Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Some of the accusations of bullying and abuse of power have really alarmed me.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Besides Driskoll's misogynistic slop, you mean?
Originally posted by Highfive:
Are there any quintessential Evangelical books on sex in marriage out there?
quote:From the article:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
To use Driscoll as a measure for evangelicals is like using Peter Akinola as a measure for anglicans. He may have a large following, but he is far from being representative.
quote:I agree with Byron here. Of course there are plenty of evangelicals that don't agree with him, but he has had plenty of support from people seen (in non-conformist evangelical circles anyway) as mainstream.
Driscoll appeared to be moving toward status as one of America’s leading evangelicals, and was subject of a New York Times Magazine profile in 2009.
He now appears to be in extreme disfavor with fellow evangelicals.
quote:I imagine it's easy to find outrageous ones, but I expect that what one group of evangelicals regards as quintessential will be regarded by others as misrepresenting their views. I think mutual exclusivity compounds the problem of identification.
Originally posted by Highfive:
Are there any quintessential Evangelical books on sex in marriage out there?
quote:I'd kind of agree - though another way of describing it is that he has plenty of support from people who are mainstream for those evangelicals who are influenced by people across the pond.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I agree with Byron here. Of course there are plenty of evangelicals that don't agree with him, but he has had plenty of support from people seen (in non-conformist evangelical circles anyway) as mainstream.
He now appears to be in extreme disfavor with fellow evangelicals.
quote:Definitely. The cult of personality is a horrible thing, and ISTM complete anathema to the way of Christ. Putting so much emphasis and investing so much in one person is just a recipe for disaster; it's almost always too much for one person to bear.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem of course is that any movement that puts personalities to the forefront is prone to this kind of thing.
quote:That's what stuck out to me there most, that they were making former staff members sign contracts agreeing to forgo their pensions if they or their spouses made any negative comments about Mars Hill for several years after leaving. These weren't limited to comments about their employment, which is standard, but anything even a negative view about their experiences as church members!
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Some of the accusations of bullying and abuse of power have really alarmed me.
quote:Hmmm ... I can think of one eponymous former shippie who has a high profile, but perhaps I digress.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well he's on Wikipedia, whose criteria for keeping pages of living persons are pretty strict.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
)
quote:I don't know about the UK, but here in the US it's been hard to find ANY evangelical willing to stand up for the guy for a very long time. Even his large congregation seems a bit like niche marketing-- since precisely no on in the evangelical world is offering the sort of misogynistic, controlling schtick he favors, the fact that he has 5000 followers seems to indicate that there are about 5000 twisted evangelicals in the US who are drawn to this swill, which, given that estimates put the number of American evangelicals (depending on how defined) somewhere around 80 or 90 million, is not that significant.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:From the article:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
To use Driscoll as a measure for evangelicals is like using Peter Akinola as a measure for anglicans. He may have a large following, but he is far from being representative.quote:I agree with Byron here. Of course there are plenty of evangelicals that don't agree with him, but he has had plenty of support from people seen (in non-conformist evangelical circles anyway) as mainstream.
Driscoll appeared to be moving toward status as one of America’s leading evangelicals, and was subject of a New York Times Magazine profile in 2009.
He now appears to be in extreme disfavor with fellow evangelicals.
quote:There are two large evangelical churches with celebrity pastors named Mars Hill in the US, but any similarity or connection between the two ends there. Rob Bell founded the Mars Hill church in Michigan and was pastor there until just a year or two ago. He was not expelled but left to "pursue other projects" (speaking and writing engagements, one assumes).
Originally posted by Zappa:
To be honest I haven't heard of Driscoll, except shipboard vaguely, and Mars Hill only in the context of Rob Bell, who I suspect has long since been expelled. I did drive past Mars Hill in LA once, though, when I was trying to find a random Piskie Church.
quote:In 2008, Sydney Anglicans (via Youthworks and KCC)I think but I could be wrong on tis) paid Mark Driscoll to come to Sydney, he addressed the Anglican Bishops of Sydney and made some public appearances to "the faithful".. There were some rather lukewarm reviews of the whole thing and a little critique from official channels and it all went very, very quiet, thank goodness. So even for SydneyAnglicans his weird, sex-obsesssed, potty-mouthed "preaching' was too much.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:Hmmm ... I can think of one eponymous former shippie who has a high profile, but perhaps I digress.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well he's on Wikipedia, whose criteria for keeping pages of living persons are pretty strict.
To be honest I haven't heard of Driscoll, except shipboard vaguely, and Mars Hill only in the context of Rob Bell, who I suspect has long since been expelled. I did drive past Mars Hill in LA once, though, when I was trying to find a random Piskie Church.
What I would like to know are what doctrinal issues so easily produce division in evangelical congoes these days. In my day it was all pre-mid, post-mid and mid-mid speculation.
quote:It's not that strict...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well he's on Wikipedia, whose criteria for keeping pages of living persons are pretty strict.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:It really doesn't. Unless you mean that he should have had some oversight (he probably would put his role down as 'apostle' especially given his comments in the past about 'kingly anointings) in which case I agree.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The whole thing boils down to an ongoing argument about church government.
quote:But Driscoll could easily be thought of as an apostle - he has played a key role in establishing many new church congregations, notably in areas like Seattle where the gospel of Jesus hasn't (so I gather) been given an enthusiastic welcome.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The whole thing boils down to an ongoing argument about church government. The solution, I think, is bishops or apostles. Pick your own terminology.
quote:Precisely. When it's functioning properly one role of episcopal government (and/or 'trans-local apostolic ministry) is to prevent local pluralities of elders from lording it over the flock by giving them fatherly encouragement, godly discipline and genuine accountability.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:But Driscoll could easily be thought of as an apostle - he has played a key role in establishing many new church congregations, notably in areas like Seattle where the gospel of Jesus hasn't (so I gather) been given an enthusiastic welcome.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The whole thing boils down to an ongoing argument about church government. The solution, I think, is bishops or apostles. Pick your own terminology.
I'd suggest the issue is indeed related, in part, to issues of church government and structure; but more around the fact that Driscoll simply had (was allowed to take... was given...) far too much power. Once that much power is vested in a single person, a great deal of damage can be done if that person drifts away from Christ.
quote:That sentence is rather ambiguous. Sorry. Hopefully you get my point.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Precisely. When it's functioning properly one role of episcopal government (and/or 'trans-local apostolic ministry) is to prevent local pluralities of elders from lording it over the flock by giving them fatherly encouragement, godly discipline and genuine accountability.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:But Driscoll could easily be thought of as an apostle - he has played a key role in establishing many new church congregations, notably in areas like Seattle where the gospel of Jesus hasn't (so I gather) been given an enthusiastic welcome.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The whole thing boils down to an ongoing argument about church government. The solution, I think, is bishops or apostles. Pick your own terminology.
I'd suggest the issue is indeed related, in part, to issues of church government and structure; but more around the fact that Driscoll simply had (was allowed to take... was given...) far too much power. Once that much power is vested in a single person, a great deal of damage can be done if that person drifts away from Christ.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I don't know much about him, but having set up and run a number of successful churches and become a media figure he's probably quite rich, relatively speaking. His people are likely to be okay about that, because they've increased his wealth by joining his churches and buying his books, etc.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Has anyone managed to find out what Driscoll earns ? I tried emailing them but couldn't get an answer - they only publish the combined salaries figure.
Not good enough and not at all transparent.
Would I trust Driscoll ? NO....
quote:I don't necessarily have a problem with him being materially rich, but the risk of corruption when one is "selling" the kingdom is huge and I don't believe Jesus gave his life in order for entrepreneurs to maximise their profits.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I don't know much about him, but having set up and run a number of successful churches and become a media figure he's probably quite rich, relatively speaking. His people are likely to be okay about that, because they've increased his wealth by joining his churches and buying his books, etc.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Has anyone managed to find out what Driscoll earns ? I tried emailing them but couldn't get an answer - they only publish the combined salaries figure.
Not good enough and not at all transparent.
Would I trust Driscoll ? NO....
People who prefer their clergy to exist in a state of genteel poverty (when compared to the salaries of other professional folk) obviously wouldn't have anything to do with him, which is fair enough. But the jobs are somewhat different; the ministerial role in older and more centralised denominations is more about pastoral care, maintenance, and (in many cases) managing decline. This obviously isn't the sort of work that's likely to make anyone rich. Mark Driscoll's successors might find their salaries dropping as their role becomes more traditional and less entrepreneurial and risk-laden.
quote:The lack of financial transparency is one of several issues that has been raised many times by his critics. iow, don't expect anything more than that omnibus figure. That doesn't mean he's doing anything shady, of course (although last year's use of church $$ to boost his NYT booklist ranking seems less-than-squeeky-clean) but it does go to the overall issue of lack of accountability. So far his pattern seems to be to set up a group of (all male, 'natch) elders to provide some illusion of accountability, then the minute they raise any questions, fire/ excommunicate them for lack of loyalty.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Has anyone managed to find out what Driscoll earns ? I tried emailing them but couldn't get an answer - they only publish the combined salaries figure.
Not good enough and not at all transparent.
Would I trust Driscoll ? NO....
quote:This behaviour is not Reformed. Elders were invented in Geneva precisely to control the clerics and as such should have their own power structures. Normative today is that they should have representation authority from within the congregation (other social ones have been tried). Clerics thus should have little say in their appointment. The correct approach for a cleric is to win them over and make them powerful allies
by Cliffdweller
So far his pattern seems to be to set up a group of (all male, 'natch) elders to provide some illusion of accountability, then the minute they raise any questions, fire/ excommunicate them for lack of loyalty.
quote:Absolutely. But then, Driskoll is not really Reformed-- he is Calvinist (theology) but his polity is, as you have just pointed out, not at all Reformed.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:This behaviour is not Reformed. Elders were invented in Geneva precisely to control the clerics and as such should have their own power structures. Normative today is that they should have representation authority from within the congregation (other social ones have been tried). Clerics thus should have little say in their appointment. The correct approach for a cleric is to win them over and make them powerful allies
by Cliffdweller
So far his pattern seems to be to set up a group of (all male, 'natch) elders to provide some illusion of accountability, then the minute they raise any questions, fire/ excommunicate them for lack of loyalty.
Jengie
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I'm inclined to say that people shouldn't be profiteering from their ministry. To choose someone outside the traditional clergy, C. S. Lewis provides an admirable example of how to deal with the profits of religious books - he gave them all away.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know much about him, but having set up and run a number of successful churches and become a media figure he's probably quite rich, relatively speaking. His people are likely to be okay about that, because they've increased his wealth by joining his churches and buying his books, etc.
People who prefer their clergy to exist in a state of genteel poverty (when compared to the salaries of other professional folk) obviously wouldn't have anything to do with him, which is fair enough. But the jobs are somewhat different; the ministerial role in older and more centralised denominations is more about pastoral care, maintenance, and (in many cases) managing decline. This obviously isn't the sort of work that's likely to make anyone rich. Mark Driscoll's successors might find their salaries dropping as their role becomes more traditional and less entrepreneurial and risk-laden.
quote:It seems likely. Who can trust an individual who manipulates things to obtain financial advantage and gain worldly status? He's disqualified himself from holding any position of responsibility I the church.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I wonder if using church funds to unethically boost his book to the top of the NY Times best seller list might be among the list of grievances of the Acts 29 board?
quote:Is "failed" the right word? Sure, Driscoll's been caught in shady business practices, but he still lords it over the Mars Hill empire, which shows no sign of folding.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[...] [Driscoll] just kept trying to come across as a "good ole boy" and it hasn't worked - he tried to be something he isn't and it's failed and failed big time.
quote:Yes - but to a pretty small and increasingly restricted minority.
Originally posted by Byron:
I loathe that might-makes-right line, but damn, does it ever work for him.
quote:Yes, it's kind of ironic that a lot of the Neo-Reformed trumpet their belief in 'total depravity' but then put one person in charge.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This behaviour is not Reformed. Elders were invented in Geneva precisely to control the clerics and as such should have their own power structures.
quote:too true.
