quote:

---

"I knew I wanted to share Amy’s story, but I didn’t feel like the timing was right until now."

---

What on earth is that supposed to mean? It's not just Mars Hill that smells bad here.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
If Kool-Aid is ever served after a Mars Hill "worship" service, I suggest that the members run like hell for the exits.
 

---

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Not sure of the specifics of the one sided story told but the blogger links to Mars Hill's own site and discussion of spiritual warfare trials

That rings my alarm bells.

On Radio 4 the other day they spoke to a bishop who had been a dioceson deliverance advisor. The CoE model is one of belief in the demonic but liaising with pyschological and mental health services as well, not assuming demons first in a situation.

And if we have authority in Christ over any such entities why do we need to interogate them to cast them out? And what's with the follow up question to any demon's response '•Will that stand as truth before the White Throne of the Lord God Almighty?'

All sounds a bit magic formula and showy to me.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Power hungry man, who believes woman's purpose is to keep his testicles empty and his stomach full, uses 'spiritual battle' as his vehicle.

What's the news?
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I don't know who Mark Driscoll is, but:-

1. He's entitled to be heard on his version of the story, and

2. I'd instinctively withhold credibility from stories written by the press, particularly 'poor victim' ones with random 'shouty' headlines interspersed through the text.

There may be a nugget of truth somewhere in this, but it does sound a bit like 'I chose the wrong husband and it's everyone else's fault but mine'.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Agreed with Enoch, and I have no time for Driscoll whatsoever.
 

---

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
It wasn't clear to me: did Amy's demons reply to Mark before he cast them out?

You'd almost think they had to, for any of that to make any sense at all.

What a strange story.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know who Mark Driscoll is, but:-

1. He's entitled to be heard on his version of the story, and

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course these blogging stories are prone to exaggeration, but the sheer number of 'Mars-Hill Recovery' sites, groups and blogs that are appearing suggests that, even accepting some exaggeration, there is some consistency in the stories. Moreover, a number of them have produced printed evidence in form of letters and emails about the cultish behaviour at Mars Hill..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course these blogging stories are prone to exaggeration, but the sheer number of 'Mars-Hill Recovery' sites, groups and blogs that are appearing suggests that, even accepting some exaggeration, there is some consistency in the stories. Moreover, a number of them have produced printed evidence in form of letters and emails about the cultish behaviour at Mars Hill..

---

I don't think you get it.

All churches have stories from disaffected ex-members. Really big churches have a lot of them. That is all.

There may be something in this but all you are engaging in here is tabloid journalism.

---

What? You are confusing two (or more) different things. Of course there are bound to be more complaints from a church with large numbers, but there are many larger churches around the world where there are fewer complaints and certainly fewer that focus on this sort of abuse combined with theological and pastoral incompetence. The size of the church is of no consequence in such a case.

K.
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
I think it's pretty foolish to marry someone so quickly after meeting them, but that doesn't negate that this woman has (according to her testimony) endured quite a bit of spiritual/emotional abuse from this "church." You shouldn't underestimate the power of such a complex of guilt and peer pressure to keep someone from walking away from a marriage that was really a mistake. Keep in mind she had no friends outside of the church (also a mistake, but it sure didn't help matters).

After reading the link, Mars Hill's own publication, I'm inclined to believe what "Amy" reported, more or less.

The emphasis on demons causing everything certainly isn't helpful. They even quote that passage where Jesus basically says, "Yeah, yeah, the demons submit to you, so what? Your names are written in the Book of Life!" - that passage in no way suggests the kind of obsession with demons they display. Blaming so much on demons seems to be giving them way too much power.

According to that link, Mars Hill teaches that "ancestral sin," including alcoholism, ordinary sins, mental illness, and abuse against your ancestors could result in you being possessed by demons - even if you're a Christian. That is not in any way Scriptural. Well, maybe if you throw darts at the Bible, you might be able to piece something together that would support that, but reading the Bible like a normal person, you'd find that we don't inherit demons from our ancestors, and our suffering isn't caused by our ancestors' sin (cf. Jesus' comment about the man born blind).

But it's probably a demon making me say all this. I am mentally ill, after all.
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There may be a nugget of truth somewhere in this, but it does sound a bit like 'I chose the wrong husband and it's everyone else's fault but mine'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Of course there are bound to be more complaints from a church with large numbers, but there are many larger churches around the world where there are fewer complaints and certainly fewer that focus on this sort of abuse combined with theological and pastoral incompetence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
but reading the Bible like a normal person,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think you get it.

All churches have stories from disaffected ex-members. Really big churches have a lot of them. That is all.

There may be something in this but all you are engaging in here is tabloid journalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There may be a nugget of truth somewhere in this, but it does sound a bit like 'I chose the wrong husband and it's everyone else's fault but mine'.

---

I thought that, too. I felt rather sorry for 'Amy's' husband. All the article really tells us is that he was a bit arrogant and inconsiderate (as people are), once looked at porn, and that his wife doesn't much care for him. This does not seem to me to be the sort of scandalous behaviour that deserves having his private life made public. If anything, Amy's conduct in saying 'I want a divorce' over a period of years, while not doing anything to get one and continue to sleep with and get pregnant by her husband is the most emotionally abusive behaviour in the article. There may be an excuse for it, of course, but the article doesn't help me to find it.

Driscoll probably did give crap relationship advice to Amy. His sermons/soundbites get linked to from here once in a while, and always in the context of his odd ideas about women. That does not make him responsible for the crap relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
…

I have heard someone say that Mark Driscoll is the only preacher they have ever heard who has used the word "vulva" from the pulpit, so I don't think I could subscribe to his take on "manliness".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There may be a nugget of truth somewhere in this, but it does sound a bit like 'I chose the wrong husband and it's everyone else's fault but mine'.

---

I thought that, too. I felt rather sorry for 'Amy's' husband. All the article really tells us is that he was a bit arrogant and inconsiderate (as people are), once looked at porn, and that his wife doesn't much care for him. This does not seem to me to be the sort of scandalous behaviour that deserves having his private life made public. If anything, Amy's conduct in saying 'I want a divorce' over a period of years, while not doing anything to get one and continue to sleep with and get pregnant by her husband is the most emotionally abusive behaviour in the article. There may be an excuse for it, of course, but the article doesn't help me to find it.

Driscoll probably did give crap relationship advice to Amy. His sermons/soundbites get linked to from here once in a while, and always in the context of his odd ideas about women. That does not make him responsible for the crap relationship.

---

It's entirely possible that there are a lot of pertinent details that aren't given in the blog, either for personal reasons or because the main focus is on Driscoll's behaviour, not the rights and wrongs of this particular relationship. It's hardly unusual to simplify and paraphrase complicated situations because they're not really relevant to the direct subject and purpose of the piece being written. That goes double here, where one woman is telling her story on someone else's blog.

It's sensible to be wary of drawing conclusions about Driscoll on the basis of this, but perversely, we should also be wary of drawing conclusions about Amy, even if this is "her story", because she (or the blogger) isn't necessarily interested in dealing with the issues you're talking about.
 

---

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
The article doesn't surprise me in any way. I'm fb friends with a lot of Christians and ex-Christians from the Seattle area and this chimes exactly with the reports I've heard from them - whether their own experiences or those of people they know. The highly controlling atmosphere revolving around MD is the most concerning part of the whole thing.

Sure, it's a big church, and sure that's going to mean more complaints than a small church. However, that doesn't detract from the behaviour of MD, or the behaviour of this woman's friends in shunning her. Mars Hill weren't the first church to do this, and regrettably won't be the last. As to other large churches, I've never heard of any similar behaviour going on at the "other" Mars Hill Church, Rob Bell's one. I don't think the two churches are dissimilar in size. Fine, I'll admit to being biased - I like Rob Bell and I don't like Mark Driscoll.

Here is another response from Mars Hill regarding different stories of shunning at Mars Hill that also came out. Make of it what you will...
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
The description of 'church discipline' in that article presupposes that the church leadership are omniscient, since they claim to be in a position to know whether someone has 'confessed' fully or not.

Even if there were no stories around from unhappy ex members, the emphasis on 'church discipline' and the description of how this works would make me very wary of being involved.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :
 
Reading this thread reminds me of conversations I've had in the past about Michael Jackson (may he rest in peace!) But when people (normally his fans) used to say 'There's no evidence that he was a paedophile...' I wanted to scream 'Which part of "he shared his bed with 12 year old boys" didn't you understand???!!!'

In the same way when people say 'Well, we don't know all the facts about Mark Driscoll...' I think, 'Have you seen the God hates you video? Or the I couldn't worship a guy I could beat up sermon? Or the interview where he says that the only men in churches led by women aren't real men? Or his wife saying how women were designed to be submissive? etc etc etc

And having read the stuff from Mars Hill about a) discipline and b) demons it's clear that these people are extremist even by fundamentalist standards and I have no doubt whatsoever that it is now cultic if not actually a cult and perpetrating spiritual abuse on a large and alarming scale. God bless the poor souls who are stuck in it...


