Bethel. I certainly am. Meanwhile, check out Eutychus's links.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did you miss this answer to your previous post?
I did but they didn't explain a huge amount of what is happening... They all seemed to comment on a specific event (such as the suggested mass resurrection)...
Also, I was conscious that I didn't want to derail that thread with any comments that didn't deal specifically with the "Strange Fire" conference.
For what it is worth, the main preacher at Mars Hill seems to be hyper-Reformed in much of his thinking... his ten commandment series essentially suggested that any images of Christ were wrong...
Bethel's music is being quite heavily promoted where I am, and it seems to me to be quite hypnotic in it's use of repetition... perhaps I'm being over-cautious but I was wondering what people thought about it...
Which is a bit different from what the other threads were talking about (some of them being quite old, and I thought maybe the groupings might have changed since those threads, as I am only hearing about them in my part of British Christianity now)...
Sorry if I have annoyed anyone with the creation of this thread... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right
An important question which Mars Hill do you mean? I am not sure those two are the only two.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A Sojourner:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did you miss this answer to your previous post?
I did but they didn't explain a huge amount of what is happening... They all seemed to comment on a specific event (such as the suggested mass resurrection)...
What is happening is just a generalisation of those specific events.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, I suppose one thing the two have in common is that they are or were quite popular in some corners of NewFrontiers (and perhaps New Wine).
As such they epitomise the gulf that NewFrontiers attempts to straddle between "Reformed" teaching (Driscoll) and whacky charismatic "theology" (Bethel).
To my mind Driscoll publicises complementarianism the way Michael O'Leary publicises Ryanair: deliberately provocatively and rudely. Bethel thrives (for now) on a model driven by big-name conferences and from you what you post it sounds as if they've got in on the "let's spread our ideas by marketing our worship broadly" business model.
The other thing these two movements have in common is that they appear to be virtually unheard-of outside a relatively small quadrant of evangelicalism. They are not having the world-changing effect you might imagine from their literature.
Errors and omissions excepted.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Reformed stable is a broad one - and some Reformed people don't really consider others who are considered Reformed (or reformed) by the rest of us as properly Reformed.
For instance, some Presbyterians don't consider Baptists to be Reformed, however much they prefix themselves with the term 'Reformed' - as in 'Reformed Baptists'.
I s'pose all Reformed Christians are Reformed but some are more Reformed than others ...
Driscoll strikes me as at the populist end of the spectrum which can give broader Reformed Christianity something of a bad name.
One could argue that groups like Sovereign Grace (C J Mahaney et al) and New Frontiers ended up with the worst of both worlds to some extent ... a kind of selective, edited-highlights version of Reformed, Calvinistic Christianity fused with a degree of charismatic excess ...
I'm becoming increasingly less 'reformed' the older I get although I retain admiration for many folks within that stable and for some of its emphases - although I think it runs the danger of becoming rather arid and Scholastic if it isn't careful.
I'm certainly prepared to cut reformed evangelicals a lot more slack than I am Bethel and its wannabes and look-a-likes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
I think Mark Driscoll is quite possibly one of the most offensive, chauvinistic, and spiritually abusive 'pastors' in the national lime-light. His comments about women, his persistent focus on macho/manliness, and his use of vulgarity from the pulpit (sometimes screamed at the audience) would be enough to convince me to stay a mile away from him. He has been at the heart of much controversy for his offensive remarks about effeminate worship leaders, other pastors wives 'letting themselves go', and much more; yet I've never heard a true apology, admittance of wrong-doing, or confession of repentance from him regarding anything at all.
Also, Google "Mark Driscoll abuse" and you will find that there are multiple support groups, blogs, and virtual refuges for those who have come out of his church traumatized by his controlling and abusive 'style' (he himself mentioned in a sermon that there was a 'mountain of bodies behind the Mars Hill bus' then chuckled about it).
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
As an evangelical, the best thing about having to endure Driskoll as the crazy-drunk-uncle-who-shows-up-for-Thanksgiving-dinner, is that his bizarrely adolescent hijinks so often give opportunity for the evangelical brethren I really love to offer a gentle correction-- like this response (scroll down) by Shane Clairborne:
scroll past Driskoll dribble to get to the good stuff
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
This sort of thing sometimes makes me wish I were a Lutheran. They seem so . . . sane. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks for posting that link, cliffdweller. Great stuff! A snippet that sums it up for me:
'I can’t help but think that Mark [Driscoll] has been more shaped by the worldview of those who put Jesus on the cross than the One who hung on it.'