Originally posted by Byron:
As folk have said elsewhere, the church's name points to Driscoll's real god. For many guys, his theological machismo has magnetic appeal. Ironically for someone who loathes atheism, he's the swaggering embodiment of Nietzsche's Overman. Want, take, have. Driscoll's Alpha through and through, an apex predator who could beatdown anyone who crosses him, and he knows it.
I loathe that might-makes-right line, but damn, does it ever work for him.
quote:Perhaps he might argue that it's all right as long as only 90% does.
Originally posted by Arminian:
I guess my problem with Driscoll becoming rich is if its on the back of demanding 10% tithing from his flock, and then refusing to disclose how much of it ends up in his pocket.
quote:Far be it from me to defend Driskoll in his ilk, but just to answer these specific questions:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Perhaps he might argue that it's all right as long as only 90% does.
Originally posted by Arminian:
I guess my problem with Driscoll becoming rich is if its on the back of demanding 10% tithing from his flock, and then refusing to disclose how much of it ends up in his pocket.
Going back to the question of apostles, aren't they restricted to the New Testament era? Surely nobody is entitled to claim to be one now? I'd be very suspicious of somebody who did?
Besides, there's no evidence that I know of that any of the first generation of Christian leaders ended up rich in worldly terms. Being taken across the Mediterranean under military guard and being shipwrecked aren't quite in the same league as having personal jets or country estates.
quote:Yes. As has been noted, Driskoll seems to be (somewhat selectively) hyper-Calvinist in his theology, but entirely un-Reformed in his polity. This would be one such example-- Reformed theology always recognizes the role of the gathered community in "calling forth the gifts"-- we don't get to step forward in isolation and say "I have the gift of preaching/ prophesy/ teaching/ basket weaving"-- that's for the gathered community to say. One of the things I appreciate most about Reformed theology is that it takes the perils of power seriously, with appropriate levels of transparency and accountability. Driskoll would do well to attend to that aspect of Reformed tradition.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[replying to Enoch]
Actually that is not the case in Reformed Tradition. The five fold ministry as in John Calvin is Apostle, Prophet, Minister, Doctor and Elder. However, the roles of Apostle and Prophet only arise in times of crisis, they are eschatological offices. John Calvin counted Martin Luther as an Apostle.
I would say Apostle and Prophet are offices that can only be bestowed by others, not ones you can claim for yourself. To a lesser extent that is true of regular offices as well.
Jengie
quote:I don't know. I think that if the apostle Paul was still around he might well have said Driscoll met his definition of a "false apostle"...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many non-liturgical churches define "apostle" as "church planter". So Driskoll meets that definition of the term.
quote:This is certainly what I mean by the term 'apostle', so I think they're absolutely needed in the 21st century (though hopefully less self-aggrandising and bullying than Driscoll!). Actually, I'd broaden out the term to mean anyone who starts new activities and enterprises with the aim of bringing about more of God's will on earth - so that could be new churches, but it could also be new community activities or social businesses.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many non-liturgical churches define "apostle" as "church planter". So Driskoll meets that definition of the term.
quote:Mandatory viewing: The Apostle.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[EDIT - to agree with cliffdweller that all these gifts / roles should be identified and confirmed by others. Anyone going around declaring themselves as an apostle or whatever needs to be treated with caution, IMO.]
quote:I'll leave you to do the comparisons.
First on the list is the suffering of an apostle. [...] Today there are those in the church who are claiming to be apostles, but they seem to want no part of apostolic suffering. They not only live lifestyles of lavish ease, but they accept and encourage an incredible deference that is paid to them by ordinary Christians... They effectively put themselves beyone the rebuke of fellow Christians, as though this were part of their apostolic calling
quote:Well, it fits a couple of other things I've read... By the way, that post has been shared over 3,000 times on Facebook as I type this. That's a lot, right? The tide really is turning on how Driscoll is thought of, it seems.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Interesting and rather sad letter from someone at the sharp end of Mars Hill...If true its pretty classic narcissist behavior.
http://ronwheelerjr.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/i-am-not-anonymous-2/
quote:Oh, me too. I was simply answering the earlier question re: the contemporary use of the term "apostle".
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't know. I think that if the apostle Paul was still around he might well have said Driscoll met his definition of a "false apostle"...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many non-liturgical churches define "apostle" as "church planter". So Driskoll meets that definition of the term.
quote:It could be said that the only way to prevent 'profiteering' in the church is not to have a professional ministry at all! There will always be those who are tempted to value the income more than the mission. This is how you end up with clergy who lose their faith but feel unable to walk away from the salary (modest though it may be, by middle class standards) and the pension.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm inclined to say that people shouldn't be profiteering from their ministry. To choose someone outside the traditional clergy, C. S. Lewis provides an admirable example of how to deal with the profits of religious books - he gave them all away.
quote:Ah - that explains a lot that had me befuddled. I thought they were a sort of supermarket chain of churches.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are two large evangelical churches with celebrity pastors named Mars Hill in the US, but any similarity or connection between the two ends there. Rob Bell founded the Mars Hill church in Michigan and was pastor there until just a year or two ago. He was not expelled but left to "pursue other projects" (speaking and writing engagements, one assumes).
Driskoll's Mars Hill is in Washington state.
I live in L.A. but had never heard of a Mars Hill L.A. I'm guessing it's part of the Acts 29 network, but it could also be an offshoot of the Bell version.
quote:In West L.A., yes. In Orange County, not so much.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:Ah - that explains a lot that had me befuddled. I thought they were a sort of supermarket chain of churches.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm guessing it's part of the Acts 29 network, but it could also be an offshoot of the Bell version.
As for the one in LA I was probably mistaken. It was on a hill on the left as I headed down the highway to Orange County and Laguna Hills .. big auditorium, hundreds of cars. Probably a Democrat Convention!
quote:In wider evangelical circles, it may well be, if only temporarily. If he plays things right, and signs are he will, Driscoll has every chance of receiving cheap grace and a free pass.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Well, it fits a couple of other things I've read... By the way, that post has been shared over 3,000 times on Facebook as I type this. That's a lot, right? The tide really is turning on how Driscoll is thought of, it seems.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Interesting and rather sad letter from someone at the sharp end of Mars Hill...If true its pretty classic narcissist behavior.
http://ronwheelerjr.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/i-am-not-anonymous-2/
quote:sigh. Once again, this is simply not the case. Leading American evangelicals as well as the rank-and-file have been publically and consistently calling Driscoll out on his misogynistic s**t for decades (iow, not "temporarily"). While 5000 followers sounds like a lot, it is less than .0001% of the estimated 50-80 million American evangelicals who do not share or endorse his views and are not coy about saying so. He has not gotten a free pass for YEARS and his recent behavior does not suggest he's likely to get one soon.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:In wider evangelical circles, it may well be, if only temporarily. If he plays things right, and signs are he will, Driscoll has every chance of receiving cheap grace and a free pass.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Well, it fits a couple of other things I've read... By the way, that post has been shared over 3,000 times on Facebook as I type this. That's a lot, right? The tide really is turning on how Driscoll is thought of, it seems.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Interesting and rather sad letter from someone at the sharp end of Mars Hill...If true its pretty classic narcissist behavior.
http://ronwheelerjr.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/i-am-not-anonymous-2/
quote:Yes. Within that narrower sphere of influence, possibly even within the Acts 29 network, you are entirely right.
Originally posted by Byron:
As the blog rightly says, Driscoll's enablers carry the can for much of the damage he's done. They chose not to step in years ago. The followers have at least as much responsibility as the leader.
quote:I disagree.
Originally posted by Byron:
As the blog rightly says, Driscoll's enablers carry the can for much of the damage he's done. They chose not to step in years ago. The followers have at least as much responsibility as the leader.
quote:Well, each of us has a dark side to our character that, if we are to follow the way of Christ, must be transformed and redeemed by our submission to God's grace. Driscoll's dark side is that he's an apex predator...
Originally posted by Byron:
I find it hard to dump all the blame on Driscoll, 'cause as an apex predator, he's born to act this way. Not because he's bad, but because he can. Near all of us would if we had the ability. As Nietzsche observed so damningly, "slave" morality is driven by self-interest: if we can't be masters, we seek to control those who are.
quote:But not doing a good job, it seems; unless there's been an epic campaign of misinformation against him... I do think you're right to say his enablers bear plenty of responsibility, but when someone has the level of power that Driscoll seems to have at Mars Hill Church, taking a stand is difficult and an act of considerable courage.
Originally posted by Byron:
Masters must control themselves. By choosing to follow the way of Jesus, Driscoll's trying to fight against everything he is.
quote:Well that's a bullet I'll dodge!
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I see from the comments in the Ron Wheeler link that Mark Driscoll is coming to the 2015 Hillsong conference in Australia...interesting.
quote:As I already noted, yes, evangelicals don't universally support Driscoll. Much of that was about tone: many evangelicals said they found Driscoll crude.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
sigh. Once again, this is simply not the case. Leading American evangelicals as well as the rank-and-file have been publically and consistently calling Driscoll out on his misogynistic s**t for decades (iow, not "temporarily"). While 5000 followers sounds like a lot, it is less than .0001% of the estimated 50-80 million American evangelicals who do not share or endorse his views and are not coy about saying so. He has not gotten a free pass for YEARS and his recent behavior does not suggest he's likely to get one soon. [...]
quote:This seems a fair assessment to me. It really makes me sad that doctrinal correctness is often given far more emphasis than godly behaviour...
Originally posted by Byron:
There was nothing comparable to the World Vision backlash. Rachel Held Evans and Steve Chalke have faced more ostracism. (LifeWay refused to stock A Year of Biblical Womanhood; the Evangelical Alliance dumped Oasis.)
quote:Leaving aside the general question of personal responsibility, Driscoll's the bossman of a corporation. Corporate responsibility holds that all those who knowingly facilitate abusive behavior on its behalf share in the blame.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I disagree.
I do agree that top-level "enablers" bear some responsibility for letting the no. 1 get out of hand, and I think this is far more widespread in churches without a formalised leadership structure than christians usually admit.
However, from a christian perspective at least, I don't see any exceptions to the individual taking the most responsibility for their actions being that individual themself. From those to whom much has been given...
quote:As the very least, it puts a ton of pressure on them to control themselves. As our legal system is shaped around it, it often jumps to outright coercion.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, each of us has a dark side to our character that, if we are to follow the way of Christ, must be transformed and redeemed by our submission to God's grace. Driscoll's dark side is that he's an apex predator...
Surely, though, what you call Christian slave-morality isn't about controlling people (as per Nietzsche's definition)?
quote:Sure, but how did he get that power? All the hangers on who wanted a piece of the pie, all the people who turned a blind eye to abuse. Many others were innocent, but plenty weren't, and they're as involved in shaping the corporate culture of Mars Hill as Driscoll.
But not doing a good job [at self-control], it seems; unless there's been an epic campaign of misinformation against him... I do think you're right to say his enablers bear plenty of responsibility, but when someone has the level of power that Driscoll seems to have at Mars Hill Church, taking a stand is difficult and an act of considerable courage.
quote:Absolutely, although I'd say it's selective doctrinal correctness. The Mars Hill culture tramples all over biblical models of leadership and accountability.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:This seems a fair assessment to me. It really makes me sad that doctrinal correctness is often given far more emphasis than godly behaviour...
Originally posted by Byron:
There was nothing comparable to the World Vision backlash. Rachel Held Evans and Steve Chalke have faced more ostracism. (LifeWay refused to stock A Year of Biblical Womanhood; the Evangelical Alliance dumped Oasis.)
quote:Again, you are quite simply wrong. Yes, you can find the odd (and I do mean odd) puff piece. But leading American evangelicals have been calling him out for decades, including Christianity Today. And about FAR more serious things than just being crude.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:As I already noted, yes, evangelicals don't universally support Driscoll. Much of that was about tone: many evangelicals said they found Driscoll crude.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
sigh. Once again, this is simply not the case. Leading American evangelicals as well as the rank-and-file have been publically and consistently calling Driscoll out on his misogynistic s**t for decades (iow, not "temporarily"). While 5000 followers sounds like a lot, it is less than .0001% of the estimated 50-80 million American evangelicals who do not share or endorse his views and are not coy about saying so. He has not gotten a free pass for YEARS and his recent behavior does not suggest he's likely to get one soon. [...]