 

---

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :
 
PS Following one of the links above led me to this which I loved...

Mars Hill Downfall Parody
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
From all I've seen, read and heard Mark Driscoll is a festering, oozing carbuncle on the buttocks of Christianity. IMHO he's a crude, controlling, misogynistic, homophobic schmuck with a God complex. Thanks to the magic of teh internets you can find his Deep Thoughts, videos, etc., quite easily online and come to your own conclusions. So I find his defenders here a bit naive and/or disingenuous. (I wonder, for instance, if some clergyperson who was not a male-supremacist neo-Calvinist Evangelical would get the same velvet-glove treatment Driscoll has gotten here...Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA, for instance) And I wonder if you would have been as protective of, say, pre-massacre David Koresh or Jim Jones.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Isn't Mark Driscoll linked with NewFrontiers these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Johnny S, it is ludicrous to suggest that when it comes to spiritual abuse, churches are all much of a muchness. No church is immune, but forms of government and particular teaching, especially about submission and authority, have a lot to do with it.

---

Where did I say that?

I'm not a particular fan of Driscoll or Mars Hill.

What I said is that all churches of this size (there are very few in the UK that are comparable) have a large coterie of disaffected ex-members. It wouldn't be hard, for example, to come up with an 'anti-KT' brigade.

All big churches are not the same. These claims may well prove to be true.

If you want a hypothesis to test then I suppose it would be this - no church grows to a really big size (3000+) without hacking off a large group of people on the way. That is all. If the conclusion you draw from that is that some kind of the abuse of authority becomes almost inevitable with a really large organisation then I tend to agree with you. Big is not necessarily better.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you want a hypothesis to test then I suppose it would be this - no church grows to a really big size (3000+) without hacking off a large group of people on the way. That is all. If the conclusion you draw from that is that some kind of the abuse of authority becomes almost inevitable with a really large organisation then I tend to agree with you. Big is not necessarily better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The word you're looking for is churn, the rate at which individuals in an organisation leave. In very large churches, the amount of churn is often hidden: if newcomers join at a greater rate than leavers leave, the church even grows, despite losing a great number of long-time member.

Churches ought not have a high churn. Yes, people move away, people die, but the if people leave because of a build-up of worry or resentment, then the churn rates become unhealthy, and the church essentially loses its memory.


<snip>

There is something fundamentally wrong with a church with a high churn. Mars Hill, it seems to me, churns, and churns hard. That's where the stories of bad behaviour and disaffection are coming from.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by JohnnyS:
it may simply reflect the kind of dissonance inevitable when someone who has completely divergent theology tries out a church mainly because 'it seems cool'.

I would expect the same kind of reaction if a cessationist tried out Mars Hill too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you want a hypothesis to test then I suppose it would be this - no church grows to a really big size (3000+) without hacking off a large group of people on the way. That is all. If the conclusion you draw from that is that some kind of the abuse of authority becomes almost inevitable with a really large organisation then I tend to agree with you. Big is not necessarily better.

---

Yes and no.

The word you're looking for is churn, the rate at which individuals in an organisation leave. In very large churches, the amount of churn is often hidden: if newcomers join at a greater rate than leavers leave, the church even grows, despite losing a great number of long-time members.

Churches ought not have a high churn. Yes, people move away, people die, but the if people leave because of a build-up of worry or resentment, then the churn rates become unhealthy, and the church essentially loses its memory.

In a previous incarnation, I worked at a very large CofE church as admin staff. One of my yearly jobs was to purge the address list of members we no longer had contact with, or no longer wanted contact with us.

I discovered our churn was in the region of 25-30%. Per year.

Some of this could be put down to students - we'd lose at least one-third of them a year as they graduated - and highly mobile young professionals finding jobs elsewhere. But this meant that there were less than a hundred or so people who'd been there for 10 years, and most people of the (at the time) 800 strong congregation had been coming for less than 3 years, and in 3 years would be simply gone again, replaced by another tranche.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a church with a high churn. Mars Hill, it seems to me, churns, and churns hard. That's where the stories of bad behaviour and disaffection are coming from.

---

quote:

---

I wonder, for instance, if some clergyperson who was not a male-supremacist neo-Calvinist Evangelical would get the same velvet-glove treatment Driscoll has gotten here...Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the USA, for instance

---

Oh come on . The Ship is a) absolutely crawling with US Episcopalians b) hardly over-flowing with Mark Driscoll love. The fact that Driscoll is indeed an arsehole of epic proportions does not mean that every accusation aired against him on the internet happens to be true, simple as.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

Agreed - don't we all love to gloat?
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

Agreed - don't we all love to gloat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I must say, I have never seen Mr Driscoll as 'cool', although I have only seen him on video.

He strikes me as incredibly old-fashioned actually, a kind of chest-beating neanderthal misogynist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

I agree, the smug mugs should deal with the planks in their own eyes before dealing with some other church's specks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

I agree, the smug mugs should deal with the planks in their own eyes before dealing with some other church's specks.

---

OK, but where's the line drawn between bashing, gloating, ignoring the specks in our brothers' eyes -- and calling attention to the abusive behavior of a much-admired religious leader who is getting away with un-Christian behavior? Matthew Paul Turner (the blogger at whose site the article was posted) is one of a few people, some of them bloggers, within the evangelical community who have made a bit of a crusade of critiquing Driscoll's leadership and publicizing the stories of those who claim to have been abused at Mars Hill.

Is there not a place for this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
There is a place – when the church is failing to deal with the logs in its eye – for others to point them out in order for stuff that’s hidden to be brought into the light and dealt with

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

I agree, the smug mugs should deal with the planks in their own eyes before dealing with some other church's specks.

---

OK, but where's the line drawn between bashing, gloating, ignoring the specks in our brothers' eyes -- and calling attention to the abusive behavior of a much-admired religious leader who is getting away with un-Christian behavior? Matthew Paul Turner (the blogger at whose site the article was posted) is one of a few people, some of them bloggers, within the evangelical community who have made a bit of a crusade of critiquing Driscoll's leadership and publicizing the stories of those who claim to have been abused at Mars Hill.

Is there not a place for this?

---

quote:

---

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

---

quote:

---

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would also mean that those criticizing this blog, should first display their own faults!

In other words, it's an absurd requirement, which would paralyze independent thought really.

---

Bravo. That was one of the most crushingly winning arguments I've read in ages.

 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Seriously, all we can really do on here is talk about Mark Driscoll & Mars Hill's failings or whatever. It is not for us to launch a crusade against spiritual abuse (if that's what it is) in a church which isn't even on the same continent as some of us.

Who's really to say whether Mark is genuinely serving God or pampering his own ego? Who really can decide the difference between spiritual abuse and church discipline?

Is it anyone's business except Mars Hill's?

How do we know we have it right? For all we know, we could storm in saying "this is wrong, that's wrong" and take over the church, and subsequently subject the people to our view of how a church should be, but the church could end up in an even worse state that before.

In the end only God can ultimately judge.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Seriously, all we can really do on here is talk about Mark Driscoll & Mars Hill's failings or whatever. It is not for us to launch a crusade against spiritual abuse (if that's what it is) in a church which isn't even on the same continent as some of us.

Who's really to say whether Mark is genuinely serving God or pampering his own ego? Who really can decide the difference between spiritual abuse and church discipline?

Is it anyone's business except Mars Hill's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Mark Driscoll writes books, speaks at conferences and travels abroad to spread his views, If he influences the particular circle that you move in, I think that the consequences of the model he promotes very much become your business.

---

quote:

---

Is it anyone's business except Mars Hill's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Certainly, he seems to have an influence on NewFrontiers - the apostle I know has suddenly started posting stuff on facebook about "manliness". I kid you not!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
...Then I'm not sure what you point is apart from trying to stir the pot - you just seemed to have contradicted your previous post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am no fan of Mark Driscoll's. I can quite believe that a lot of stuff goes on in his church that shouldn't.

HOWEVER, I am also aware that a lot of the Driscoll-bashing that I see around the internets looks rather too gleeful for my liking. If my brother in Christ is making a colossal screw-up of things, I ought to be sad about it, not smugly pleased about how right I am.

---

I agree, the smug mugs should deal with the planks in their own eyes before dealing with some other church's specks.

---

When dealing with the normal schadenfreude (of which I'm guilty) when those of a theological persuasion markedly different from that of your own come a cropper I'd agree but don't you think there's a difference between theological differences and concern about spiritual abuse?

Leaving aside the motives and credibility of the blog in the OP, JohnnyS and tGCB can you watch
Mark Driscoll sees things and not have grave concerns about those subject to Mark Driscoll's pastoral care, that go way beyond any theological differences and raise suspicions of emotional and spiritual manipulation that could be enormously damaging? I think it's worth talking about if it saves other people being told about things they did or had done to them that they have no recollection of because Mark Driscoll sees it. His detailed description of seeing a woman he was counselling committing adultery in the above linked video was disturbing on many levels Does anybody think that that speech reflects Christian wisdom and discernment?
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 

quote:

---

I agree that the whole plank/speck thing shouldn't preclude one from ever calling attention to what appears to be an abuse of power by Christian leaders, though anyone who does so should be prepared to have his/her own secrets exposed in the same harsh light.