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
Mars Hill gets a lot of press around Seattl . They're constantly expanding and have a really ddismissive attitude toward other churches.
Our neighbor is pastor of a church that MH approached about buying their building to use for weddings (it's close to the main MH "campus"). MH seemed disdainful toward their congregation's older demographic.
Personally, I once visited MH and wasn't impressed.
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suppose it's not unusual for growing churches to have a troubled relationship with their neighbours; sometimes the growth of one contributes to the decline of another. But we have to ask ourselves how it is that an unpleasant person can pastor an expanding church in the first place. Wouldn't people rather go to a church with a friendly pastor?
This man's success upturns the mainstream view that churches have to be welcoming and accommodating in order to attract members, and that defection from the church is a regrettable reality that's best ignored. Whether or not we approve of this man's behaviour or theology, it should give us pause for thought.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that's an interesting conundrum, SvitlanaV2. I think the answer lies in the uncertain times we live in. People want certainty and sometimes it can be an over-bearing or even abusive leader who appears to provide that.
It's no accident, I don't think, that people tend to rally around rather rigid positions or causes. It'll be the very rigidity and apparent lack of compromise - 'they're really preaching the Gospel here' - which will be the magnet that draws many to Mars Hill and its ilk, irrespective of what flaws there might be in the methodology, the theology and the behaviour of the leaders.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I also wonder if that rigidity and abrasiveness leads eventually to a high burn-out rate? It's striking how many 'refuge from abuse' web-sites there are now about Mars Hill, although having said that, there are probably similar sites in relation to other branches of Christianity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also wonder if that rigidity and abrasiveness leads eventually to a high burn-out rate? It's striking how many 'refuge from abuse' web-sites there are now about Mars Hill...
I think you're right, quetzalcoatl. How many 'refuge from liberal Anglicanism' websites are there, for example?! Or (and I hesitate to check) how many relating to my lot, the Vineyard?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suspect that in the case of Anglicanism, liberal and otherwise, and the Vineyard, most of those who become disillusioned for one reason or another, tend to simply slip away quietly.
I don't go along with some of the Vineyard emphases but I've never come across accusations of heavy-handedness and abusive or abrasive leadership.
I wouldn't say that the Anglicans were entirely free of such tendencies - it does happen.
To an extent, though, with the likes of Mars Hill I suspect that one might have a clue what to expect before getting involved. It's not as if it's somewhere that is known for its tact and diplomacy.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
May I suggest that the simple reason is there are no Liberal Anglican Congregations the size of Mars Hill not because anything special about Liberal Anglicans. There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Did I say there was anything special about Liberal Anglicans?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Of course there are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars. And abusive other-types-of-Anglican-vicars and abusive anything-else ministers and clergy.
I acknowledged as much in my post.
Are you cutting Mars Hill more slack simply because it happens to be on the Reformed side of the spectrum?
Abuse is abuse and crap is crap irrespective of where it occurs.
And there's plenty of pong coming from Mars Hill.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
May I suggest that the simple reason is there are no Liberal Anglican Congregations the size of Mars Hill not because anything special about Liberal Anglicans. There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.
Maybe... It'd be interesting to compare the reports and experiences of people leaving large churches across various denominations. Although I note your point, JJ, that liberal Anglicanism doesn't have any such large churches!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.
This is true. There are abusive people everywhere. And while I do not think the selection and management of Anglican clergy is without fault I think I baulk at being tarred with the same brush as this MH guy. We (Anglican Clergy) do have checks and balances this guy does not seem too.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
People want certainty and sometimes it can be an over-bearing or even abusive leader who appears to provide that.
It's no accident, I don't think, that people tend to rally around rather rigid positions or causes. It'll be the very rigidity and apparent lack of compromise - 'they're really preaching the Gospel here' - which will be the magnet that draws many to Mars Hill and its ilk, irrespective of what flaws there might be in the methodology, the theology and the behaviour of the leaders.
The problem is, it's all very well for the more liberal churches to highlight the flaws that exist in 'rigid' churches, but if the former offer little certainty in exchange, what do the latter stand to gain?