Until very recently, though, even if he was pissing out the flap with glee, the big guy was kept in the tent. Driscoll was invited to conferences, and is still down for Hillsong '15; LifeWay stocked his books until a few days ago; Christianity Today gave puff pieces (should that be fluff pieces ...) to Real Marriage. Sure, Driscoll was a bad boy, but he was our bad boy.
There was nothing comparable to the World Vision backlash. Rachel Held Evans and Steve Chalke have faced more ostracism. (LifeWay refused to stock A Year of Biblical Womanhood; the Evangelical Alliance dumped Oasis.)
quote:Possibly but I'm not convinced. I mean he has to make some show of being Christian in order to keep controlling people and making lots of money. If he abandoned any semblance of following the bible, he'd lose his hold over anyone. I doubt he'd amass power in any other sphere other than religion, I mean sex-obsessed, potty-mouthed men with ordinary educations are not scarce, but being sex-obsessed and potty-mouthed in Christian circles makes you something of a niche-market as others have noted.
Originally posted by Byron:
Driscoll's does struggle to follow Christian principles, but I hate to think how much worse he'd be if he didn't try. If he wasn't holding himself back, he'd be doing a helluva lot worse than screaming and shunning.
quote:Cliffdweller - I don't think this really undermines your point but, for the sake of accuracy, the '5000 or so followers' were the people who had shared on Facebook that letter from an ex-colleague of Mark Driscoll. I just checked and Driscoll's Facebook page has 258,081 likes.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, no defending the enablers, the Acts 29 network, his 5000 or so followers. But to try to pin this on evangelicals is simply not accurate or fair. We have enough real problems (witness the World Vision debacle) w/o blaming us for this c***.
quote:Yup, I agree that prominent evangelicals have called Driscoll out; what's striking is that he's stayed in the evangelical tent the whole time.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, you are quite simply wrong. Yes, you can find the odd (and I do mean odd) puff piece. But leading American evangelicals have been calling him out for decades, including Christianity Today. And about FAR more serious things than just being crude. [...]
quote:Totally, but I do think Driscoll had plenty of options besides a Seattle meagachurch.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Possibly but I'm not convinced. I mean he has to make some show of being Christian in order to keep controlling people and making lots of money. If he abandoned any semblance of following the bible, he'd lose his hold over anyone. I doubt he'd amass power in any other sphere other than religion, I mean sex-obsessed, potty-mouthed men with ordinary educations are not scarce, but being sex-obsessed and potty-mouthed in Christian circles makes you something of a niche-market as others have noted.
I tend to believe "apex-predators" find the environment in which they can achieve greatest power and aggrandisement. Non-structured church is the perfect storm for somebody with the attributes of Mr Driscoll.
quote:The 5000 figure I was using was the membership of Mars Hill. But that's an old figure-- I haven't bothered to check, today's numbers could be up or down from that. But then again, if he's willing to use church $$ to boost his ranking on the NYT bestsellers list, why would I trust his reported church membership?
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Cliffdweller - I don't think this really undermines your point but, for the sake of accuracy, the '5000 or so followers' were the people who had shared on Facebook that letter from an ex-colleague of Mark Driscoll. I just checked and Driscoll's Facebook page has 258,081 likes.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, no defending the enablers, the Acts 29 network, his 5000 or so followers. But to try to pin this on evangelicals is simply not accurate or fair. We have enough real problems (witness the World Vision debacle) w/o blaming us for this c***.
quote:But the "evangelical tent" is for the most part a self-proclaimed tent. It's not a denomination one can be excommunicated from or a club one can be evicted from. There are organizations like the NEA, but generally unless you do something truly dreadful (like embrace Open Theism... grrrr... don't get me started on that back alley debacle...) if you pay your (literal) dues you're in.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Yup, I agree that prominent evangelicals have called Driscoll out; what's striking is that he's stayed in the evangelical tent the whole time.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, you are quite simply wrong. Yes, you can find the odd (and I do mean odd) puff piece. But leading American evangelicals have been calling him out for decades, including Christianity Today. And about FAR more serious things than just being crude. [...]
quote:No. Again, there was nothing to be "out" of. Rather, it was clear that if they didn't backtrack, they'd lose large amounts of much-needed donors. That was possible and (horrifically) effective precisely because there were large numbers of evangelicals contributing to WV. But, again, with Driscoll it's a far different matter. The people who are buying his books/ putting money in the offering plate already know what he's like, and that's the appeal. There's no reason for them to boycott. The evangelicals who are calling Driscoll out on his bad behavior-- and there are many-- aren't the ones buying his books or sending him checks. So there's nothing for them to boycott, no financial hammer to bring down like there was on WV.
Originally posted by Byron:
That's why I raised World Vision: it was made clear to them that, if they didn't backtrack on equal marriage, they'd be out.
quote:All bookstores-- religious and secular-- stock a shockingly wide array of goods, from quality stuff to sheer c**p. It's the nature of the business, and has been for long, long before Driscoll started writing down his dark fantasies. Honestly, these days I'm delighted to find a brick-and-mortar bookstore of ANY sort with any kind of stock in business.
Originally posted by Byron:
LifeWay stocked his books until a few days back, and he's still invited to mainstream evangelical conferences.
quote:Much as I have been arguing this point, I have to acknowledge there's some truth there. There is a real problem with celebrity culture in evangelicalism, a real lack of discernment when it comes to anyone with a bit of fame and name recognition, no matter how they got it. And it seems to be made all the worse if the celebrity speaker is funny. For some reason, we will excuse all sorts of near-heretical stuff if the speaker is funny. Maybe that was World Vision's problem-- they just issued a dry corporate work-a-day inhouse email. Shoulda found some way to make their embracing of justice a cause for hilarity.
Originally posted by Byron:
People are responsible only for their own actions, so I'm not blaming evangelicalism for Mars Hill. What I am saying is that such a long tolerance of the church's setup points to some worrying aspects of evangelical culture.
quote:Yes. Spot on.
Originally posted by Byron:
That's part of the tragedy here. Driscoll has it in him to be a great leader, but those same traits contain the seeds of his destruction. If his god's Roman, his trajectory's straight out a Greek tragedy.
quote:No, Washington State isn't in the collegiate sports league you mention, being a public school on the West Coast, and not a Wall Street prep in New England. Since attending an Ivy rests heavily on wealth and legacies, it's anyone's guess what attending college outside WASP-ville has to do with Driscoll's smarts or leadership abilities.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Washington State isn't Ivy League though, is it? Not claiming 2 be an expert but I'd say it was the sort of solid institution that 1000s of middle manager material men go to/graduate from every year. That's not to say that it doesn't produce leaders or great thinkers, but his education doesn't mark him as great.
Evangelising the Frat brothers is easy if you give them what you want-reinforce their notion of themselves as superior and objectify women as sex objects and you've got them eating out your hand. YMMV but I've seen it before, having worked at Unis.
quote:I mention both LifeWay and World Vision 'cause they fit into a pattern of evangelical gatekeeping.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] The WV debacle was pure, old-fashioned bullying of the worst kind. But irrelevant to the Driscoll matter.
[...] All bookstores-- religious and secular-- stock a shockingly wide array of goods, from quality stuff to sheer c**p. It's the nature of the business, and has been for long, long before Driscoll started writing down his dark fantasies. [...]
quote:I agree with this. It's not the first time I've come across the evangelical establishment having its guns pointing the wrong way.
Originally posted by Byron:
Nothing close to this in content or ferocity has been directed at Mars Hill.
quote:I don't know about "badly run", but I frequently do visit our local equivalent - will be there this afternoon, right in among "gen pop". If there is a major incident then yes, prison staff at various levels may catch some heat for failing to prevent it, but I never yet saw their failings being invoked to mitigate the seriousness of the perpetrator's actions.
Originally posted by Byron:
Apex predators need to be controlled for the common good. To see what life's like when they enjoy a free hand, visit gen pop in any badly run penitentiary.
quote:Ignoring the bizarre point about Ivy Leagues (only legacies and bankers in training attend them? Give it a rest), I'm not sure why graduating from a university makes you think Driscoll is a smart guy. A BA is the minimum requirement for most Protestant ministers in the US, and a seminary degree/masters is also extremely common. It was a comment that stood out to me as well, perhaps you have a reason for thinking these are exceptional qualifications but they do not make me think "Driscoll - what a well-educated intellectual!"
Originally posted by Byron:
No, Washington State isn't in the collegiate sports league you mention, being a public school on the West Coast, and not a Wall Street prep in New England. Since attending an Ivy rests heavily on wealth and legacies, it's anyone's guess what attending college outside WASP-ville has to do with Driscoll's smarts or leadership abilities.
quote:Bear in kind that a BA from an American University may or may not be equivalent to one from a UK university.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
.... I'm not sure why graduating from a university makes you think Driscoll is a smart guy. A BA is the minimum requirement for most Protestant ministers in the US, and a seminary degree/masters is also extremely common.
quote:Oh, sure it has. Just from different people, and people who choose not to hold starving children hostage to their political agenda.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:I mention both LifeWay and World Vision 'cause they fit into a pattern of evangelical gatekeeping.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] The WV debacle was pure, old-fashioned bullying of the worst kind. But irrelevant to the Driscoll matter.
[...] All bookstores-- religious and secular-- stock a shockingly wide array of goods, from quality stuff to sheer c**p. It's the nature of the business, and has been for long, long before Driscoll started writing down his dark fantasies. [...]
The President of the Southern Baptist Seminary said WV's (aborted) policy "violates the gospel of Christ." Chelsen Vicari called Rachel Held Evans an "evangelical in name only" for her disgust at the backlash.
Nothing close to this in content or ferocity has been directed at Mars Hill.
) there is a culture of proving you are in by making someone else out! When this is a technique to establish your own orthodoxy it does not make well for consistent cultures.quote:Of course not, but you would see other members of a prison gang share the blame.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know about "badly run", but I frequently do visit our local equivalent - will be there this afternoon, right in among "gen pop". If there is a major incident then yes, prison staff at various levels may catch some heat for failing to prevent it, but I never yet saw their failings being invoked to mitigate the seriousness of the perpetrator's actions.
quote:I didn't say that: I said legacies play a huge part (as this Standford alumnus admits and defends, as does Wall Street (as The Dartmouth bemoans). There'll always be homeless-to-Harvard inspirational stories, but as the Stanford article notes, they're very much the exception.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Ignoring the bizarre point about Ivy Leagues (only legacies and bankers in training attend them? Give it a rest), [...]
quote:I didn't say he was an "intellectual," I said he was a smart guy, judging by his success in establishing a thriving church in a tough environment, the content of his sermons, and his having (unlike many startup preacher-men) attended a four-year state college followed by a seminary. I'd say exactly the same about mainline clergy, but in this field, that's not the point of comparison.
[...] I'm not sure why graduating from a university makes you think Driscoll is a smart guy. A BA is the minimum requirement for most Protestant ministers in the US, and a seminary degree/masters is also extremely common. It was a comment that stood out to me as well, perhaps you have a reason for thinking these are exceptional qualifications but they do not make me think "Driscoll - what a well-educated intellectual!"[...]
quote:Think there's a lot of truth in this: being God's mouthpiece is tempting for anyone.
On the wider discussion - I've been involved with a church with similar charismatic leaders, financial malfeasance, and abusive behaviors. In fact I post on a forum for members/ex-members of that group and many have commented on the similarities to Mars Hill and there is a discussion now on the topic.
Driscoll and people like him could have success in the private sector or in politics - but they are drawn to religion because they get the opportunity to give their opinions the force of GOD. A president or CEO still has voters or shareholders to answer to. Religious leaders can use people's genuine faith in God to get them to empty their pockets and their minds, and follow them almost blindly. It makes "us vs. them" claims very easy to introduce - there are enough scriptures about persecution to turn any criticism into "they just won't submit to God's will."