---

1. Secular humanists who detest religion and want to see it eradicated, or at least cast out of the public sphere into the shadows of "respectable" society.
2. Other christians, some of whom may be genuinely concerned that their brothers and sisters in Christ are being mis-treated and could end up losing their faith altogether.

quote:

---

Mark Betts: When I was young, we used to sing a hymn "Who is on the Lord's side?" with the counter refrain "who is on the world's side?"

---

quote:

---

It is not wrong to be concerned, as christians, about what we think is wrong, but we need to remember whos side we are on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Lord is on the world's side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
True, but false religion that blasphemes against the holy spirit is worse than secular humanists any day. I think those who misuse religion to abuse or manipulate are doing the devil's work so I've no problem with speaking out against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Leaving aside the motives and credibility of the blog in the OP, JohnnyS and tGCB can you watch
Mark Driscoll sees things and not have grave concerns about those subject to Mark Driscoll's pastoral care, that go way beyond any theological differences and raise suspicions of emotional and spiritual manipulation that could be enormously damaging?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

Is it anyone's business except Mars Hill's?

---

Funny, but I don't see con-Evos extending that same laissez-faire philosophy to lib-Evo/catholic/mainstream Protestant churches.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Leaving aside the motives and credibility of the blog in the OP, JohnnyS and tGCB can you watch
Mark Driscoll sees things and not have grave concerns about those subject to Mark Driscoll's pastoral care, that go way beyond any theological differences and raise suspicions of emotional and spiritual manipulation that could be enormously damaging?

---

There is clearly something else going on here. On almost every post I've made on this thread I've commented that I share concerns about Driscoll and Mars Hill.

I don't understand why you would ask this question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:

---

I agree that the whole plank/speck thing shouldn't preclude one from ever calling attention to what appears to be an abuse of power by Christian leaders, though anyone who does so should be prepared to have his/her own secrets exposed in the same harsh light.

---

Indeed. Some of us are simply suggesting that it can be incredibly tempting to assume that any accusation against a Christian leader we happen to dislike MUST be true and then get stuck in with unquestioning relish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
True, but false religion that blasphemes against the holy spirit is worse than secular humanists any day. I think those who misuse religion to abuse or manipulate are doing the devil's work so I've no problem with speaking out against them.

---

I wouldn't say "worse", I'd say "as bad" - both are doing the devil's work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'll charitably assume that you don't really know what a secular humanist is, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Once again, the lack of accountability in 'free' or non-denominational churches appears as a serious problem.

K.

---

quote:

---

I've been on the ship for 5 years now. I can't remember any thread where conservatives attacked the character of a church leader by suggesting that there was abuse in the way they lead their church? (As opposed to attacking someone's theology.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I've been on the ship for 5 years now. I can't remember any thread where conservatives attacked the character of a church leader by suggesting that there was abuse in the way they lead their church? (As opposed to attacking someone's theology.)

---

Oh, please.

First of all, I'm talking about con-Evos in general, not just on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I've been on the ship for 5 years now. I can't remember any thread where conservatives attacked the character of a church leader by suggesting that there was abuse in the way they lead their church? (As opposed to attacking someone's theology.)

---

Oh, please.

First of all, I'm talking about con-Evos in general, not just on the Ship.

---

So you're making sweeping generalisations about evos in a context other than the Ship. Doesn't make it not a sweeping generalisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Growing like topsy isn't necessarily a sign of spiritual health ...

One of the problems within evangelicalism as a whole, I think, not only within the less nuanced sections is that 'success' in numerical terms often hides a multitude of sins. People are prepared to cut anything more slack if it appears to be successful in 'reaching people with the Gospel'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I've been on the ship for 5 years now. I can't remember any thread where conservatives attacked the character of a church leader by suggesting that there was abuse in the way they lead their church? (As opposed to attacking someone's theology.)

---

Oh, please.

First of all, I'm talking about con-Evos in general, not just on the Ship.

---

So you're making sweeping generalisations about evos in a context other than the Ship. Doesn't make it not a sweeping generalisation.

---

quote:

---

Matthew Paul Turner (the blogger at whose site the article was posted) is one of a few people, some of them bloggers, within the evangelical community who have made a bit of a crusade of critiquing Driscoll's leadership and publicizing the stories of those who claim to have been abused at Mars Hill.

Is there not a place for this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One of the problems within evangelicalism as a whole, I think, not only within the less nuanced sections is that 'success' in numerical terms often hides a multitude of sins. People are prepared to cut anything more slack if it appears to be successful in 'reaching people with the Gospel'.

That's why a lot of these outfits and high-profile, big-name speakers etc get cut a lot more slack in the evangelical press than they would otherwise deserve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, at risk of introducing the Dead Horse - I do so only to provide an example - the notion that the Presiding Bishop of TEC is a woman. Or any other woman in leadership in the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I'm not sure that all the contributors to this thread have attacked Driscoll's character. His behaviour maybe ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

You're absolutely right, there has to be, otherwise we'd have to consider Paul in sin when he: 1). harshly criticized those whom he referred to as "Super Apostles" in 2 Corinthians, 2). publicly took Peter to task for snubbing gentiles, 3). critiqued the Judaizers and said they might as well complete their cicumcisions via castration, etc. etc.

Certainly we're never called to shut down our brains, shut up our mouths and allow people to throw themselves into abuse without a word of warning. We're commanded to expose evil, while understanding that we're inherently no better than the worst of them and could, given the proper conditions, fall prey to it ourselves. If we can't do that, then might as well turn off the lights and shut it all down, what's the use of the discernment given by the Holy Spirit anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, at risk of introducing the Dead Horse - I do so only to provide an example - the notion that the Presiding Bishop of TEC is a woman. Or any other woman in leadership in the church.

---

That is a strange example since many evangelicals are pro women's ordination, but I'll run with it anyway.

Did you read LC's post? You do realise that you are raising the stakes here? You are putting those opposed to women's ordination on a par with spiritual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If that was me I'd do all I can to bring my concerns to the attention of the leadership. If that failed and I felt a crime had been committed then I'd take it to the Police. However, if after my attempts they still refused to listen I'd just have to let it go. Shake the dust from my feet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, no I'm not.

Take a look at some of the abuse heaped on KJS, and you'll see that it's not (just) her theology that's being attacked, or that she's an ordained woman running a church. She gets attacked because of who she is: even the squid-talking (she has a PhD in marine biology), which is something frankly anyone ought to be proud of, is used to attack her.

Go. Read. Understand. And if you want character assassination, why not see what ConEvos say about OpenEvos? It's like the hard left all over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
OTOH as I repeatedly said above, this isn't a local church, this is a very public ministry which aggressively seeks to spread its particular model of doing church as the correct one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
OTOH as I repeatedly said above, this isn't a local church, this is a very public ministry which aggressively seeks to spread its particular model of doing church as the correct one.

---

So attack the philosophy and the theology then and don't attack the local church. Express concerns about the model without fanning the flames of what seems to be no more than one side of a very messy story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
And that is exactly what any number of people in this thread and others were doing. It's also completely in order to point out that this sort of case is a fairly direct consequence of the particular model of authority adopted and prompted by Mars Hill/Acts29.

---

This case? You mean one anonymous person's version of events presented by a blogger. What exactly happened is exactly the case in point.

What you are saying is this - "who cares whether this is actually a fair description of what happened, it fits my view of where Mars Hill strategy leads so it must be true. In fact, Exhibit A."

As Evangeline and others have pointed out there is plenty of wacky stuff out there from what Mark has actually said. There are also documents outlining the policy of the church. Go for your life. Just be slow on anything else that hasn't been independently verified.

[ 28. June 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
And that is exactly what any number of people in this thread and others were doing. It's also completely in order to point out that this sort of case is a fairly direct consequence of the particular model of authority adopted and prompted by Mars Hill/Acts29.

---

This case? You mean one anonymous person's version of events presented by a blogger. What exactly happened is exactly the case in point.

What you are saying is this - "who cares whether this is actually a fair description of what happened, it fits my view of where Mars Hill strategy leads so it must be true. In fact, Exhibit A."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Go. Read. Understand. And if you want character assassination, why not see what ConEvos say about OpenEvos? It's like the hard left all over again.

---

That just makes it worse. You now seem to be saying "you lot started it." Do two wrongs make a right? The stuff referring to KJS was diabolical. Here in Australia the Christian right can be awful. A lot of the current rhetoric around marriage is shrill to say the least. I've said that publicly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It doesn't make it worse. It's worse already. You asked for examples, I gave you examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I'm not sure that all the contributors to this thread have attacked Driscoll's character. His behaviour maybe ...