I tend to think that for all the sophisticated theology that the mainstream churches have to offer, their main gift to the other churches is the tantalising offer of respectability. For all its growth and swagger, what Mars Hill will never have is respectability - unless it rubs down its rough edges. And one day it might decide to take that path.
[ 26. October 2013, 16:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see what you're getting at and where you're coming from and of course there is an equal and opposite problem with the less apparently doctrinaire churches - and I've known plenty of pretty doctrinaire liberals come to think on't, who're just as doctrinaire about not pinning things down as some conservatives are about reducing everything to an easily rally-roundable set of propositions.
These things cut both ways. Life is messy.
I'm not sure that it's simply respectability that some of the more mainstream churches offer. Space and room to breathe is part of the attraction too, I would imagine.
Back in my more full-on evangelical charismatic days I found that I thoroughly enjoyed visiting less 'lively' and more apparently 'formal' churches when on holiday because I didn't feel under pressure to perform in any way nor was I continually exhorted to act or behave in a certain way ... 'raise your hands, do this, do that, let's have a shout-offering for the Lord ...' yadda yadda yadda ...
Mars Hill will have a certain amount of cachet and 'respectability' within its own ambit, though. In a different way to the more traditional or 'mainstream' churches in the area but a certain hegemonic 'status' none the less on account of its size and clout.
So I'm not sure that the respectability thing applies in quite the way you're suggesting. The US is also very different in church-scene terms to the UK, so the kind of things you may have in mind based on the UK experience may not match across quite so neatly.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure that it's simply respectability that some of the more mainstream churches offer. Space and room to breathe is part of the attraction too, I would imagine.
I do agree with this, on a personal level. These days I often attend a particular Anglican church because very little is asked of me there. (I avoid the pressure that would greet me at other churches where I'm better known.) But on an institutional level I can't see how this characteristic is terribly beneficial.
quote:
Mars Hill will have a certain amount of cachet and 'respectability' within its own ambit, though. In a different way to the more traditional or 'mainstream' churches in the area but a certain hegemonic 'status' none the less on account of its size and clout.
So I'm not sure that the respectability thing applies in quite the way you're suggesting. The US is also very different in church-scene terms to the UK, so the kind of things you may have in mind based on the UK experience may not match across quite so neatly.
The respectability angle came to mind on reading Al Eluia's post above:
quote:
Mars Hill gets a lot of press around Seattl . They're constantly expanding and have a really ddismissive attitude toward other churches.
Our neighbor is pastor of a church that MH approached about buying their building to use for weddings (it's close to the main MH "campus"). MH seemed disdainful toward their congregation's older demographic.
Personally, I once visited MH and wasn't impressed.
To me, this indicates that Mars Hill is currently revelling in being a local 'bad boy' among the other churches. It doesn't respect churches that have probably been there much longer. It doesn't feel as though it has anything to learn from those other churches. But one day it might - perhaps when its own constituency ages, or when it runs out of steam. It's at that point that we notice the turn to respectability.
I accept that the USA is different from the UK, but similar developments are apparent in both countries, such as in the case of the Methodist Church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, yes, I can see what you're getting at here, SvitlanaV2 and am broadly in agreement.
I think you're right about the appeal on a personal level of the more historic or 'institutional' churches and how that might not translate across to a wider appeal at an institutional level. Yes, I reckon that's a sound observation.
I suspect, though, that many of those who feel drawn in some way to the historic churches on a personal level aren't so interested in the institutional aspects as those looking in from the 'outside'. It would be possible to be involved with an Anglican parish for years without getting embroiled with Diocesan politics or even the PCC and so on unless one wanted to.
On the respectability thing, what I had in mind was also triggered by El Aleluia's post, but from a slightly different direction. I suspect that Mars Hill as currently constituted thinks of itself as 'respectable' in terms of being closer to the Truth and so on than those other churches it looks down on. I say this because that's what our attitude was, essentially, when I was back in the restorationist new-churches in the 1980s ... although things have moved on a lot since then.