The mistake Driscoll made was that he also desired personal fame, which opens him up to a higher level of scrutiny. Most characters like him are content to rule over their small fiefdom and try to avoid the media and public.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Amongst Evangelicals (and I suspect they inherited it from certain elements within the Reformed tradition,
Jengie
quote:I think Beeswax Altar has done a better job of correctly describing the nuance here. I would agree with his assessment, both of the diversity of evangelicalism and the small fraction of those who support Driscoll, as well as with his critique of the selective attention that is given the Dead Horse issue as compared to the misogyny and abusive power issues that Driscoll is so ripe with.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The problem to my mind is that many evangelicals, and more especially the evangelical establishment, can't see the ethical wood for the doctrinal trees.
quote:Absolutely, and I think Eutychus nails it when he says this causes too many evangelicals to miss the ethical wood for the doctrinal trees. (Not all, by any means.) Ethics aren't holistic, they're reduced to tick-boxing. If you're "sound" on X,Y,Z doctrines, you can get away with murder before you're brought to book. (Although Driscoll does break with cessationism: in fact, he sees things ...
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[...] On the other hand, Byron is right that Evangelicals are harder on liberals than on Driscoll. The issue difference is the Dead Horse in question. [...]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) quote:I didn't say he was an "intellectual," I said he was a smart guy, judging by his success in establishing a thriving church in a tough environment, the content of his sermons, and his having (unlike many startup preacher-men) attended a four-year state college followed by a seminary. I'd say exactly the same about mainline clergy, but in this field, that's not the point of comparison.
Originally posted by Byron:
My point was, simply, that it's no indication of smarts if a blue collar guy from the West Coast doesn't fly over two thousand miles to attend a punishingly expensive private school. I'm surprised anyone seriously claimed that it was.
[...] I'm not sure why graduating from a university makes you think Driscoll is a smart guy. A BA is the minimum requirement for most Protestant ministers in the US, and a seminary degree/masters is also extremely common. It was a comment that stood out to me as well, perhaps you have a reason for thinking these are exceptional qualifications but they do not make me think "Driscoll - what a well-educated intellectual!"[...]
quote:I don't know... A guy I know a bit who does missionary work with prisoners and gang members is the gentlest, sweetest man you could ever hope to meet. And Eutychus here, who also works in prisons, seems a long way from Driscoll-esque 'fiery-ness'...
Originally posted by Byron:
This is the toxic sea Driscoll fishes in. Gentler pastors wouldn't get through the door.
quote:Obviously, it's informed guesswork, but folk like Driscoll are driven to succeed in whatever field they enter, and his work at Mars Hill has displayed a bunch of transferable skills. Given his background, just getting to a good four-year college was a major achievement.* I think his high school class were onto something when they voted him "most likely to succeed."
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My comment about the ordinariness of his education (that's different from his "smarts") were in the context of it being claimed he was an apex predator and that he would have had commensurate success in a field other than preaching. I'm not saying he is dumb or uneducated just that there's nothing outstanding in his educational or academic background that would make you sit up and take notice-it's ordinary.
I stand by the fact that he wouldn't. HIs sort are two-a-penny outside the church- the office sociopath/bully but the church has given him a credibility and power and sucker bait he would have been denied in a more competitive and accountable environment. Of course it's a fairly unproductive tangent as we'll never know for sure.
quote:
* "The men on my father's side include uneducated alcoholics, mental patients, and women beaters. This includes an uncle who died of gangrene and his sons, roughly my age, who have been in prison for beating women ... One of the main reasons my parents moved from North Dakota to Seattle was to get away from some family members when I was a very young boy."
quote:hmmm....personally, I think Piper's mentoring of Driscoll is part of the problem. Driscoll just looks like a crasser, more heavy-handed version of Piper's aggressive stance toward all dissenters.
Originally posted by Byron:
[
Running with the holistic, hard as it is, I can see Driscoll's positives. His Achilles' heel is being stuck on one setting. The way he applied his heavy shepherding has been appalling, but if he'd been better mentored by guys like Piper, it could've been restricted to the horny young guys who benefit from it. This is the toxic sea Driscoll fishes in. Gentler pastors wouldn't get through the door. For all his many flaws, he's got thousands of dudebros to grow up and take responsibility.
quote:Oh, no doubt. My comment was restricted to the sort of entitled frat boys who lurched through Yale chanting "no means yes." Prison is a whole other demographic. Hardship and failure aren't common experiences amongst privileged dudebros, and it's an uphill task to get their attention.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know... A guy I know a bit who does missionary work with prisoners and gang members is the gentlest, sweetest man you could ever hope to meet. And Eutychus here, who also works in prisons, seems a long way from Driscoll-esque 'fiery-ness'...
quote:Agree totally about bullying. Like I said, his Achilles' heel is not adapting to his audience. His macho swagger has a place, but that place isn't church leadership.
I'm sure Driscoll and the various ministries he's been involved with have done much good work, but I'm not convinced that this would have been diminished by his being less aggressive, rude and bullying.
quote:I agree. Piper's indulgent mentoring has been a major part of the problem. He should've stepped in back in '07. If he'd knocked some sense into Driscoll then, I doubt we'd be here now.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hmmm....personally, I think Piper's mentoring of Driscoll is part of the problem. Driscoll just looks like a crasser, more heavy-handed version of Piper's aggressive stance toward all dissenters.
quote:My point is that Piper is the wrong man for the job. Piper has the same outsize ego, the same pattern of absurdly hyperbolic demonizing of "opponents" (i.e. Christian colleagues), as Driscoll. He just puts a somewhat nicer facade on it. Piper might have been able to teach Driscoll how to pretty up some of his crasser edges, but he wasn't the man to deal with the underlying issues of pride and whatever godawful insecurity his alpha-male bravado is covering up.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:I agree. Piper's indulgent mentoring has been a major part of the problem. He should've stepped in back in '07. If he'd knocked some sense into Driscoll then, I doubt we'd be here now.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hmmm....personally, I think Piper's mentoring of Driscoll is part of the problem. Driscoll just looks like a crasser, more heavy-handed version of Piper's aggressive stance toward all dissenters.
quote:I don't see any reason to believe that Driscoll's got hidden issues. I see nothing that complicated about him, nor do I see any bravado: more's the pity, he's followed through on his threats to devastating effect.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My point is that Piper is the wrong man for the job. Piper has the same outsize ego, the same pattern of absurdly hyperbolic demonizing of "opponents" (i.e. Christian colleagues), as Driscoll. He just puts a somewhat nicer facade on it. Piper might have been able to teach Driscoll how to pretty up some of his crasser edges, but he wasn't the man to deal with the underlying issues of pride and whatever godawful insecurity his alpha-male bravado is covering up.
quote:Thinking of people like Todd Bentley, I'm not optimistic. Bentley had a "restoration committee" for a short while (before opting out of it), lay low for about a year and then started right up again.
Originally posted by Byron:
Now this is all coming to a head, there's at least a chance that Driscoll will finally get the guidance and accountability he so desperately needs.
quote:With ya on the curse of numbers = success, and zero tolerance on bullying.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[...] The problem is having somebody like Driscoll being able to get into church leadership in the first place, and then being legitimised through the acknowledgement of other leaders. Too many evangelicals equate numbers with success in the Kingdom of God, and too many are not above a bit of bullying themselves.
quote:At the risk of sounding twee, I think Jesus managed to engage all sorts without adopting the values of those to whom he reached out.
Originally posted by Byron:
Much as my instincts want to, can't agree about keeping the Driscolls of the world outa leadership. If the church has any chance of engaging frat guys who chant "no means yes, yes means anal," it's gotta have pastors able to connect with that savage machismo. Any code that doesn't speak their language won't be given the time of day.
quote:Totally agree, but business is not about intelligence, and frankly Driscoll has clear business skills which is why we know his name and he sells lots of books (well, sort of) and makes money as a Christian personality. There are plenty of good preachers whose names we have never heard.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
My comment about the ordinariness of his education (that's different from his "smarts") were in the context of it being claimed he was an apex predator and that he would have had commensurate success in a field other than preaching. I'm not saying he is dumb or uneducated just that there's nothing outstanding in his educational or academic background that would make you sit up and take notice-it's ordinary.
quote:Obviously there are legacies at top universities, but I have enough experience with people who attended them who were extremely poor and had generous financial assistance, to know that your overall opinion is one based more on emotion than on reality. Of my friends who attended such universities I can think of one who grew up on a trailer park, one whose parents routinely couldn't afford to pay the electricity bill, and one who had to use her student loan to pay for her younger siblings' school supplies. If you have a low household income and are accepted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. you pay ZERO tuition. Even your local state university will not offer that.
Originally posted by Byron:
I didn't say that: I said legacies play a huge part (as this Standford alumnus admits and defends, as does Wall Street (as The Dartmouth bemoans). There'll always be homeless-to-Harvard inspirational stories, but as the Stanford article notes, they're very much the exception.
My point was, simply, that it's no indication of smarts if a blue collar guy from the West Coast doesn't fly over two thousand miles to attend a punishingly expensive private school. I'm surprised anyone seriously claimed that it was.
quote:To elaborate on the differences, just by getting locked up, inmates have experienced the cost of living by the sword. Even if they're top dog in prison, they're always looking over their shoulder.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the risk of sounding twee, I think Jesus managed to engage all sorts without adopting the values of those to whom he reached out.
Your frat guys' chant is fully representative of a certain class of inmate, too, who I wouldn't describe as downtrodden or stripped of resources, either, and I can assure you that you don't need to adopt the language of their power structure to get a hearing from them.
quote:I agree that it contributed massively at Mars Hill, but in other churches, headship theology (which I've no time for) is successfully combined with congregational government.
At the risk of shooting my "wood for the trees" argument in the foot, I think the 'extreme headship' doctrine bought into by Driscoll is just one manifestation of an entirely ungodly approach to power (or to be more charitable, misunderstanding of what "authority" means) which is likely to end up producing abusive churches.
quote:On practical grounds alone, a guy like Driscoll's driven to be in charge. If he isn't, he'll make life hell for whoever is, and end up running the show from behind the scenes. Better it be open, and he be accountable to a strong board of elders.
But even if one is some sort of headship proponent, allowing Driscoll to continue in a leadership role looks irresponsible to me. As an evangelist, if you must, maybe.
quote:He doesn't have to be in charge of a church. Why should the church at large feel obligated to provide him with a leadership position?
Originally posted by Byron:
On practical grounds alone, a guy like Driscoll's driven to be in charge (...) Better it be open, and he be accountable to a strong board of elders.
quote:The epistles are full of warnings (sadly often unheeded) against giving people like him charge of a flock.
Driscoll's a dominant male who attacks anything that threatens his dominance
quote:Yup, and I'm not knocking the achievements of such extraordinary people. Like the Stanford piece said upthread, that's the thing, poor kids on full-ride scholarships are extraordinary. Liz Murray's own sister attended Purchase College (SUNY), which I consider just as great an achievement.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Obviously there are legacies at top universities, but I have enough experience with people who attended them who were extremely poor and had generous financial assistance, to know that your overall opinion is one based more on emotion than on reality. Of my friends who attended such universities I can think of one who grew up on a trailer park, one whose parents routinely couldn't afford to pay the electricity bill, and one who had to use her student loan to pay for her younger siblings' school supplies. If you have a low household income and are accepted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. you pay ZERO tuition. Even your local state university will not offer that.
quote:Of course it isn't, but bad behavior isn't a reflection on ability, as Yale's DKE chapter made abundantly clear.
Good for Mark Driscoll getting a degree from a rough background, but I do not think that means he is smart in and of itself, and given what he has done with that education - turned around and become a bully who looks down on women and anyone who criticizes him - he is not a credit to his alma mater.
quote:It's not a question of "should," as I was coming at it from a realpolitik POV. Whatever the church-at-large does, Driscoll's free to do as he did, and set up his own stall.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
He doesn't have to be in charge of a church. Why should the church at large feel obligated to provide him with a leadership position?
You yourself saidquote:The epistles are full of warnings (sadly often unheeded) against giving people like him charge of a flock.