---

Maybe this is a tangent but I'd be interested in how you distinguish the two. For me this cuts to the heart of this thread. Driscoll's teaching and ideas are fair game on a bulletin board (for me anyway) but once we start a trial of character via this medium I think a line has been crossed.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

You're absolutely right, there has to be, otherwise we'd have to consider Paul in sin when he: 1). harshly criticized those whom he referred to as "Super Apostles" in 2 Corinthians, 2). publicly took Peter to task for snubbing gentiles, 3). critiqued the Judaizers and said they might as well complete their cicumcisions via castration, etc. etc.

Certainly we're never called to shut down our brains, shut up our mouths and allow people to throw themselves into abuse without a word of warning. We're commanded to expose evil, while understanding that we're inherently no better than the worst of them and could, given the proper conditions, fall prey to it ourselves. If we can't do that, then might as well turn off the lights and shut it all down, what's the use of the discernment given by the Holy Spirit anyway?

---

I agree with your second paragraph but I'm not sure your first one is a fair comparison. Paul spoke to Peter's face and wrote letters directly to the Corinthians. Organising a whispering campaign via the internet seems very different to me.

If that was me I'd do all I can to bring my concerns to the attention of the leadership. If that failed and I felt a crime had been committed then I'd take it to the Police. However, if after my attempts they still refused to listen I'd just have to let it go. Shake the dust from my feet.

What I smell here is not an appeal for justice but a cry for revenge. YMMV. Obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
The bottom line for me is whether the allegations are true or false. If they're false, it doesn't matter to whom they're written or how, it's wrong to publicize them or whisper them in private. If they're true, then I'd say the same principle applies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
The bottom line for me is whether the allegations are true or false. If they're false, it doesn't matter to whom they're written or how, it's wrong to publicize them or whisper them in private. If they're true, then I'd say the same principle applies.

---

The thing is that I don't believe the allegations are true or false.

There is probably some truth, but the young lady is obviously somewhat biassed - she seemed to change once she no longer wanted to be married to her husband - also, tabloid journalism will have sensationalised all this out of all proportion.

I know someone who is not of my denomination will balk at the idea of kissing icons - imagine what a tabloid journalist would do with that?

I don't think we ever can establish what is true and what is not from such an account. I don't know how Mars Hill can resolve it's problems with Mark (that is if they are as bad as the article implies) - but certainly the starting point should not be a tabloid journal article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Or if Marc Driscoll, Terry Virgo, C.J. Mahaney, John MacArthur say or write outrageous things and they're posted on the net, or have a distinctives page on their site or a unbiblical loyalty oath required of members, and I can look up these things, I can't imagine anything untoward about publicizing these and calling the leaders to task for it, warning potential visitors to that church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Or if Marc Driscoll, Terry Virgo, C.J. Mahaney, John MacArthur say or write outrageous things and they're posted on the net, or have a distinctives page on their site or a unbiblical loyalty oath required of members, and I can look up these things, I can't imagine anything untoward about publicizing these and calling the leaders to task for it, warning potential visitors to that church.

---

It occurs to me that there is an equal - if not stronger - case than that against 'whispering campaigns by blogs on the internet' that could be made against the sort of ministries that essentially seek to influence beyond their own circle of accountability.

After all, Pastor X would presumably not invite Driscoll to speak at his church. OTOH maybe he has to contend with a youth pastor who wants to turn over the youth groups teaching segment to Driscoll videos, or a mans group that wants to watch Driscoll on Corinthians, or an assistant who wants young marrieds to go through 'Real Marriage' chapter by chapter.

I'm not calling for some kind of thought control - but accusations of inappropriate use of technology can cut both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is it anyone's business except Mars Hill's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Mark Betts: For starters, try Stephanie Drury's website/Facebook page "Stuff Christian Culture Likes." That, among others, exposes assholic Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill behaviors.

Or does the fact that a woman run these online properties mean that you won't take what's in them seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
After a messy divorce I don't tend to ask the person's ex-spouse for a character reference. That's not to say that they weren't badly treated but just that their view will not be very objective.)

---

quote:

---

nyway I'll take a look, I was just wondering why every comment on his youtube videos seems to pour praise on him and his already over-inflated ego. What do you think?A

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Why do you think that every news report from North Korea showed citizens pouring praise on Kim Jong Il and his already inflated ego?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Mark Betts: For starters, try Stephanie Drury's website/Facebook page "Stuff Christian Culture Likes." That, among others, exposes assholic Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill behaviors.

Or does the fact that a woman run these online properties mean that you won't take what's in them seriously?

---

No - why should it? Anyway I'll take a look, I was just wondering why every comment on his youtube videos seems to pour praise on him and his already over-inflated ego. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Followers of cultic groups have a lot at stake, inasmuch as they've thrown their destinies into that hands of a man, they will vigorously promote anything he does, they will cheat, slander and assasinate character to justify their own decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Followers of cultic groups have a lot at stake, inasmuch as they've thrown their destinies into that hands of a man, they will vigorously promote anything he does, they will cheat, slander and assasinate character to justify their own decisions.

---

As I said, it's really an abuse of power. I don't think Mark set out to deceive anyone, but it's got to the stage where he really does believe all his own hype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]That's exactly what I'd say, I sincerely doubt that he rubbed his hands together with a fiendish grin 15 or so years ago and said to himself "By what cunning strategem can I come to dominate this place completely and become weathly, famous and idolized within reformed circles while simultaneously persecuting the church, destroying relationships and twisting the Gospel to the point where it's unrecognizable?" Of course that didn't happen, but not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say Mars Hill were cultic,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]That's exactly what I'd say, I sincerely doubt that he rubbed his hands together with a fiendish grin 15 or so years ago and said to himself "By what cunning strategem can I come to dominate this place completely and become weathly, famous and idolized within reformed circles while simultaneously persecuting the church, destroying relationships and twisting the Gospel to the point where it's unrecognizable?" Of course that didn't happen, but not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

Yes.

We pastors can feel powerless because of the frustrations of dealing with difficult parishioners, but the reality is we have far more power at our disposal than we realize. Eugene Peterson calls this an "occupational hazard" in a very real sense, in the same way asbestos or coal dust might be an occupational hazard. He says that is why having a spiritual director is not just "desirable" or "good", but essential in the same way that protective clothing might be essential in other professions.

Sadly, spiritual direction is not really on the radar for most American Protestants. Even finding a spiritual director in many parts of the US evangelical scene is a daunting task.

---

In my opinion no one person should be the main guy or gal in any fellowship, authority, in a biblical sense, should be shared amongst many. I find no position in the NT that quite matches up with the authority and responsibility we've given that which we call "Pastor", "Reverend", etc. "Pastor" is only mentioned once in the entire NT and hardly at all in the OT, and the word carried such baggage for people in that time and place. It was related to "shepherd", which was most decidedly not seen in the Middle East of that era as some great, exalted leader, but as a lowly helper considered unclean by the Jews of the day, perhaps even disgusting (see Genesis account of how the Egyptians, for example, viewed shepherds). Their lives were considered expendable for a blasted group of sheep! And of course Jesus told His disciples if they wanted to be great leaders they must be lowly, bottom of the rung slaves--you might even say something like the dirt scraped off the congregation's shoes.

Jesus referring to Himself as the "Good Shepherd" must have sounded bizarre to their ears. But more bizarre to the first century church's ears would have been the exalted positions in which pastors have placed themselves. When I see a church sign with bold or italicized letters at the bottom declaring "Rev. T.C. Bartlett, Jr., Head Pastor" I know I've run across a church that doesn't know jack squat about leadership.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 
Clarification: "Rev. T.C. Bartlett, Jr., Head Pastor" is a totally made up name; to my knowledge no such person exists in either fact or published fiction. Just trying to avoid the redaction of the name, it was just an example, if you wish, administrator, substitute "John Q. Public".
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Followers of cultic groups have a lot at stake, inasmuch as they've thrown their destinies into that hands of a man, they will vigorously promote anything he does, they will cheat, slander and assasinate character to justify their own decisions.

---

As I said, it's really an abuse of power. I don't think Mark set out to deceive anyone, but it's got to the stage where he really does believe all his own hype.

---

That's exactly what I'd say, I sincerely doubt that he rubbed his hands together with a fiendish grin 15 or so years ago and said to himself "By what cunning strategem can I come to dominate this place completely and become weathly, famous and idolized within reformed circles while simultaneously persecuting the church, destroying relationships and twisting the Gospel to the point where it's unrecognizable?" Of course that didn't happen, but not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Followers of cultic groups have a lot at stake, inasmuch as they've thrown their destinies into that hands of a man, they will vigorously promote anything he does, they will cheat, slander and assasinate character to justify their own decisions.

---

As I said, it's really an abuse of power. I don't think Mark set out to deceive anyone, but it's got to the stage where he really does believe all his own hype.