I think you're right that eventually, once the current rather abrasive leadership tires or is replaced, Mars Hill will begin to reach out more warmly to other churches in the area. This happened with the UK 'new churches' too. And, as you say, similar tendencies can be observed in the history of denominations like the Methodists.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Conservative Americans (both politically and theologically) often seem to revel in their "disrespectability". I would say that's particularly true with Mars Hill. Driscoll seems to enjoy pushing the boundaries to deliberately shock/offend-- often in ways that look very adolescent (i.e. shock for shock's sake, rather than anything substantive behind it). As Gamaliel pointed out, that may change with the next generation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll seems to enjoy pushing the boundaries to deliberately shock/offend-- often in ways that look very adolescent (i.e. shock for shock's sake, rather than anything substantive behind it).
I've heard that his preaching can be quite crude regarding sexual matters. Well, I suppose you could say that he's simply reflecting the openness that exists in popular culture, and his listeners are totally familiar with that culture, so it's not shocking to them. It's only shocking to people who don't attend his church, and have no intention of doing so.
It would be interesting to know what kind of people do attend his church, and why it appeals to them over and above the alternatives.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At a guess, religious and theological conservatives who feel that they are selecting something that puts them on the cutting-edge and makes them more radical than the mainstream. As Cliffdweller says, the type of conservative American who likes to see themselves as being maverick or against the grain, slightly disreputable when it comes to the status-quo ...
There is, I'm afraid, a kind of populist 'onery-ness' about some of this crowd - an anti-intellectual, we're-all-ornery-down-home-folks and you can't tell us nuttin' attitude. Imagine Tykes (Yorkshire folk) and Texans somehow cut loose and floated over to Seattle ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Personally, I think Mark Driscoll acts like a cult leader, and that his church/fight club/whatever it is, is as representative of Evangelical Christianity, or even Calvinist Christianity, as Oral Roberts was an exemplar of Methodism. His idiosyncratic theology seems more grounded in his ambition and male insecurity than in...well, the Gospel. And -- he's an ignorant, misogynistic, controlling and abusive ass, and a bad neighbor to the rest of the community as he attempts to geographically expand his little theological fiefdom in Seattle.
Here's the Facebook page of Stuff Christian Culture Likes , an online presence that critiques/pokes fun of the more bizarre permutations of American pop Christianity; its originator and her spouse had a former connection to Mars Hill, and she is especially critical of Driscoll.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll seems to enjoy pushing the boundaries to deliberately shock/offend-- often in ways that look very adolescent (i.e. shock for shock's sake, rather than anything substantive behind it).
I've heard that his preaching can be quite crude regarding sexual matters. Well, I suppose you could say that he's simply reflecting the openness that exists in popular culture, and his listeners are totally familiar with that culture, so it's not shocking to them. It's only shocking to people who don't attend his church, and have no intention of doing so.
It would be interesting to know what kind of people do attend his church, and why it appeals to them over and above the alternatives.
Some of his large numbers might have to do with niche marketing. It's not that there's millions of conservative evangelicals looking for a misogynistic, militaristic frat-boy church. It's that there are precisely 9000 of them (or whatever his current membership is) and there are very few others willing to cater to that particular fetish-- thank God.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Some of his large numbers might have to do with niche marketing. It's not that there's millions of conservative evangelicals looking for a misogynistic, militaristic frat-boy church. It's that there are precisely 9000 of them (or whatever his current membership is) and there are very few others willing to cater to that particular fetish-- thank God.
Additionally, until a few years back the leadership of Mars Hill was a plurality, and at least internally he had far more corrective influences than he has currently. So it was still possible to be part of the church and assume that a lot of what was going on was a phase that would pass.
You can see this by what happened when they changed their membership covenants - and the ensuing loss of membership (part of those 'bodies under the bus' no doubt).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I'd hate to miss a chance to say something negative about Mark Driscoll and Bethel. While the 20th-century evangelical movements have produced some very positive effects, one of the negative ones is the marketisation of their religion. Mars Hill is literally a brand. People follow the likes of Driscoll for similar reasons that they'll follow any cult leader—Charles Manson, Jim Jones, the Rev'd Moon and so on. There have been some pretty good observations already made on this thread about Driscoll's behaviour and theological ignorance, but one problem with narcissistic mega-church types is that they often see any kind of criticism as evidence of their righteousness. That helps him maintain the insiders-versus-outsiders paradigm. One just has to wait for churches like his to eat itself or implode. No amount of shaming him or exposing his abuses (which are many) will change someone like that.