Driscoll's a dominant male who attacks anything that threatens his dominance
quote:Yes. Couple it with a good scholarly commentary from your friend's theological framework, which should indicate that vs. 21 is the topic sentence of the passage, including the lack of a verb in vs. 22 (i.e. it's "borrowing" vs. 21's verb). That's not immediately obvious in an English translation, especially those that indent vs. 21 separately from vs. 22ff. But once you see that, vs. 22 becomes just one example (of 6 that follow) & you can see that what Paul is saying to wives in vs. 22 is exactly the same thing he's saying to husbands a few verses later, the same thing he's saying to parents & children, slaves & masters. The same thing he's saying to ALL Christians: be subject to one another.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'd start with Ephesians 5:21: 'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.' Funnily enough, this is the verse immediately before the 'Wives, submit to your husband' verse that I presume is a central plank in the complementarian argument.
quote:People can invest so much in churches and in leaders, it's almost impossible to break away or judge things rationally.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not the church-at-large that's responsible for Driscoll - he's pretty much responsible for everything that's happened at Mars Hill all by himself.
It's reasonable to say that there's been some enabling and collusion from para-church organisations, but the congregation owns a lot of the blame. Fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice, shame on me. And they've had plenty of opportunities to bring Driscoll to heel by withdrawing their presence at MH services and withdrawing their tithing. That he's still going after everything that's been known publicly for years is astonishing.
The elders - the original ones who Driscoll sacked in his incremental power grabs - carry the most shame of all, by not blowing the whistle harder and louder.
quote:Just the way they break the paragraph, really. Seems more politically motivated than anything. But the "borrowed" verb seems to indicate you really can't split the paragraph between vs. 21 and 22.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry cliffdweller, just seen your comment - that's interesting how the standard English translations obscure the (apparent) intent of the Greek...
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:As I already noted, yes, evangelicals don't universally support Driscoll. Much of that was about tone: many evangelicals said they found Driscoll crude.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
sigh. Once again, this is simply not the case. Leading American evangelicals as well as the rank-and-file have been publically and consistently calling Driscoll out on his misogynistic s**t for decades (iow, not "temporarily"). While 5000 followers sounds like a lot, it is less than .0001% of the estimated 50-80 million American evangelicals who do not share or endorse his views and are not coy about saying so. He has not gotten a free pass for YEARS and his recent behavior does not suggest he's likely to get one soon. [...]
Until very recently, though, even if he was pissing out the flap with glee, the big guy was kept in the tent. Driscoll was invited to conferences, and is still down for Hillsong '15; LifeWay stocked his books until a few days ago; Christianity Today gave puff pieces (should that be fluff pieces ...) to Real Marriage. Sure, Driscoll was a bad boy, but he was our bad boy.
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Apparently Marky Mark is losing some speaking engagements.
quote:and he's got that other attribute - street smart. Lots on intellectual smart don't have it, lots of street smart aren't the top 2% IQ but they know how to play the game and come out on top. Business game, card shark game, how to play people and use people.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It means Driscoll is smart enough
quote:In the UK churches with an income of over Ł100K (soon to be Ł25k) have to register as charities of they want tax relief. Their accounts and annual reports are then open to public view online.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Transparency is so important, I'm surprised how many independent churches resist it.
quote:How detailed are the public accounts required to be?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:In the UK churches with an income of over Ł100K (soon to be Ł25k) have to register as charities of they want tax relief. Their accounts and annual reports are then open to public view online.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Transparency is so important, I'm surprised how many independent churches resist it.
[code]
quote:This is a bit of a tangent here, but back in the day New Frontiers gave a large sum of money to the charity run by what was then Terry Virgo's home church, Church of Christ the King. Terry Virgo was, it would seem, paid by the latter.
Originally posted by Green Mario:
To use the example quoted If Terry Virgo was getting paid vast amounts by NF (i.e simial to the figures alleged for Mark Driscoll)I would think it would be pretty easy to see from charity accounts.
quote:Rick Warren has done the same, I believe he even paid back salary he'd earned in the past in addition to no longer taking one from the church.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
(What's a fair income for leader of a big church? No idea. I remember being impressed couple decades ago when I think it was Jamie Buckingham said his books sold well enough to support his family so he stopped taking any salary from his church.)
quote:I wish I were.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Transparency is so important, I'm surprised how many independent churches resist it.
quote:Absolutely. Illustrates the pitfalls of defining "smart." Driscoll's achieved his desired ends masterfully; even if it falls apart now, he's had a heckuva run.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:and he's got that other attribute - street smart. Lots on intellectual smart don't have it, lots of street smart aren't the top 2% IQ but they know how to play the game and come out on top. Business game, card shark game, how to play people and use people. [...]
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It means Driscoll is smart enough
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:This rings profoundly true to me; very well put, sir! I wish I'd thought of the phrase 'just a theatre hosting the Mark Driscoll show'...
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Driscoll leaves and another pastor is called, Mars Hill is a real church. If Driscoll stays, Mars Hill Seattle is just a theatre hosting the Mark Driscoll show.
I'm not saying Mark Driscoll should leave the ministry. At minimum, the guy should leave Mars Hill and take a few months off before starting over with another church or ministry. I doubt Mark Driscoll is capable of that. I imagine he sees Mars Hill as belonging to him for life.
quote:I fear you're right and pray you're wrong.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Mark will be back in 6 weeks. I've been following scandals like this since I was a little boy. The self suspension is one of the tactics in the ride out the scandal playbook.
quote:correction: $200,000 paid from church funds to a PR firm to bump his books up the best seller list.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that a misprint - $200,000 paid to a PR firm to bump his books up the best seller list? Gulp.
quote:I too find this an elegantly worded truth.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Driscoll leaves and another pastor is called, Mars Hill is a real church. If Driscoll stays, Mars Hill Seattle is just a theatre hosting the Mark Driscoll show.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:As far as I understand churches with turnover under 100k can come under the cover of the denomination - as a local branch of an organisation (we as Methodists submit accounts onto the next layer up etc and charity commission could check them if wanted) Over the 100k they have to get their own charity number and will therefore be listed on the charity commission website
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Charities in the UK have to disclose number of staff and staff costs, plus any employees earning more than Ł60k shown in relatively narrow bands - Ł60-70, Ł70-80k. I don't think such disclosure is common in the us however.
Some churchs have separate charity status and therefore prepare and publish accounts on the charity commission website while others are set up differently, Elim appears to produce accounts for the whole denomination.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:That's a really interesting list of names because they are a million miles apart from each other.
Originally posted by Komensky:
I hope that Steven Furtick, John Piper, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyers and Joel Osteen are also for the chop. Their zeal for for themselves knows no bounds.
K.
quote:I'm not really sure what is the significance of the distinction you are making, but fwiw, Driscoll is also charismatic-- that was the basis of his kerfuffle with John McArthur (other than two Alpha males posturing over who's bigger, of course...) There are both Calvinist and Wesleyan charismatics, Driscoll happens to be in the Calvinist camp (although, as noted above, not particularly Reformed).
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
What makes the Driscoll situation different is that theologically he is in the Reformed/conservative stream, whereas most of these kind of "Personality cult" types who end up being shamed are in the hyper-charismatic Word of Faith stream.
quote:LOL the headline on that first link is, mmm, indescribable.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Over the weekend Mars Hill begins closing branches and laying off some staff
Pastor Mark Dunford of the Portland branch of Mars Hill wrote that he was let go from the church after signing his name to a letter, jointly written by nine pastors, calling for the resignation of Mars Hill founder Mark Driscoll.
quote:It will be a bit embarrassing but if something is true it remains true regardless of who said it. Conversely if it wasn't true before hand it doesn't matter how saintly the person who said it was.
Just catching up. I wonder if Nicky Gumbel and others at HTB will go back and remove all those Driscol quotes from their books?
quote:Not airbrushing is good. Speaking out about the bad practice would be better.
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Seemed to me just like unfair HTB bashing to be honest.
quote:I can't speak for Gumbel and UK evangelicalism, but as has been shown upthread, Driscoll has not gotten a free pass among US evangelicals for quite some time.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I never actually made that claim. It may well be that Gumbel doesn't quote Driscoll. But I think it's fair to argue that within the Church at large they are broadly perceived as representing similar constituencies - evangelical, evangelistic-oriented and mission-oriented - and that his mishbehaving has been largely tolerated by the big hitters in the evangelical establishment in view of what was perceived as success.
quote:No, I don't think it's fair.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I never actually made that claim. It may well be that Gumbel doesn't quote Driscoll. But I think it's fair to argue that within the Church at large they are broadly perceived as representing similar constituencies - evangelical, evangelistic-oriented and mission-oriented - and that his mishbehaving has been largely tolerated by the big hitters in the evangelical establishment in view of what was perceived as success.
quote:I cross-posted with you but completely agree. One only has to compare Nicky and Sila Lee's "The Marriage Book" to Mark and Grace Driscoll's "Real Marriage" to see that there are fairly major differences between the two camps.
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Most Anglican charismatic churches don't place a emphasis on reformed theology to the same degree in my experience of New Wine at least and have a vastly different understanding of women in leadership for instance and the equality of men and women and therefore I would think they wouldn't find much common cause with him other than respect for the bible and mission focus:
quote:Except Mars Hill has been routinely attacked within Christian media, particularly since the "Strange Fire" episode. Warren Throckmorton's blog on Patheos has been after MH for months now. There's an article on Rachel Held Evans blog criticizing Driscoll from 2011.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Both organisations are likely to receive similar levels of coverage by christian and more particularly evangelical media.
quote:I agree, but I think that calling leaders out on bad practices as opposed to bad doctrine would be a good step forward.
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
(Although the way Driscoll has ruled Mars Hill is wrong, and warning to churches which invest in the "strong leader", it is what I have read of his teaching on male/female relationships that I find most disturbing.)
quote:He did - though they (Dundonald) rapidly seemed to go off him (in the same way as the Sydney Anglicans did). The more conservative elements generally don't have many/any connections to Mars Hill beyond occasionally quoting him a few years ago - it's worth remembering that Dundonald tends to be on its own in a lot of things.
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
However, I do think the more conservative evangelical elements in the CofE round here, such as the St Helen's, Bishopsgate nexus, do have connections to Mark Driscoll, as they are much more into the New Calvanism, and also strong 'complementarianism'. For instance, I have just confirmed a recollection that Mark Driscoll spoke at a Men's Convention in London in 2011, organized by Richard Coekin (Dundonald group of churches) and others of that ilk.
quote:Fair enough. I spent many years in a church that had abusive practices - reading about Mars Hill practically triggers flashbacks - and came to realize the importance of denominational structures in "emerging" church groups. HTB for all that people complain about it is part of the Church of England and so has to behave in a certain way and be fairly transparent. Your local Redeemed Christian Church of God simply does not have the same oversight.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My contention is that it ought to be relatively easy to find common ground to denounce practices (such as abusive management practices) which are seen in a bad light even outside christian circles, whereas focusing on theological issues (which seems to be the tendency) quickly leads to disagreement and an excuse to not do anything "because we don't teach anything like that".
quote:NOT allowed - correct! Ooops!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The theology of blow-jobs?
I think, seekingsister, that you've left out a 'not'? Should be 'are not allowed ...'?
quote:From my local perspective (MOTR Evangelical church, knocking around with people in both more moderate and more extreme streams) until relatively recently Mark Driscoll has been seen as someone not unlike Rob Bell, but on the other side of the liberal/conservative see-saw.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Wait, you mean in the UK Mark Driscoll is not perceived as ... um, an extreme fundamentalist??
quote:Thank you, Moo
Originally posted by Moo:
Welcome back, Wood!
Moo
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Yes. In the US, the concerns and critiques from within evangelicalism have been increasingly sharp over the last several years.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Except Mars Hill has been routinely attacked within Christian media, particularly since the "Strange Fire" episode. Warren Throckmorton's blog on Patheos has been after MH for months now. There's an article on Rachel Held Evans blog criticizing Driscoll from 2011.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Both organisations are likely to receive similar levels of coverage by christian and more particularly evangelical media.