---

That's exactly what I'd say, I sincerely doubt that he rubbed his hands together with a fiendish grin 15 or so years ago and said to himself "By what cunning strategem can I come to dominate this place completely and become weathly, famous and idolized within reformed circles while simultaneously persecuting the church, destroying relationships and twisting the Gospel to the point where it's unrecognizable?" Of course that didn't happen, but not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

Power corrupts; alternatively, the corrupt seek power?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
...not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

Brilliant observation
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Jesus referring to Himself as the "Good Shepherd" must have sounded bizarre to their ears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
Jesus referring to Himself as the "Good Shepherd" must have sounded bizarre to their ears.

---

On a Kerygmaniacal tangent, I doubt it sounded bizarre as he sets quite a context within which this claim is made. No doubt it was seen as a BIG claim though in the light of what must surely have been in his hearers' minds from Ezekiel 34

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
]In my opinion no one person should be the main guy or gal in any fellowship, authority, in a biblical sense, should be shared amongst many. I find no position in the NT that quite matches up with the authority and responsibility we've given that which we call "Pastor", "Reverend", etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
When I see a church sign with bold or italicized letters at the bottom declaring "Rev. T.C. Bartlett, Jr., Head Pastor" I know I've run across a church that doesn't know jack squat about leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
]In my opinion no one person should be the main guy or gal in any fellowship, authority, in a biblical sense, should be shared amongst many. I find no position in the NT that quite matches up with the authority and responsibility we've given that which we call "Pastor", "Reverend", etc.

---

"Apostle" probably carries at least as much authority & responsibility. But your overall point still stands. In a smaller solo-pastor church (as the majority are), though, that can be harder to accomplish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
When I see a church sign with bold or italicized letters at the bottom declaring "Rev. T.C. Bartlett, Jr., Head Pastor" I know I've run across a church that doesn't know jack squat about leadership.

---

To be fair, it probably says more about unexamined social convention than it is a statement about a leadership model. Even in a Reformed church model (which theoretically is all about shared leadership with most decision-making power resting with elders rather than ministers) you're going to find as many badgered and bullied pastors as you will badgering and bullying pastors-- and about every variation in between. But the bottom line is that there is "power" in the institutional authority of the Church, and we ignore the dangers of that power to our own peril.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhflan:
I'm confused that her ex-husband is *still* a member (I assume in good standing) at Mars Hill as he remarried. I would think that Driscoll would believe that he should remain single, and only remarry if he's reconcilled to his first wife, or to someone else after she dies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhflan:
I'm confused that her ex-husband is *still* a member (I assume in good standing) at Mars Hill as he remarried. I would think that Driscoll would believe that he should remain single, and only remarry if he's reconcilled to his first wife, or to someone else after she dies.

---

It's not like you actually expect consistency and integrity from Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill, is it?

Reminds me of the authoritarian church I once attended and served about 6 months as an elder before being removed for asking too many questions. It was cut very much along the lines of Mars Hill (in fact, the young turks there knew exactly who he was and thought him The Bomb). Anyway, I once suggested at an elder's meeting that perhaps it wasn't a good thing for it to be so testosterone-dominated, "Perhaps we could have a woman on the elder's team...maybe to head up women's ministries and the like, what you think?" I was quickly tut-tutted and put in my place with 1 Tim 2. Well after the fact, though, after we'd left the church, it occurred to me that the majority of elders were very young and new and newer believers, thus clearly violating 1 Tim 3.

The point was apparently they didn't give a rat's patoot about the Bible, they only used it to serve their purposes.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

We pastors can feel powerless because of the frustrations of dealing with difficult parishioners, but the reality is we have far more power at our disposal than we realize. Eugene Peterson calls this an "occupational hazard" in a very real sense, in the same way asbestos or coal dust might be an occupational hazard. He says that is why having a spiritual director is not just "desirable" or "good", but essential in the same way that protective clothing might be essential in other professions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

We pastors can feel powerless because of the frustrations of dealing with difficult parishioners, but the reality is we have far more power at our disposal than we realize. Eugene Peterson calls this an "occupational hazard" in a very real sense, in the same way asbestos or coal dust might be an occupational hazard. He says that is why having a spiritual director is not just "desirable" or "good", but essential in the same way that protective clothing might be essential in other professions.

---

Or, ironically in this case, why an Eldership can dilute the controlling influence of Pastor.

IME a lot of non-conformist churches are blind to this issue. They often fear an Eldership as creating a controlling power-base while blissfully unaware that without it (or its equivalent) the full-time Pastor(s) has (have) a lot of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

We pastors can feel powerless because of the frustrations of dealing with difficult parishioners, but the reality is we have far more power at our disposal than we realize. Eugene Peterson calls this an "occupational hazard" in a very real sense, in the same way asbestos or coal dust might be an occupational hazard. He says that is why having a spiritual director is not just "desirable" or "good", but essential in the same way that protective clothing might be essential in other professions.

---

Or, ironically in this case, why an Eldership can dilute the controlling influence of Pastor.

IME a lot of non-conformist churches are blind to this issue. They often fear an Eldership as creating a controlling power-base while blissfully unaware that without it (or its equivalent) the full-time Pastor(s) has (have) a lot of power.

---

fwiw, Peterson himself is a Presbyterian, so not at all blind to the diluting effect of a positionally strong eldership. Yet he still finds sufficient power in the ministerial position to give him pause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sorry to double post, but I've found an artilce by Jonna Petry, the wife of a former elder at Mars Hill. It will take about an hour to read, but I think it's worth it:

My Story

The writer doesn't seem to bear any malice, and it seems pretty honest. What it does seem to reveal is more an "abuse of power" by Mark. I'm not very comfortable with the term "spiritual abuse" because it can be applied so easily to anyone who doesn't teach the scriptures the way we think they should be taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
[QUOTE]That's exactly what I'd say, I sincerely doubt that he rubbed his hands together with a fiendish grin 15 or so years ago and said to himself "By what cunning strategem can I come to dominate this place completely and become weathly, famous and idolized within reformed circles while simultaneously persecuting the church, destroying relationships and twisting the Gospel to the point where it's unrecognizable?" Of course that didn't happen, but not only does power corrupt, it also reveals. If your character flaws are deep and serious enough and there are large sections of your being that are most decidedly compartmentalized and kept free of God's influence, power and authority will reveal these.

---

Yes.

We pastors can feel powerless because of the frustrations of dealing with difficult parishioners, but the reality is we have far more power at our disposal than we realize. Eugene Peterson calls this an "occupational hazard" in a very real sense, in the same way asbestos or coal dust might be an occupational hazard. He says that is why having a spiritual director is not just "desirable" or "good", but essential in the same way that protective clothing might be essential in other professions.

Sadly, spiritual direction is not really on the radar for most American Protestants. Even finding a spiritual director in many parts of the US evangelical scene is a daunting task.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yerevan:
To go back a little, I might as well explain my caution on this one.

I have a friend who I will call X. Sadly X's marriage ended some years ago, and its collapse precipitated X's departure from the church X and spouse attended, which was also the place they met. Talking to X would leave one convinced that X's former church was downright cultish and at least partly to blame for the break-up of X's marriage. There are two problems with this. Firstly, X has a tendency to read too much into quite innocent comments/incidents (its one of X's few faults - X is a lovely otherwise). Secondly, I know other people who are or were involved with said church independently of X, who I trust, and I really don't get a remotely cultish vibe at all. Note that I don't think that X is being intentionally dishonest in any way. My guess is that X has been trying to make some sense of a deeply traumatic event, and in doing so has unwittingly constructed a comforting, comprehensible narrative which makes sense of a very complicated, messy situation, but is not entirely accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhflan:
I'm confused that her ex-husband is *still* a member (I assume in good standing) at Mars Hill as he remarried. I would think that Driscoll would believe that he should remain single, and only remarry if he's reconcilled to his first wife, or to someone else after she dies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sorry to double post, but I've found an artilce by Jonna Petry, the wife of a former elder at Mars Hill. It will take about an hour to read, but I think it's worth it:

My Story

The writer doesn't seem to bear any malice, and it seems pretty honest. What it does seem to reveal is more an "abuse of power" by Mark. I'm not very comfortable with the term "spiritual abuse" because it can be applied so easily to anyone who doesn't teach the scriptures the way we think they should be taught.

---

This is the most compelling story I've yet read about the ugly goings-on at Mars Hill. I've seen similar episodes in like-minded churches, her account rings so true. You're right, she absolutely doesn't sound like she's malicious or disengenuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I find his treatment of his wife and public humiliation of her unconscionable.

---

quote:

---

Such leaders do not need "yes" men. Unfortunately, too many of them do not see that. Without humility and real accountability, charismatic leaders (both inside and outside churches) can be their own worst enemies as well as a danger to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I find his treatment of his wife and public humiliation of her unconscionable.