As for Bethel, Bill Johnson and his chums are just plain deluded. Worse than that, they are liars and deceivers. They know perfectly well that their 'miracles' are fakes (poke around and you'll find the ex-Bethel recovery groups and they've been forthcoming about the con). Any attempt (and to be fair they make very few attempts) to prove any of them have revealed them to be con artists. His full delusional state (and theological confusion) was made apparent in his book—roundly panned by pretty much everyone outside of his circle.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I'd agree with pretty much all of that, Komensky, and I'm at the credulous end of the charismatic belief spectrum (it seems from other discussions on here!).
Perhaps a good test to apply is whether the person / church / organisation points people towards Christ or towards themselves. Is it all about helping people become followers of Jesus, or rather about drawing people in to Mars Hill etc? He must become greater...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Just dashing in to share a bit of news dropped on facebook by Shane Clairborne, who gives a shout-out to an organization of Canadian evangelicals called epiphaneia that organizes various sorts of quirky fun evangelical gatherings. Clairborne writes:
quote:
Recently, they hosted a shadow conference of the "Act Like Men" conference called "Act Like Men?" and used the proceeds to provide scholarship funds for women pastors, hoping to create the "Mark Driscoll Scholarship Fund for Women in Ministry".
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
You know what pissed me off most today? Reading that one of those atheist churches has been founded in Nashville.
Because I'm pretty sure that God, whatever else he thinks, (sorry to make your relativistic eyes cry on this), really hates atheism.
Whereas, apparently, some posters here rejoice at the very concept that Mars Hill might 'implode', or otherwise wish his church harm (though it still seems to be growing, sorry about that too).
And yeah of course Mark D has some mixed motives and some messed up internal currents. I disagree with him on plenty of things, and wouldn't say that I'm part of his tradition.
BUT I care less about him than all the people who weren't Christians at all before, cus they thought Christians were weak and irrelevant, but who are now because of Driscoll (and I'd bet a lot of money that there are more of them than non-Christians who turned away because of him). That is MUCH more important than any 'ooo he's a megalomaniac' stuff that's coming up here. Maybe its true, but do I think it outweights the good? hell no.
And because I think God is good, I don't think he's going to punish Mars Hill-ites for believing in him because of a somewhat messed-up pastor (cus theres plenty of them). He'll just celebrate that they believe. What? people have impure motives for belief? Shock horror..
Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horatio Harumph
Shipmate
# 10855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
Yes. Yes I believe he does more harm than good to the 'Body of Christ'.
--------------------
www.helenblogs.com
@helen_a13
Chocolate is proof that God wants us to be happy.
Posts: 2857 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
Y'see, I'm not one of those Calvinist types. I don't believe once-saved-always-saved. Thus, I genuinely believe that people who Mark Driscoll turns off church are people that had the potential to be saved, but his crass offensiveness turned them off. Do we say 'Hallelujah amen' when someone manages to save one person, but totally switches off from Christ ninety-nine others by a message that told better could have saved the whole hundred?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horatio Harumph
Shipmate
# 10855
|
Posted
P.S meant to add a 'seriously' to that line I just posted.
Yes I seriously believe he does more harm than good.
--------------------
www.helenblogs.com
@helen_a13
Chocolate is proof that God wants us to be happy.
Posts: 2857 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
You know what pissed me off most today? Reading that one of those atheist churches has been founded in Nashville.
Because I'm pretty sure that God, whatever else he thinks, (sorry to make your relativistic eyes cry on this), really hates atheism.
Whereas, apparently, some posters here rejoice at the very concept that Mars Hill might 'implode', or otherwise wish his church harm (though it still seems to be growing, sorry about that too).
And yeah of course Mark D has some mixed motives and some messed up internal currents. I disagree with him on plenty of things, and wouldn't say that I'm part of his tradition.
BUT I care less about him than all the people who weren't Christians at all before, cus they thought Christians were weak and irrelevant, but who are now because of Driscoll (and I'd bet a lot of money that there are more of them than non-Christians who turned away because of him). That is MUCH more important than any 'ooo he's a megalomaniac' stuff that's coming up here. Maybe its true, but do I think it outweights the good? hell no.
And because I think God is good, I don't think he's going to punish Mars Hill-ites for believing in him because of a somewhat messed-up pastor (cus theres plenty of them). He'll just celebrate that they believe. What? people have impure motives for belief? Shock horror..
Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
I think God hates Mark Driscoll and his abusive, bullying 'church' that is being made in the name of God far, far more than He hates atheists trying to build community and be nice to one another.
Yes, I seriously believe Driscoll does more harm than good to the Body of Christ - indeed I'm not sure he does any good at all. No believers at all is better than believers signed up to this wolf in sheep's clothing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Judgement begins with the household of God,' ButchCassidy.
I'm not bothered how many atheist churches open up in Nashville or anywhere else for that matter. An atheist church is an oxymoron, of course, but all they're doing is drawing attention to the real thing. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
God's big enough to look after the atheists and he's big enough to cope with Mars Hill. For reasons best known to himself, he leaves everyone else to deal with the fall-out and the fall-out from places like Mars Hill ain't pretty.
Of course, the apostle Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached, whatever the motive, but we can't use that as a get-out-of-jail free card for the likes of Driscoll.
Atheists aren't our business in one sense. Jerks like Driscoll are, unfortunately ... as indeed are our own individual sins, naffness and numptiness.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I know a guy who visited Mars a few years back and said the sermon was a rambling mess that ended wirh an insistence that wives need to be "visually available" to their husbands and so should always dress and undress when their husband is in the room and have sex with the lights on! My friend was amused that someone would preach their particular kink as gospel but it sounds like the basis of a great deal of what goes on there.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
Y'see, I'm not one of those Calvinist types. I don't believe once-saved-always-saved. Thus, I genuinely believe that people who Mark Driscoll turns off church are people that had the potential to be saved, but his crass offensiveness turned them off. Do we say 'Hallelujah amen' when someone manages to save one person, but totally switches off from Christ ninety-nine others by a message that told better could have saved the whole hundred?
Sadly, I get the feeling that far more people are turned off Christianity in quite normal, mainstream churches. These are the kinds of churches that most people are likely to be connected to, after all. But their disengagement is far less dramatic and newsworthy than the people who are turned off by Mr Driscoll and his ilk.
It'd be very interesting to know how the mainstream churches in the area are responding to the presence of Driscoll's church(es). Maybe the Driscoll effect has actually had a positive outcome for some of them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I know a guy who visited Mars a few years back
Wow! How did he get there? Stowaway with the Mars Rover? Hitched a lift with a passing Vogon Constructor Fleet?
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I know a guy who visited Mars a few years back
Wow! How did he get there? Stowaway with the Mars Rover? Hitched a lift with a passing Vogon Constructor Fleet?
Astral projection.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Butch: This Lutheran would rather sing first chair in the choir of one of the new atheist churches than darken the doorway of Mars Hill. And I'm sure my and my spouse's presence would be more accepted at the former than at the latter.
[ 07. November 2013, 23:38: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It'd be very interesting to know how the mainstream churches in the area are responding to the presence of Driscoll's church(es).
Depends on what you mean by 'mainstream' - I presume you don't mean 'mainline'. Most of them are just continuing to do what they've always done without much fuss - largely unaffected by the nutjob down the road.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
ButchCassidy makes some good points (although oddly placed, since what we're doing here seems to be pretty much the whole raison d'etre for the Ship, or at least for Purgatory). But we can all probably use the reminder to build up rather than tear down. I also appreciate Gamaliel's reminder from Paul about caring only that "Christ be preached" whether from good motives or false.
And yet... Paul also had some pretty harsh words to say about the "Judaizers" who preached what Paul seems to think constituted a "false gospel".
It appears to me that the early Christians were willing to accept (by today's terms) a fairly broad theological diversity, given that it's going to take a couple of centuries of church councils to nail down things like the nature of Christ and the Godhead. Jesus also seems to be surprisingly willing to take people as they come-- "seekers along the way". The really important thing seems to be are you pointing people to Jesus. (Look at all the "come and see" passages).
And that's where it seems that Driscoll is headed. If the "Judaizers" were preaching a false gospel by presenting a legalistic Jesus who required adherence to the Mosaic law, how much more so a preacher who explicitly sneers and derides the concept of a "pansy" Jesus who doesn't return evil for evil?
I dunno. I've certainly got a plank in my own eye that needs examining before I start looking in Driscoll's. But I think there's some cause for concern.
[ 07. November 2013, 23:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