The anti-HTB sentiment within Christian blogs that I've seen largely comes from non-evangelical Anglicans. Mars Hill has been getting the phone calls from inside of the house for some time.
quote:This.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
]Fair enough. I spent many years in a church that had abusive practices - reading about Mars Hill practically triggers flashbacks - and came to realize the importance of denominational structures in "emerging" church groups. HTB for all that people complain about it is part of the Church of England and so has to behave in a certain way and be fairly transparent. Your local Redeemed Christian Church of God simply does not have the same oversight.
quote:Oh, totally, but then both evangelicals and non-evangelicals often have trouble getting their heads around the idea that evangelicalism isn't a monolithic belief structure. Loads of evangelicals have been criticising Driscoll since he set up shop; but many others have made him rich.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. In the US, the concerns and critiques from within evangelicalism have been increasingly sharp over the last several years.
quote:Unfortunately I have three letters in response
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:This.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
]Fair enough. I spent many years in a church that had abusive practices - reading about Mars Hill practically triggers flashbacks - and came to realize the importance of denominational structures in "emerging" church groups. HTB for all that people complain about it is part of the Church of England and so has to behave in a certain way and be fairly transparent. Your local Redeemed Christian Church of God simply does not have the same oversight.
quote:I see Piper and Driscoll as distinct - both of them say things that I would strongly disagree with, but I haven't heard Piper be crass. On a level of finances Piper is almost ascetic, and whilst one might disagree with his scholarship at least there is scholarship to be disagreed with.
Originally posted by Wood:
I know that Mark Driscoll and John Piper (who I tend to see as in the same box) were until recently hugely popular with the UCCF people of my acquaintance
quote:Agreed-- 100%. To your point: while many evangelicals have been openly critical for some time, we have to look at the bigger picture and recognize that many of our structures (e.g. encouraging one-off disconnected independent churches w/ leader-chosen, and therefore leader-dissolvable lines of accountability) and subdoctrines (e.g. rightly focusing on grace, but in a way that often romanticizes and celebrates "badness") have contributed to and enabled Driscoll to become so remarkably successful. Driscoll is also a good opportunity for evangelicals to be mindful of the ways we (as every other group) have allowed our core beliefs and doctrines to be subverted by cultural norms of consumerism, celebrity worship, false views of power, etc.
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:Oh, totally, but then both evangelicals and non-evangelicals often have trouble getting their heads around the idea that evangelicalism isn't a monolithic belief structure. Loads of evangelicals have been criticising Driscoll since he set up shop; but many others have made him rich.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. In the US, the concerns and critiques from within evangelicalism have been increasingly sharp over the last several years.
It's not right to say that his fans are somehow not evangelicals (I'm not saying you have done that, I hasten to add), but it's something that Christians in general have to tackle. Like it or not, Driscoll is one of ours, and he's a bad'un, and we have to find ways of dealing with that.
quote:IMHO Piper is the nicer, more genteel version of Driscoll. Yes, Piper is refined enough not to engage in fart and penis jokes, and trust me, that's a blessing. But Piper engages in the exact same bullying and demonizing tactics towards his "enemies" (i.e. fellow Christians-- evangelicals even-- that disagree with him, usually on his hyper Calvinism). Look at the way he went after Greg Boyd and the open theists, the nature of the way he engaged the conversation compared to those who disagreed with him. He has a similar Alpha Male theology and mindset, a similar way of operating in the world and particularly in the academy that screams Privilege. I would say, in fact, that Piper is all the more dangerous because he knows how to operate in the academic arena, knows how to position himself as a "significant voice" yet undermines the core values of dialogue, diversity, academic freedom and respectful discourse that are the very foundations of scholarly inquiry.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I see Piper and Driscoll as distinct - both of them say things that I would strongly disagree with, but I haven't heard Piper be crass. On a level of finances Piper is almost ascetic, and whilst one might disagree with his scholarship at least there is scholarship to be disagreed with.
Originally posted by Wood:
I know that Mark Driscoll and John Piper (who I tend to see as in the same box) were until recently hugely popular with the UCCF people of my acquaintance
quote:Sure, go for it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, this is exactly my concern: finding the right ways of dealing with this.
It's not possible to form an evangelical Sanhedrin (another Roger Forster quote from me there).
I have several ideas.
If anyone else is up for exploring this tangent, I'm game to start a new thread.
quote:Of course, and I didn't mean to imply that having a denominational structure means that there won't be major errors. We all know that the biggest denomination there is has made egregious mistakes and committed unspeakable abuses.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
NOS
Denominational structures give some assurance, but they are NOT 100% guarantee that things cannot go drastically wrong.
quote:Now hear this!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I see Piper and Driscoll as distinct - both of them say things that I would strongly disagree with, but I haven't heard Piper be crass. [...]
(Summary: Piper tells women to endure a wifebeater "for a season," though kindly lets 'em off with a single night of being "smacked.") He "clarified" a few years later.
quote:Well - Pipers main mistake here was to treat the BGC like a confessional denomination which it wasn't really - not every denomination has to cover all things.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Look at the way he went after Greg Boyd and the open theists, the nature of the way he engaged the conversation compared to those who disagreed with him.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Wood:
No, actually, that's a lie. I judge that a lot. But then that's an axe I really have to stop grinding.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:You could also try this, where Piper says that Jesus sent the tornadoes. Or try reading his book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, where he seriously spends time wondering what is the biblical thing to do when a man is obliged to ask a woman for directions.
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:Now hear this!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I see Piper and Driscoll as distinct - both of them say things that I would strongly disagree with, but I haven't heard Piper be crass. [...]
quote:I should add that the other complicating factor here is that not every person knows about every thing that some famous speaker has said. Driscoll was, still is for lots of people who don't follow internet gossip, a young guy with reformed convictions who particularly told young men to step up and stop wasting their lives, told women marriage was a good thing, told older evangelicals to loosen up and engage people they tend to treat like scum, and spoke out very clearly about hidden sins like domestic abuse. I haven't read or watched anything he's done since about 2009, and were it not for the Ship wouldn't know anything about all of this stuff that has come to light, and could happily still have been quoting the useful bits of "Radical Reformission" in training seminars.
Originally posted by Wood:
I know that Mark Driscoll and John Piper (who I tend to see as in the same box) were until recently hugely popular with the UCCF people of my acquaintance (and were read with approval by people in leadership in That Baptist Church I used to go to). UCCF are the most conservative mainstream British evangelicals.
quote:Great points.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:I should add that the other complicating factor here is that not every person knows about every thing that some famous speaker has said. Driscoll was, still is for lots of people who don't follow internet gossip, a young guy with reformed convictions who particularly told young men to step up and stop wasting their lives, told women marriage was a good thing, told older evangelicals to loosen up and engage people they tend to treat like scum, and spoke out very clearly about hidden sins like domestic abuse. I haven't read or watched anything he's done since about 2009, and were it not for the Ship wouldn't know anything about all of this stuff that has come to light, and could happily still have been quoting the useful bits of "Radical Reformission" in training seminars.
Originally posted by Wood:
I know that Mark Driscoll and John Piper (who I tend to see as in the same box) were until recently hugely popular with the UCCF people of my acquaintance (and were read with approval by people in leadership in That Baptist Church I used to go to). UCCF are the most conservative mainstream British evangelicals.
So we must be careful about guilt by association. Loads of people are still reading his books from five years ago and thinking "wow, a conservative Christian willing to speak bluntly about things that non-Christians ask me about."
quote:Even if it were, there is a way to engage debate, and Piper is not it. There is such a thing as respectful disagreement, and Piper is not it. One can disagree even vehemently-- as we do here on the Ship-- and still recognize that the one on the other side of the debate is not your enemy but a fellow Christ-follower who loves Jesus just as much as you do.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well - Pipers main mistake here was to treat the BGC like a confessional denomination which it wasn't really - not every denomination has to cover all things.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Look at the way he went after Greg Boyd and the open theists, the nature of the way he engaged the conversation compared to those who disagreed with him.
quote:They're not, we're all agreed that Driscoll's ministry has spiraled out of control.
Originally posted by Wood:
Byron: see, problem is, patriarchy, homophobia and misogynistic strutting about don't sound like the byproducts of responsibility.
quote:Indeed. But "People in conservative evangelical organisation quoted conservative evangelical authors with approval" is hardly news. I haven't met anyone who is a Driscoll apologist who has read Real Marriage or knows of anything that happened thereafter - and that includes all sorts of people you'd consider even more vilely aberrant than him.
Originally posted by Wood:
While I'll grant that just reading Piper and Driscoll of course doesn't make one complicit in the scandals surrounding the two of them, I'm not gonna lie, I thought Piper and Driscoll were both pretty repugnant without any whiff of the scandals surrounding them with the bully boy homophobia, misogyny and that (see posts above for examples). Complementarianism is for my money an utterly vile doctrinal aberration. But then, this might not surprise you.
quote:Thanks for the encouragement: tangent thread started here
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Sure, go for it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, this is exactly my concern: finding the right ways of dealing with this.
It's not possible to form an evangelical Sanhedrin (another Roger Forster quote from me there).
I have several ideas.
If anyone else is up for exploring this tangent, I'm game to start a new thread.
quote:Here is what he said:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*But in fairness, Driscoll did not say women were "penis homes" in so many words. Salon is not exactly a neutral source either.
quote:The commentary on Patheos points this out:
The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may see, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.
While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wondering the streets looking for a house to live in. Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.
...
Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another man’s home. And, if you look at a man it is quite obvious that what a homeless man does not need is another man without a home.
quote:
Notice that all women are portrayed as another man’s penis home, whether or not they are married. This squares with what I was taught—every woman is some man’s future wife, and that man owns her body even before they meet.
) ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:.
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
quote:Headline (on website "Deathandtaxes"): "Megachurch to close after pastor called women ‘penis homes'". The article was posted to Fark (sort of Reddit meets 4chan) with the same headline, has currently attracted 778 comments. The (tiny) Fark christian constituency is not doing too well on the thread.
Originally posted by Byron:
So long as it isn't presented as a direct quote, don't see a problem.
quote:Apparently he preached on that in Edinburgh in 2007 and there's a transcript of the sermon here .
Originally posted by Moo:
I wonder how Driscoll explains 1 Corinthians 7:4
quote:Well I grant you that he connected wtih sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
Originally posted by Byron:
I'll never agree with Driscoll's fundamentalist reading of the Bible, and the patriarchy and homophobia it spawned, but Mars Hill was connecting with the kind of strutting young guys that other kinds of religion would never get near. Driscoll was getting them to shape up and take responsibility.
For all my other disagreements, I can't take that from him, and I do hope he can get back to that place. 'Cause if he's driven from Mars Hill, Driscoll won't go away, he'll just set up shop elsewhere, this time with even less accountability.
quote:for what it's worth I think asking any organisation that endorsed Driscoll and Piper from the get go to apologise is futile, because likelihood is, it is not the sort of organisation that apologises for stuff.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. But "People in conservative evangelical organisation quoted conservative evangelical authors with approval" is hardly news. I haven't met anyone who is a Driscoll apologist who has read Real Marriage or knows of anything that happened thereafter - and that includes all sorts of people you'd consider even more vilely aberrant than him.
Remember this sub-discussion started with "X organisation should apologise for ever quoting him AT ALL in their literature." If you think that's true, there's probably far more to offend you in said literature than the Driscoll quotes.
quote:This is the point I was trying to make earlier, only it's presented coherently.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Well I grant you that he connected wtih sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Bacchus?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Well I grant you that he connected with sex-obsessed, chuavanistic young men, but I seriously question that he brought them the Gospel. He brought credibility and lent authority to condone their selfishness, their desire to rule over women and to engage in smutty talk, Hardly doing the work of God IMO, it's more like the other guy.
quote:Now, I find that macho worldview repulsive (as, I'm sure, does Hobson), but it undoubtedly exists, and there's only so far its adherents are willing to go. It's not just a question of what's right, but what's possible.
[Christianity] is pretty tough on the obvious male propensities: aggression, greed, cool scepticism, sexual pride. It encourages certain attitudes that contravene adult maleness: contrition, admission of vulnerability and weakness, empathy, and so on. [...]
A key part of evangelicalism's (relatively successful) strategy has been to privilege straight male leadership. The "unmanliness" of Christianity is balanced by an insistence that the church values traditional male authority. The young Christian man might be perceived as unmanly by his peers, for avoiding premarital sex, and singing about his devotion to Jesus, but there is something to compensate for this: he is handed a traditional male identity, a haven from the ravages of sex-related indeterminacy.
quote:I think talking about women's "sexual parts" titillates his audience so that's why he does it. The key point to is that he TELLS her what she can lay claim to, more than a hint of porn with a dominance/submissive flavour. Whatever turns you on but let's keep it to the internet not the pulpit.