---

I'm not familiar with that... could you elaborate or provide a source? Not that I'm questioning you, I'm just curious to learn more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
How well known is he? I've never heard of him or his church away from the ship. Should I have done? Is it a case of 'where have I been?'. Is he really that well known or significant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
How well known is he? I've never heard of him or his church away from the ship. Should I have done? Is it a case of 'where have I been?'. Is he really that well known or significant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been tagging along behind this thread, following it with interest, because I'm surprised how many people whose 'from's aren't even in the same continent as this Mr Driscoll and 'his' church who are so aware of him and have such strong opinions about him. How well known is he? I've never heard of him or his church away from the ship. Should I have done? Is it a case of 'where have I been?'. Is he really that well known or significant?

If some of the allegations about him are even partially true, he won't be the first person who started out good, but proved not to have the personal calibre or wisdom to handle the temptations of spiritual authority and the adulation of his own followers. Look at King Saul. Nor sadly, is he likely to be the last.

---

I hadn't heard of him until, with great fanfare and publicity, the Anglican diocese of Sydney invited him to speak to "us". Link to SydAnglicans website re visit by Mark Driscoll There are lots of links to Mark Driscoll's sermons etc on the Sydney Anglicans website, which makes me Link here
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And in accordance with the above guideline.

Re the participation of Mark Driscoll's wife in public talks, I provide this link to a free resource from Mars Hill; recent teaching on "Real Marriage".

You can read transcripts or download the talks, which include inter alia Q & A involving both Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace. She appears to be a very willing participant in the ministry and to have played a significant part in the production of the material used.

There is a lot there, and I certainly haven't looked at all the transcripts, nor tried out any of the downloads.

YMMV on the meaning and value of this link as evidence of leadership style or controlling influence etc.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Thanks B62 - what follows is not a comment on your hosting (which I accept without question since your authority is far greater than MD's) but rather a comment on the thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
2. Just a general reminder to stick to serious discussion and avoid gossip about information not in the public domain. Critical comment about what is "out there" is fine, provided you can quote sources (e.g books) and/or provide links.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I find his treatment of his wife and public humiliation of her unconscionable.

---

I'm not familiar with that... could you elaborate or provide a source? Not that I'm questioning you, I'm just curious to learn more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And in accordance with the above guideline.

Re the participation of Mark Driscoll's wife in public talks, I provide this link to a free resource from Mars Hill; recent teaching on "Real Marriage".

You can read transcripts or download the talks, which include inter alia Q & A involving both Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace. She appears to be a very willing participant in the ministry and to have played a significant part in the production of the material used.

There is a lot there, and I certainly haven't looked at all the transcripts, nor tried out any of the downloads.

YMMV on the meaning and value of this link as evidence of leadership style or controlling influence etc.

---

She sounded to me like a beaten down wife in that book, JMHO. MD's teaching on marriage and how he's exerted his "authority" on his wife and his demands of her servicing his every need on demand and teaching that as a model of marriage give me a very different interpretation than you had.
 

---

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
Johnny S, I think there is a difference between talking about Mark Driscoll and talking about A.N.Other church leader. I'll try to explain.

A few years ago the book "Men are from Mars..." was very popular. Imagine someone read that book and found the information in it made their relationships worse. Others of course found it helpful, so the reader begins a thread. The reader feels alone in thinking this is a caustic book as most of her friendship circle have found it helpful. Maybe others on ship felt similarly and some found other places on the net where it had been discussed and linked to it. So far this is pretty much a normal ship thread and Im guessing you wouldn't have a problem with it.

I would suggest that the scenario I have outlined is mostly what we find on the thread, with reference to MDs teaching on relationships and the way it impacts the relationships of those aboard ship.

Maybe someone also reseached the authors background and found statements where they had treated people badly, in ways the book suggested were wrong maybe. Then the charge of hypocrisy might be levelled. Or if there were stories of the author encouraging people to follow the book to the letter, even if it was clearly not helping their relationships. Then people might start to question the authors sanity. I think that is where we are at here.

Mark Driscoll has used the internet to spread his teaching. He is not afraid to put stuff on YouTube, or on his website, or to write books. It is completely legitimate to critique these teachings etc. For those of us who have many friends influenced by MD, and who might feel under pressure to change our modes of relating as a result, it is helpful to hear what others think. It is also helpful to hear how these things work out in practice.

In terms of whether we should be talking about the church discipline stuff, it seems clear to me that some hold Mars Hill as an example of a brilliant church. I know quite a few people who would attend if they moved to the area based largely on what they have read on the internet. It is write to use the internet to counter these things, by revealing the other things which happen at the church, especially since many seems inevitable when you see both the structure and the teaching.

Basically, if you use the interwebs to promote yourself, your church and your teachings, then it is right that those on the web critique those things. MD is big enough to defend himself - indeed there are statements on the website referring to some of the allegations we have discussed I believe.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Niteowl2

You overlooked the significance of the word "appears"!

Actually, I don't have a settled opinion about the matter, nor do I feel the need to at present. The cumulative evidence that Mark Driscoll is a control freak when it comes to church leadership is quite impressive.

But on the other hand I've met folks IRL who were control freaks at work and pussycats at home. People have differing tendencies when it comes to compartmentalisation. Often enough, control-freakery is associated with insecurity over the ability to hold down an office. Folks who are insecure in one role can be secure in another. These things can get complicated.

(I once had a boss who I queried about his need to know the ins and outs of a minor decision I'd made within my own authority. "I need to know everything!" he riposted. And I burst out laughing, was stupid enough to think he was joking. Nope. Just rather in his work role: We talked about it at length, needed to if we were to work together. And yes, he was a pussycat at home.)

But I will take a closer look at the online resource. There may very well be a difference between the impression I've got purely from skimming a few transcripts and some deeper consideration of what's there. Don't think I'll buy the book, however.

[ 02. July 2012, 09:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
Mark Driscoll has used the internet to spread his teaching. He is not afraid to put stuff on YouTube, or on his website, or to write books. It is completely legitimate to critique these teachings etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
For those of us who have many friends influenced by MD, and who might feel under pressure to change our modes of relating as a result, it is helpful to hear what others think. It is also helpful to hear how these things work out in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But that is where you've already moved into a grey area. Some of the links on this thread have been to people's perceptions of how it worked out in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Niteowl2

You overlooked the significance of the word "appears"!

Actually, I don't have a settled opinion about the matter, nor do I feel the need to at present. The cumulative evidence that Mark Driscoll is a control freak when it comes to church leadership is quite impressive.

But on the other hand I've met folks IRL who were control freaks at work and pussycats at home. People have differing tendencies when it comes to compartmentalisation. Often enough, control-freakery is associated with insecurity over the ability to hold down an office. Folks who are insecure in one role can be secure in another. These things can get complicated.

(I once had a boss who I queried about his need to know the ins and outs of a minor decision I'd made within my own authority. "I need to know everything!" he riposted. And I burst out laughing, was stupid enough to think he was joking. Nope. Just rather in his work role: We talked about it at length, needed to if we were to work together. And yes, he was a pussycat at home.)

---

quote:

---

The Driscolls chose to make their angle vulnerability and answers to the toughest questions. What they haven’t done is laid a solid gospel foundation for marriage; they haven’t looked at these questions in the fullest context of gospel-centeredness and the rich biblical theology of marriage. This is near-fatal because it leads to a book that is not firmly rooted in what matters most.

---

quote:

---

As I have said before if MD has acted badly then take it to the proper authorities - the police if necessary. If there is no evidence or an apparent lack of higher authority to take it to then just leave it. Draw your own conclusions about an institution that has no accountability. But drop it nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
Basically, if you use the interwebs to promote yourself, your church and your teachings, then it is right that those on the web critique those things. MD is big enough to defend himself - indeed there are statements on the website referring to some of the allegations we have discussed I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenn.:
[qb]...
(*For what its worth, I think he deserves some credit for speaking frankly and clearly about sex and for his intention to be faithful to scripture, but everything I know of him suggests that his repellent view of women as being essentially the providers of sexual services to men spoils the whole enterprise. Wasn't Driscoll the one who, when some famous pastor was caught out with a male lover a few years back, suggested that it might be his wife's fault for letting herself go? If so, I wouldn't want him as my pastor. I wouldn't go to him for relationship advice. That doesn't mean that all his congregation's marital difficulties are his fault).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
I agree that it is a different thing, but with real life situations you aways end up with perceptions of events, you never get a completely accurate, factual presentation. I still think it is important to hear the stories though. We are all capable of reading them and judging their accuracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
The fact that all of us are biased on this due to our prior experiences doesn't make the stories less worth hearing. Driscoll et al are perfectly able to respond to the allegations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
If someone from your congregation suggested using some of MH’s teaching materials in their home group or during their marriage prep programmes what would you do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
One thing I would not do is google "I hate Mark Driscoll."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Do you really mean that? That you think it would be helpful for Driscoll to respond publicly with his side of her marriage breakdown?

I takes this as yet another example that we haven't thought through properly the difference the internet makes to discussing these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been tagging along behind this thread, following it with interest, because I'm surprised how many people whose 'from's aren't even in the same continent as this Mr Driscoll and 'his' church who are so aware of him and have such strong opinions about him. How well known is he? I've never heard of him or his church away from the ship. Should I have done? Is it a case of 'where have I been?'. Is he really that well known or significant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
Mark Driscoll has used the internet to spread his teaching. He is not afraid to put stuff on YouTube, or on his website, or to write books. It is completely legitimate to critique these teachings etc.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
For those of us who have many friends influenced by MD, and who might feel under pressure to change our modes of relating as a result, it is helpful to hear what others think. It is also helpful to hear how these things work out in practice.

---

But that is where you've already moved into a grey area. Some of the links on this thread have been to people's perceptions of how it worked out in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
discusses going Old Testament on people who don't fall into line under his authority, breaking elder's noses who refuse to submit, discusses how he received advice from a martial arts master about how to give unsubmissive members a good beat-down...

---

quote:

---

Wasn't Driscoll the one who, when some famous pastor was caught out with a male lover a few years back, suggested that it might be his wife's fault for letting herself go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
discusses going Old Testament on people who don't fall into line under his authority, breaking elder's noses who refuse to submit, discusses how he received advice from a martial arts master about how to give unsubmissive members a good beat-down...

---

Please clarify - are you saying that Driscoll discussed doing these things in a sermon, or that he has actually done them?

It makes a difference. The former is certainly inappropriate (and the extent to which it is inappropriate depends on context, and whether it was meant or understood as a genuine threat, or hyperhole, or merely vacuous mouthing off), but the latter would be far more serious, abusive and criminal.

I think you are saying that Driscoll discussed the breaking of noses, but it would not take much misunderstanding to read it as saying he might actually have committed a violent assault - which is why I think specific allegations like the one in the OP should be looked at critically, and not taken as true on the basis of a person's poor reputation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
If someone from your congregation suggested using some of MH’s teaching materials in their home group or during their marriage prep programmes what would you do?

---

I'd do some investigating... by looking at the material itself and public statements MD has made. Then I'd look for any reviews done by people I know personally and trust their opinion.

One thing I would not do is google "I hate Mark Driscoll."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hyperbole to make a point? Asininely stupid even as a joke? Even at a "private" meeting of church members?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd do some investigating... by looking at the material itself and public statements MD has made. Then I'd look for any reviews done by people I know personally and trust their opinion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
I don't think it would be appropriate for him to talk about her marriage breakdown, no. I was more thinking about the "trial" type things and the discipline/shunning stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's no need to google Driscoll's detractors, as he seems more than willing to open his mouth to change feet all on his ownsome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction.

In my own non-Driscoll-related story and an instance of fraud I've researched extensively (not related to NF or Mars Hill), many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".

I have yet to fathom how calling these guys on the kind of unchristlike behaviour christians get ridiculed for tolerating in their midst can be described as a "bad witness", but in the meantime this attitude is effectively a licence for abusive leaders to go on abusing and con artists to go on making fools of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's no need to google Driscoll's detractors, as he seems more than willing to open his mouth to change feet all on his ownsome.

---

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm trying to defend his public pronouncements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you are, ISTM, trying to close down the debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you are, ISTM, trying to close down the debate.

---

Not at all. Let him have it for all his public schtick. Just play fair - go for the ball. Is that really too much to ask?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]
IME most (not all, but most) church leaders are acutely aware of the imbalance of power and therefore put up with it when their accusers spread rumours about them publicly without them being able to reply (because of confidentiality). If the leaders say anything they are pilloried for breaching confidentiality but if anyone tries to censor those spreading the rumours the leaders are accused of trying to cover it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE] the church mostly looks the other way while those involve repeatedly kick the leader in the head (not literally).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
IME most (not all, but most) church leaders are acutely aware of the imbalance of power

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you are, ISTM, trying to close down the debate.

---

Not at all. Let him have it for all his public schtick. Just play fair - go for the ball. Is that really too much to ask?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
IME most (not all, but most) church leaders are acutely aware of the imbalance of power

---

In abusive churches leaders address this so-called "imbalance of power" by the kind of practice related here: having former members shunned (whether by public declaration or church cultural practice), implying that such people will lose their salvation (or at least "all the best God has in store for them") and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That being said, I suppose it is worth considering whether public domain discussions do any good. Bandwagon effects can sometimes just become another form of witch hunt.

---

quote:

---

For every story of yours I could raise you ten

---

quote:

---

In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction...many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".

I have yet to fathom how calling these guys on the kind of unchristlike behaviour christians get ridiculed for tolerating in their midst can be described as a "bad witness", but in the meantime this attitude is effectively a licence for abusive leaders to go on abusing and con artists to go on making fools of the Church.

---

quote:

---

stood up in front of my wife and child, and yelled "You're divisive, you're crazy, you're a shredder of the Gospel!" ...and quite a few other choice things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Surely God's anointed ones aren't under a Godly gagging order ?

---

There's the rub, are they really God's annointed ones?

[ 03. July 2012, 17:55: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
 

---

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :
 
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.

Where's my wizards hat ?

For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.
 

---

Posted by CSL1 (# 17168) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.

Where's my wizards hat ?

For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Ah but it would be rebellious to question that, and that would be like 'witchcraft' according to the NF website.

Where's my wizards hat ?

For the life of me I can't see what's 'spiritual' about not being transparent about what the flock pay you. In this day and age its just plain daft to obscure what you earn, even if nothing bad is going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.

Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!


So basically that's a no !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Wasn't Driscoll the one who, when some famous pastor was caught out with a male lover a few years back, suggested that it might be his wife's fault for letting herself go?

---

One and the same. Here's the quote, which was posted on his personal blog at the time of the Haggard scandal as practical suggestions for wives to avoid something similar with their husbands.

It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. [I]A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction.

In my own non-Driscoll-related story and an instance of fraud I've researched extensively (not related to NF or Mars Hill), many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.

Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!


So basically that's a no !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Well at last I have got a reply to asking what Mark Driscoll earns.

Thank you for your email. We do not publish individual salaries. We do publish an annual report for church members. Please see your lead pastor to obtain a copy. Thank you!


So basically that's a no !

---

Here, let me google that for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thyme:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my experience the people one tends to look to all too frequently shut their eyes or run in the other direction.

In my own non-Driscoll-related story and an instance of fraud I've researched extensively (not related to NF or Mars Hill), many people simply refuse to countenance the facts. Others privately admit something is wrong but won't speak out "because it would be a bad witness".

---

Yes, I have experienced this in churches. (More than one).

Also in churches as elsewhere whistle blowing or rocking the boat tends to lead to the victimisation of the whistle blower/boat rocker, no holds are barred in the denigration of their character both publicly and privately. It gets very vicious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

There will always be dipsticks who manipulate God into the shape of their own ego. My denomination may be shrivelling up and dying but we sure as fuckery won't go down telling women that they have to lie on their back on demand in the service of Jaysus.

---

Well said, I agree - and I repeat what I said on the first page of this thread - that he's a power hungry man who believes woman's purpose is to keep his testicles empty and his stomach full, and uses 'spiritual battle' as his vehicle.

The only thing that confuses me is why anyone goes along with it - let alone the 1000s who have joined his church.

I don't understand their motivations at all, but his are crystal clear imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

The only thing that confuses me is why anyone goes along with it - let alone the 1000s who have joined his church.

I don't understand their motivations at all, but his are crystal clear imo.

---

Well said!

 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Why do people join gangs with charismatic leaders? I would think there's loads of emotional satisfaction in it at first. You're part of this new hip in-crowd, you get to be tongue-whipped by this guy, who's quite attractive, and speaks a sort of vaguely street language, there are loads of thrills from hearing about hell and damnation, there are talks about sex, and how women should lie back and just suck it up, you might get a kind word from the head man, or you might even get a kind of sub-head man job, and then you get to tongue-whip some other people.

Oh hell, how do I join?
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@Quetzalcoatl

The 50 shades of grey thread is over there -------->



I've seriously wondered, but never voiced the ideal because I have no evidence, whether some of the wives who are members of churches like this really enjoy being told to submit. That in another life they may have been S&M enthusiasts. And that they may be mistaking the warm glow they get from the lifestyle the church enforces as the holy spirit letting them know they are right with god in submitting to their husbands. Ditto for some of the men who in another life may have been in charge of tying the knots so to speak. Pure speculation of course.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Should that not be "impure speculation"?


 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Quetzalcoatl

The 50 shades of grey thread is over there -------->



I've seriously wondered, but never voiced the ideal because I have no evidence, whether some of the wives who are members of churches like this really enjoy being told to submit. That in another life they may have been S&M enthusiasts. And that they may be mistaking the warm glow they get from the lifestyle the church enforces as the holy spirit letting them know they are right with god in submitting to their husbands. Ditto for some of the men who in another life may have been in charge of tying the knots so to speak. Pure speculation of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

I've known (and known of) young men who quit their jobs, discontinued their education, abandoned family, friends, etc. and moved over a thousand miles just to serve at the feet of church leaders they know only through Youtube or a video series. Many of these young people are so desperate for a teacher, guru, king (perhaps lack of father figure in their youth?) that they'll put up with all manner of abuse to get it. The Bible says you don't need all these teachers if you have the Holy Spirit, that's what teaches you the truth, the teachers at best are mere facilitators and edifiers. At worst they are money-making enterprises who destroy and distort the truth.