Originally posted by Moo:
The more I think of what Driscoll said to his wife, the more it irritates me. He said that her breasts, which are sexual parts, belong to him while his back, which is not a sexual part, belongs to her.
I suspect he thinks all of his own sexual parts and hers belong to him. She can lay claim to the non-sexual parts if she wants.
Moo
quote:Yes, and Driscoll has advocated not only patriarchy but also natalism (the advocacy of increased reproductivity, e.g. persuading wives that it is God's will for them to bear another baby, and to aim for larger family sizes) which is unhelpful ecologically - especially in the USA.
Patriarchy (I prefer not to give it the credit of the "complentarian" rebrand) is a vile doctrine.
quote:Yes, complementarian is a lovely bit of Orwellian double speak, At best it's hierarchical complementarianism.
Originally posted by jpm:
quote:Yes, and Driscoll has advocated not only patriarchy but also natalism (the advocacy of increased reproductivity, e.g. persuading wives that it is God's will for them to bear another baby, and to aim for larger family sizes) which is unhelpful ecologically - especially in the USA.
Patriarchy (I prefer not to give it the credit of the "complentarian" rebrand) is a vile doctrine.
quote:Of course not. Submission is a one-way street to folks like Driscoll.
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
quote:I'm praying your shack can be a place of refuge for the men, women and children who will be left reeling. That you will be a place of healing, where they will hear the truth of the gospel that really is good news for both men and women. The truth of the gospel that is truth, and life. The gospel that says, "when you are weak, that's when I am strong. And when you lose the life you thought you had made for yourself, that's when you'll find the very life that is life-- the life I created you for."
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:Of course not. Submission is a one-way street to folks like Driscoll.
Originally posted by Moo:
I notice he didn't say his penis belongs to his wife.
Moo
The church I belong to is one block from one of the "campuses" Mars Hill is closing. We've had our problems, but we are still there after more than 100 years.
quote:Oh my, yes. And on that note...
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it.
quote:Wait a minute... where do you think that "public criticism" has come from for over a decade??? As detailed early on in this thread, it has come from other evangelicals. The charge that evangelicals have been sitting back and twiddling our collective thumbs all this time is simply not true.
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it. His 'church' and his behaviour have drawn public criticism for over a decade and only now are those (at least here in the UK) that openly dealt with the man and his work beginning to question the wisdom of dealing with such foul creatures. This is one of the patterns that drove me screaming from the Evangelical world: there is almost no discernment. If you don't want deception, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and various kinds of spiritual abuse—stop dealing with these people. By accepting such destructive personalities under the guise of "well, we're all God's imperfect creatures… surely he can still work his magic through all this mess", we only facilitate misery for others.
K.
quote:Correction accepted. Some evangelicals. Outside of evangelical circles, mega-church preachers and snake-oil salesman are simply ignored—at least until they break the law or they become social curiosities. Many other evangelicals simply carry on, happily associating with figures like Driscoll (there is a long list). He's not an isolated case.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Wait a minute... where do you think that "public criticism" has come from for over a decade??? As detailed early on in this thread, it has come from other evangelicals. The charge that evangelicals have been sitting back and twiddling our collective thumbs all this time is simply not true.
Originally posted by Komensky:
What should be very worrying is that Evangelical culture accepted Mark Driscoll, quoted his sermons and writing and invited him to speak knowing his destructive behaviour or choosing to ignore it. His 'church' and his behaviour have drawn public criticism for over a decade and only now are those (at least here in the UK) that openly dealt with the man and his work beginning to question the wisdom of dealing with such foul creatures. This is one of the patterns that drove me screaming from the Evangelical world: there is almost no discernment. If you don't want deception, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and various kinds of spiritual abuse—stop dealing with these people. By accepting such destructive personalities under the guise of "well, we're all God's imperfect creatures… surely he can still work his magic through all this mess", we only facilitate misery for others.
K.
quote:You might like to visit this thread.
Originally posted by Komensky:
What are you doing to stop people like Furtick, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, Bill Johnson, et al?
quote:A Methodist friend recently (in casual conversation) referred to her pastor as "the man of God." I remember my TEC Grandmother using that term about clergy (she addressed him directly as "domine"). The idea that clergy are "men of God" - and by implication we aren't - that they are different, closer to God, to be believed and not challenged (fussed about privately but not challenged) is widespread in the denominations, nothing particularly Evangelical about it.
Originally posted by Komensky:
There can be an obsession with 'leadership' in a variety of Christian cultures (and, of course, well beyond) and this is seen in the focus on The Man in Front (for it is usually thus) and obedience to them. 'The Lord told me', or ''the Lord gave me a picture' etc., creates a dangerous (and false) paradigm of the powerful preacher.
quote:.. and HTB have come in for a reasonable amount of stick for their lionisation of particular celebrities, be it Christian or otherwise.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Think of the big names that have come to the HTB Leadership Conference in the past few years:
quote:we all like experts ... they get to know stuff and think it through on our behalf
Is there something basic human about wanting to be able to absolutely trust the "leaders"? Sheep, we, mindlessly following the crowd except when we wander off mindlessly.
quote:And it's a difficult balance, because you see the opposite trend at play here as well among evangelicalism-- and anti-intellectualism that rejects "expert testimony" on things like climate change, vaccines, etc.-- or on, say, the formation of the canon or translation of the NT. Because "God's ways are not our ways" and "God rejects the prideful and loves the humble"-- stuff to that effect.
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:we all like experts ... they get to know stuff and think it through on our behalf
Is there something basic human about wanting to be able to absolutely trust the "leaders"? Sheep, we, mindlessly following the crowd except when we wander off mindlessly.
quote:Now come on, that's unfair...
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Dear God, people listen to this wanker !?!
quote:I don't exactly agree. The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc. This is part of a strategy to put the 'great leader' into an unquestionable position of authority. I think the 'I went to seminary' line may be arrogant, but more typically it stops short of 'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture'. The latter is, perhaps, even more dangerous than the former. Also, you'll note amongst many evangelicals that they either resent/suspect/reject Theology as an intellectual study and/or create their own 'Theological centres' of some sort or another. The latter approach gives their particular take on things the veneer of intellectual rigour whilst being able to sculpt very carefully what the seminarians or students get to hear. There are, of course, many fine evangelical scholars in academia—but I can't think of many who fall for the 'God told', 'the Lord gave me a picture to share with you' line.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:A Methodist friend recently (in casual conversation) referred to her pastor as "the man of God." I remember my TEC Grandmother using that term about clergy (she addressed him directly as "domine"). The idea that clergy are "men of God" - and by implication we aren't - that they are different, closer to God, to be believed and not challenged (fussed about privately but not challenged) is widespread in the denominations, nothing particularly Evangelical about it.
Originally posted by Komensky:
There can be an obsession with 'leadership' in a variety of Christian cultures (and, of course, well beyond) and this is seen in the focus on The Man in Front (for it is usually thus) and obedience to them. 'The Lord told me', or ''the Lord gave me a picture' etc., creates a dangerous (and false) paradigm of the powerful preacher.
Only the wording (slightly) changes from "God gave me a word" to "I went to seminary, you didn't" as "proving the truth" of whatever the leader says. (Of course, seminary graduates disagree with each other about just about everything, so why believe someone solely on that basis any more than on the basis of claiming to have received a word from God?)
quote:This is dealt with by Paul in his advice to the Corinthians that they need to weigh prophecy. The key is making sure this is done no matter who has the picture (the danger is it isn't when a church revolves around one very dominant or charismatic individual rather than having genuine team leadership); given that even if this form of revelation can be genuine (I believe it can be)it is very subjective and its easy to be mistaken.
The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc
quote:Sorry, where does Paul mention getting 'pictures' from God?
Originally posted by Green Mario:
quote:This is dealt with by Paul in his advice to the Corinthians that they need to weigh prophecy. The key is making sure this is done no matter who has the picture (the danger is it isn't when a church revolves around one very dominant or charismatic individual rather than having genuine team leadership); given that even if this form of revelation can be genuine (I believe it can be)it is very subjective and its easy to be mistaken.
The specifically evangelical part of it is the emphasis on alleged 'divine revelation'—'God told me', 'the Lord gave me a picture', etc
quote:And how do those work?
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Paul doesn't explicitly talk about pictures in any of his letters […]
God talks to many of the old Testament prophets using pictures […]
quote:I think it's too far of a stretch.
Originally posted by Green Mario:
…as well as in other ways so it is not too much of a stretch to believe that New Testament prophecy could include God communication via pictures as well as in more verbal/word form.
quote:I think we've been here before ....
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
K.
quote:Actually, it seems to me EXACTLY like the "pictures" phenomenon-- at least when it is responsibly used. Because charismatic churches (not all evangelicals are charismatics) vary greatly, practices also vary widely.
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
K.
quote:Some people primarily think in pictures, so of course God would communicate to them primarily in pictures. A quick picture can convey a lot more information than a quick word.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems to me EXACTLY like the "pictures" phenomenon-- at least when it is responsibly used. Because charismatic churches (not all evangelicals are charismatics) vary greatly, practices also vary widely.
Originally posted by Komensky:
That doesn't seem anything at all like the 'pictures' phenomenon that is so common in evangelical church in recent years.
quote:IME visions are rare, I can think of one or two that weren't of the sort mentioned above that I have heard. Even in Acts, in a period including large amounts of use of spiritual gifts, we see maybe 3 genuine visions in the space of about 20-30 years.
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Martin/Komensky if they are the best examples of how you have usually experienced this done I can understand why you reject it, if this is all I had experienced I would reject it to. My experience does differ from this however.
quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVyFyauE4ig
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Is Driscoll's Mars Hill the kind of place which makes the same claims as Bill Johnson's Bethel?
quote:This is unfortunate, no question. But I strongly hesitate to put it in the same category as the abuses that went on at Mars Hill.
Originally posted by Komensky:
One area of medieval 'gifts' (though they tend not to use that term) was levitation. I'm surprised that given the modern evangelical movement's penchant for supernatural claims that they haven't tried this more often. There are, of course, total nut jobs like Justin Abraham (who claims Christians should be able to breathe under water) or Bill Johnson (who claims that Jesus appeared at his church service as a cloud of glitter—and that he (Johnson) is, among other things, able to raise the dead and one of their numbers claimed to be able to walk on water). We tend to think of these types as fringe lunatics, but Bill Johnson and his associates continue to get invited to HTB (for example) and Nicky Gumbel, with no proof whatsoever, continues to tell 'raised from the dead' stories, or invite people to tell them. This is destructive behaviour.
On and on it goes… and we wonder how the Driscolls of this world get made!
K.
quote:Yes. Lots. The vast majority of con-evo churches I have been a part of do not have prophesy (whether of the "picture" variety or verbal) or tongue-speaking in the worship service, for the precise reason that logistically it cannot be "tested" in that setting. While the ecstatic gifts are still a part of the teaching, they are held for something that is usually done in small groups, where that sort of assessment can be done (I agree with a prior poster that the Quakers have particularly helpful rubrics for this).
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Has anyone ever encountered a ConCharEvo congo or any Char one that has realised that this is a zero-sum game and they can stop it? That their emperor is naked and it's OK to say that?
quote:When the deception goes to alleged claims of financial impropriety and employee abuse, that to me is more of a problem than clergy who (perhaps foolishly) believe Christians can levitate.
Originally posted by Komensky:
I agree that there are degrees, but what is the 'right' amount of deception?
quote:So a few dollars tossed towards Africa and Asia, to achieve the main goal of expanding the brand and "deflecting criticism" and getting those pesky small churches who actually care about missions to agree to MH takeovers.
The Global Fund could be beneficial in a number of ways, besides the obvious gain of increased funding:
• For a relatively low cost (e.g. $10K/month), supporting a few missionaries and benevolence projects would serve to deflect criticism, increase goodwill, and create opportunities to influence and learn from other ministries.