---

quote:

---

It's worse than that, I think. If you set up an abusive organization, you won't be short of people to play both roles, the abused and the abuser. I suppose in a church organization, this is all glossed over and rationalized like mad, so that the abuse masquerades as necessary correction, or reproof, or the like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
I think the reason why people stay are emotional investment and loosing friendships.

Why they join, is often because they think the place is more 'spiritual' because like all deceptions, its true motives for money and dominance of its members are carefully hidden. Instead all people see are a bunch of outwardly happy people worshipping in freedom and a charismatic 'anointed' leader who has a hotline to God.

---

quote:

---

I believe it is the duty of the body of Christ to stand up to these abusive church structures be it Driscoll or New Frontiers, or others, and demand change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the law gets involved, then that's another matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see why organizations should not repeat these patterns. But you hope that responsible organizations offer protection - but then look at child abuse in the various churches, or indeed, in schools, children's homes, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Why they join, is often because they think the place is more 'spiritual' because like all deceptions, its true motives for money and dominance of its members are carefully hidden. Instead all people see are a bunch of outwardly happy people worshipping in freedom...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
We have laws against domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and in some cases verbal abuse... why not spiritual abuse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
We have laws against domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and in some cases verbal abuse... why not spiritual abuse?

---

Define "spiritual abuse".

By which I mean, define it for the purpose of drafting a law, by making the definition as clear and precise as possible so that everything which you think should be criminally and civilly actionable is included, and everything that you think should not be actionable is excluded. Draft it on the basis that some people may go to jail, and their lives and careers may be ruined, depending on whether something they did falls within (somebody else's interpretation of) what you are drafting.

That's (one reason) why we shouldn't have a law against it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

This, I think, really could work if done properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

This, I think, really could work if done properly.

---

How often before you have 2 of these sorts of boards, or 4, or 10 or 100?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

This, I think, really could work if done properly.

---

How often before you have 2 of these sorts of boards, or 4, or 10 or 100?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
If a law regarding spiritual abuse isn't possible (and I can see why, I didn't really think it would be but was wondering if there was a dissenting opinion)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.

It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.

The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.

It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.

The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

Well isn't that fraud?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I still don't understand how you define spiritual abuse in a way that distinguishes it from emotional abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I still don't understand how you define spiritual abuse in a way that distinguishes it from emotional abuse.

---

I think they would be very similar, but spiritual abuse would have the added twist of divine authority-- i.e. that the abuser is presenting him/herself as speaking for God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

While financial abuse is certainly one common type of spiritual abuse, I would not want to limit the definition just to that. Indeed, the financial abuse is the least disturbing allegation being leveled at Driscoll IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.

It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.

The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
One definition I've seen of spiritual abuse is when preachers abuse scripture and misrepresent it for reasons of financial gain and control.

As such its God's word that is abused. The victims end up with a faulty view of God which is entwined with the authority figure that pretends to be their 'anointed leader' with a hot line to God.

It takes years to repair the damage. Most will either stay in the abusive church and never leave, or will likely risk loosing their faith as the previous foundations of their faith are questioned and shaken.

The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

Well isn't that fraud?

---

No. For it to be fraud, you would have to prove that the lack of transparency was intentional AND for personal gain or to damage another individual.

So for example – and I am not a lawyer - if you could prove that a head of a religious organisation was being paid wildly over the odds and the lack of transparency was designed to ensure they could avoid paying the correct level of tax, then there might be a case to answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

...The leaders responsible are rarely called to account. They set up structures that are devoid of true accountability. Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo need to be taken to task for the flaws in their church systems lack of financial transparency.

---

While financial abuse is certainly one common type of spiritual abuse, I would not want to limit the definition just to that. Indeed, the financial abuse is the least disturbing allegation being leveled at Driscoll IMHO.

---

Okay I’ll bite … Has there actually been any flat out accusations of financial malpractice? With evidence.

There’s a world of difference between the wage structures not being very transparent / concerns about a lack of accountability and someone lining their pockets through Christian ministry.

Tubbs [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the hallmarks of a cult is that individual members are expected to be accountable to leaders for everything; their lives become open books. Whereas leaders are expected to have their zones of privacy, only sharing their 'wisdom and reasons' to the extent that followers need to know. Their 'wisdom and reasoning' come from 'above'. They have special access to 'the mind of God'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From the POV of the cult leader, the ideal follower is like Boxer in Animal Farm. "Comrade Napoleon is always right." And "I will work harder".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
how very like a cult, which is also very like Stalinism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Re the chatter about a secular law against spiritual abuse, I don't want courts deciding what is or is not correct theology! Historically, we've been there, not good. Still, I agree with the distressed sense of wishing for an effective way to deal with abuses like telling people to avid contact with their extended families or demanding certain amounts of money.

But what intrigues me about this discussion is while so many of our gentler churches struggle with gradual declining memberships, some of these seemingly abusive churches actually kick people out! Like they have an excess of members. How do they do that? Does abuse attract? Is there an initial appearance of "having it all together" or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "

Don't really need to add anything to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "

Don't really need to add anything to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
how very like a cult, which is also very like Stalinism.

---

Sweet. That makes a nice change. It's usualy me who gets compared to Stalin whenever a discussion touches on modern day atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in (or, at least, this I just noticed): Slacktivist reports on the rape-positive views of members of the Gospel Coaltion - people described as "neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold "

Don't really need to add anything to this.

---

Come on, play the ball.

Wilson posted something stupid and has taken it down. Good call because I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way shape of form. I've not been following this closely but had heard he had apologised. I certainly hope so.

However, Driscoll has no editorial oversight for the TGC website at all so I don't see what relevance this has to this thread.

If you want to to draw the conclusion that this post comes from the same stable as Driscoll then fair enough. However, that then means that all Baptists are to be judged by Fred Phelps, Spong speaks for all Episcopalians, Benny Hinn for all Pentecostals ... take your pick for the RC and the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That quote from the Wilson book made me chuckle (I am assuming it is accurate):

A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

This is just sexual fantasy. I suppose a lot of adolescent boys indulge in this; hopefully, they grow up and realize that women are people like them.

I don't know if this is characteristic of the 'complementarians' or not. I think one of their key ideas is the 'submission' of the woman to the man. No, no, no, the key to a good marriage is to do what she says, any fool, he no that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
The point is not the apology. Apologies are cheap and most (not all) are worthless--nay, most are less than worthless and positively deleterious, because they can provide effective cover for further crimes against the Body of Christ.

The problem is the evil heart that inspires the viciousness, such as what proceeds from the pens and mouths of Wilson, Driscoll, et. al. Unless there's true repentance--which is never cheap and easy--the apology's more likely just a clever strategy. How many apologies have beaten women and children heard from their violent drunken fathers? Less than worthless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
Apart from anything else, that is slander.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.

---

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.

---

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.

---

I'm not all that knowledgeable, just my field is all. They mean the same things--defamation--for the purposes of the debate. I was just being a picky ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:
I'll buy your analogy except for Phelps, who is only "Baptist" in those most cynical-name-association-to-achieve-pseudo-respectability manner possible, not unlike the "People's Democratic Republic of North Korea". (by the way, I am not Baptist, just so you know)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]Guilty by loose association is not a fair game to play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

However, Driscoll has no editorial oversight for the TGC website at all so I don't see what relevance this has to this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. besides which Driscoll withdrew from TGC shortly after two posts on their website; one of which critiqued his interaction with TD Jakes, and other of which critiqued his handling of the interview with Justin Brierley (along with his followup post)

A reaction which sits uneasily alongside some of his other rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CSL1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing from that scum Wilson* makes me chuckle. Driscoll is significantly elevated by the comparison.


*Wilson is a slavery apologist as well as being misogynistic.

---

fyi: Wilson did post this apology which takes more responsibility than most do in this circumstance:

Wilson apology

---

Confusingly, there are two totally unrelated Wilsons involved: Jared Wilson and Doug Wilson. The slavery apologist is Doug Wilson. Jared Wilson cited Doug Wilson on sex in his blog. The one who has posted an apology is Jared Wilson. Doug Wilson continues unrepentant.

---

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of either prior to the dust-up.

---

I'm not all that knowledgeable, just my field is all. They mean the same things--defamation--for the purposes of the debate. I was just being a picky ass.

---

Just to clarify: I was actually thanking Cottontail for the clarification re: the two Wilsons. But a bit of a grammar/ vocab/ legal lesson never hurts either.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0