• Many small churches who may consider joining Mars Hill hesitate because they do not believe we support “missions.” While we need to continue to challenge the assumptions underlying a claim, the Global Fund would serve as a simple, easy way to deflate such criticism and help lead change in these congregations.
• The ability to communicate and interact with supporters of Mars Hill Global provides an avenue for promoting events, recruiting leaders, and developing Mars Hill core groups in strategic cities.
quote:Yeah, the whole fund was a curious mix of stuff-- sort of like the teenager going to the drug store and trying to hide the condoms he's buying in amongst a pile of other stuff. Which makes you wonder... what is it they're trying to hide under the developing world initiatives?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
New information out from the fantastic Warren Throckmorton on allegations (an internal memo that has been released) that Mars Hill purposely misled members and other donors about the purposes of"Mars Hill Global" funding. That the majority of funds went to support US operations but were marketed in a way to suggest they were primarily supporting missionaries and church planters in poor countries.
One of the more stomach-turning sections:
quote:So a few dollars tossed towards Africa and Asia, to achieve the main goal of expanding the brand and "deflecting criticism" and getting those pesky small churches who actually care about missions to agree to MH takeovers.
The Global Fund could be beneficial in a number of ways, besides the obvious gain of increased funding:
• For a relatively low cost (e.g. $10K/month), supporting a few missionaries and benevolence projects would serve to deflect criticism, increase goodwill, and create opportunities to influence and learn from other ministries.
• Many small churches who may consider joining Mars Hill hesitate because they do not believe we support “missions.” While we need to continue to challenge the assumptions underlying a claim, the Global Fund would serve as a simple, easy way to deflate such criticism and help lead change in these congregations.
• The ability to communicate and interact with supporters of Mars Hill Global provides an avenue for promoting events, recruiting leaders, and developing Mars Hill core groups in strategic cities.
This is scary stuff.
quote:Yes. The cynical non-gracious side of me (which, honestly, can be huge) wonders if that isn't an indication that there is something more here-- things we don't know about which might come out were Mark to stay and deal with the accusations. Not very charitable of me, I admit. The elders' statement does stress that they had found no evidence of any illegal or immoral acts-- but that leaves room for a whole lotta other bad stuff IMHO.
Originally posted by Byron:
Mark Discoll has resigned.
In his resignation letter, he fires a few parting shots at those who laid charges, but wow, I wasn't expecting him to walk that easily.
quote:Probably an accurate prediction. The Driscolls of this world will always go for more—they have an appetite for destruction that knows no bounds.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I imagine he will just go start another megachurch, believing everyone will follow him thereby demonstrating his ultimate rightness.
quote:I think - for all sorts of reasons - he might find it difficult to start over from scratch. Regardless of that I think it's worth pointing out that the 'appetite for destruction' is actually a gift for building up large institutions coupled with some rather unfortunate personality traits. I don't think - at the end of the day - that the main issue was that he grew Mars Hill to 10K people.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Probably an accurate prediction. The Driscolls of this world will always go for more—they have an appetite for destruction that knows no bounds.
quote:"Sorrynotsorry."
Originally posted by Byron:
In his resignation letter, he fires a few parting shots at those who laid charges
quote:Every apology I've ever heard Driscoll issue runs about like "Yeah, I'm sorry: sorry you're such an over-emotional pansy!"
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:"Sorrynotsorry."
Originally posted by Byron:
In his resignation letter, he fires a few parting shots at those who laid charges
quote:Exactly. Which is of course (like it needs to be spelled out) not an apology.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Every apology I've ever heard Driscoll issue runs about like "Yeah, I'm sorry: sorry you're such an over-emotional pansy!"
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:"Sorrynotsorry."
Originally posted by Byron:
In his resignation letter, he fires a few parting shots at those who laid charges
quote:I can't speak to MH's intent, but it's basic good practice in most places to ring fence funds that have been donated for a specific purpose, and only use them for that purpose. You are right that we should be very wary when this doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Arminian:
There seem to be quite a few ministries who use the 'promise' of helping the poor to leaver in more funds. Then the orphanages don't get built, the kids school funds don't get paid ....
quote:That was what made me suspicious about the fund in the first place. Not that they cancelled the proposed conference, but the way the whole fund was a grab-bag of unrelated things (including things that should have already be part of Driscoll's salary, like a sermon series). So that if you want to give to one thing (church planting in the developing world) you have to give to the others (paying Driscoll to write a book he'll undoubtedly get a hefty advance/royalties for).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I can't speak to MH's intent, but it's basic good practice in most places to ring fence funds that have been donated for a specific purpose, and only use them for that purpose. You are right that we should be very wary when this doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Arminian:
There seem to be quite a few ministries who use the 'promise' of helping the poor to leaver in more funds. Then the orphanages don't get built, the kids school funds don't get paid ....
quote:Additionally it appears that the practice was for him to keep copyright of all his sermons.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not that they cancelled the proposed conference, but the way the whole fund was a grab-bag of unrelated things (including things that should have already be part of Driscoll's salary, like a sermon series).
quote:The point is more that in the commercial world (to which megachurches often compare themselves), such work would be classed as 'work for hire', especially in the case where it was commissioned for a particular purpose and thus ownership would lie with the church.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Well, how hilariously ironic is that?!
He's welcome to keep them ....who in their right mind would want to plagiarise ;)anything he said in them?
quote:And it means that when he then publishes a collection of his sermons, he keeps all the royalties. This is a practice that's currently under debate, and practices vary. But what seems clearly over the line for me is that Driscoll appears to be not just double-dipping but triple dipping here: for the same "sermon-writing" work, he would get paid three times: once from his church salary, once from the special fund-raising effort, and once again in the book royalties.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The point is more that in the commercial world (to which megachurches often compare themselves), such work would be classed as 'work for hire', especially in the case where it was commissioned for a particular purpose and thus ownership would lie with the church.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Well, how hilariously ironic is that?!
He's welcome to keep them ....who in their right mind would want to plagiarise ;)anything he said in them?
In this case the fee was used to pay essentially for limited use of the sermon series.
quote:Against this you have the 1000s of people who walked out when the bylaws were changed in 2007, a large number of whom are no longer in a church of any sort.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
These churches, in their turn, have benefited from his vision and vigour, but have managed to break free from him now that his flaws have become a liability.
quote:The video feed model is fairly common here in the US among large megachurches. It has it's pluses and minuses. It does allow churches to grow quickly and honestly, keeps overhead down-- something I think we should think about more and more. On the minus, though, it seems to feed into exactly the sort of "celebrity pastor" syndrome that made Driscoll happen. But still I'd say that's the least of the problems affecting the Acts 29 network.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I always think that the video feed practice is a bit odd, and of course I'm not used to it. But I presume that these churches have started using 'real people' to preach now that Driscoll isn't available on a screen.
quote:Certainly the highs and lows are characteristic of a revivalistic campaign, and honestly, of more established mainline churches as well.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So would you say that his church plants have in fact failed, then? Do they have a future?
Regarding the people who've dropped out of his churches and no longer attend any church, I understand that this can be a problem for any religious movement that grows very quickly, and is a particular problem of revivalistic enterprises. In this case, it's to be hoped that church leaders here can take this opportunity to show that they've sincerely repented of their wrongdoing and want to make amends. Perhaps they need a jubilee period for cleansing and rebirth.
quote:And to paraphrase Glinda, "Are you a good church, or a bad church?" Are these wheat, or basically whole sheaves of tares?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So would you say that his church plants have in fact failed, then? Do they have a future?
quote:Not unexpected, but somewhat astonishing how quickly the whole entire enterprise collapsed once Driscoll is gone. So many lessons here, most of which have already been mentioned. But the central one to me is the futility of the celebrity pastor model.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It is finished, web page
quote:Just bear in mind Commandment 7. I think this comment is OK, and it made me smile, but a bit further down this speculative road (as opposed to things known from the public domain) gets us into the grey area of potentially libelous derogatory comment, rather than legitimate criticism.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Rest assured the elders and Mark and anybody who can be held liable are probably transferring their assets..... to their wives... I'd love to see Mrs Driscoll walk with all Mark's moula.
quote:now that was just mean.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
...probably in California.
quote:Yeah, keep your bum on that seat and keep giving us money. Right, that's the most important part of being faithful in supporting Jesus' mission.
"Ultimately, the success of this plan, and the future viability of each of these new local churches rest solely on all of us continuing to be faithful in supporting Jesus’ mission through our attendance and continued giving," wrote Bruskas
quote:I thought it was funny! And even funnier when I found they've already set up shop in Orange County.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:now that was just mean.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
...probably in California.
quote:Nothing that happens in Orange County surprises me.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:I thought it was funny! And even funnier when I found they've already set up shop in Orange County.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:now that was just mean.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
...probably in California.
quote:Any expansion of Driscoll's false gospel is bad news IMHO. But in terms of the mega church model, it's pretty well established here-- particularly in Orange Co. This one little blip isn't going to change much in that regard.
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I also wonder what people like Rick Warren will make of all this- as far as I recall Saddleback church is in Orange County isn't it?
Is this good or bad news for the mega church model in California?
quote:It wasn't his stated premise - there has always been a lot of rhetoric about "Jesus is our Senior Pastor".
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The problem with the shutdown of Mars Hill is that is proves Driscoll's premise - that he was the brand of the church and without him it was nothing. Hence why the church needed to support juking the stats for his "New York Times bestseller" and paying him $850,000 a year.
quote:Not according to this story
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It wasn't his stated premise - there has always been a lot of rhetoric about "Jesus is our Senior Pastor"
quote:
Before the exodus of the Mars Hill creative department a couple of years ago, Mark Driscoll gave a speech in the Ballard Paradox theater which is commonly referred to as the ‘I am the brand’ speech. In that speech he advocated that marketing and communication be centered on his personality, name, and brand (in lieu of the name of the great Shepherd himself).
quote:That story doesn't contradict what I just said that there has always been a lot of rhetoric about 'Jesus is our Senior Pastor'. The following has been largely unchanged over the last few years:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Not according to this story
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It wasn't his stated premise - there has always been a lot of rhetoric about "Jesus is our Senior Pastor"
quote:Yes, it may validate the idea in the "I am the brand" speech. I presume you aren't suggesting that this then excuses things like the mass book buying.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm still not clear as to what you are disagreeing with me on. Driscoll claimed he was the brand of Mars Hill. The church has fallen over with him gone. Does that not validate his claim in some way?
quote:It certainly doesn't excuse them, but it explains them. If they all bought into the idea that he was the church, then they could rationalize the silly things that were done to appease him.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, it may validate the idea in the "I am the brand" speech. I presume you aren't suggesting that this then excuses things like the mass book buying.
quote:Well, again correlation doesn't imply causation. Drop offs in giving could also be a symptom of restructuring and the insecurity this brings about - after all, why give if your church may not be around in a few months time. Plus even the most trusting member knows by now earmarked money was often used for different purposes - which presumably doesn't go down well in times of austerity.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The fact that members left and money dried up after Driscoll's departure says a lot about what the membership felt about the necessity of his presence in the church.
quote:Honestly, the way I hear it is just a justification for all the bad behavior. Mark doesn't need any accountability or oversight because "Jesus is my boss"-- and of course, Mark is the conduit thru which Jesus communicates to the rest of us lowlifes what it is that Boss Jesus wants done.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Leadership at Mars Hill Church starts with
JESUS
It’s his church, and he’s our senior pastor. Underneath the guidance of Jesus are leaders who are simply qualified Christians who follow Jesus and encourage others to follow him as well. At Mars Hill Church, our formal leadership structure involves elders, deacons, and church members. "
https://marshill.com/governance
"What does it mean that Jesus is our “senior pastor”?"
There are numerous references to this in MDs various sermons over the years.
quote:I would imagine people have left for a variety of reasons, but the main ones would be:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, again correlation doesn't imply causation. Drop offs in giving could also be a symptom of restructuring and the insecurity this brings about - after all, why give if your church may not be around in a few months time. Plus even the most trusting member knows by now earmarked money was often used for different purposes - which presumably doesn't go down well in times of austerity.
but going back to your post, if it were true, it would really amount to saying 'I'd rather Mars Hill continues to be around in its current form because that results in less collateral damage over time".
