quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did you miss this answer to your previous post?

---

I did but they didn't explain a huge amount of what is happening... They all seemed to comment on a specific event (such as the suggested mass resurrection)...

Also, I was conscious that I didn't want to derail that thread with any comments that didn't deal specifically with the "Strange Fire" conference.

For what it is worth, the main preacher at Mars Hill seems to be hyper-Reformed in much of his thinking... his ten commandment series essentially suggested that any images of Christ were wrong...

Bethel's music is being quite heavily promoted where I am, and it seems to me to be quite hypnotic in it's use of repetition... perhaps I'm being over-cautious but I was wondering what people thought about it...

Which is a bit different from what the other threads were talking about (some of them being quite old, and I thought maybe the groupings might have changed since those threads, as I am only hearing about them in my part of British Christianity now)...

Sorry if I have annoyed anyone with the creation of this thread...
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Right

An important question which Mars Hill do you mean? I am not sure those two are the only two.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on :
 
Mars Hill: Mark Driscoll I think is the one whose sermons on the Ten commandments have been doing the Internet rounds... http://marshill.com/pastors/mark-driscoll

And by Bethel I mean the church that produced this song... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDiv64p_MaQ

(Which includes the bridge "If you want it come and get it for crying out loud")
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Sojourner:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did you miss this answer to your previous post?

---

I did but they didn't explain a huge amount of what is happening... They all seemed to comment on a specific event (such as the suggested mass resurrection)...

---

What is happening is just a generalisation of those specific events.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well, I suppose one thing the two have in common is that they are or were quite popular in some corners of NewFrontiers (and perhaps New Wine).

As such they epitomise the gulf that NewFrontiers attempts to straddle between "Reformed" teaching (Driscoll) and whacky charismatic "theology" (Bethel).

To my mind Driscoll publicises complementarianism the way Michael O'Leary publicises Ryanair: deliberately provocatively and rudely. Bethel thrives (for now) on a model driven by big-name conferences and from you what you post it sounds as if they've got in on the "let's spread our ideas by marketing our worship broadly" business model.

The other thing these two movements have in common is that they appear to be virtually unheard-of outside a relatively small quadrant of evangelicalism. They are not having the world-changing effect you might imagine from their literature.

Errors and omissions excepted.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The Reformed stable is a broad one - and some Reformed people don't really consider others who are considered Reformed (or reformed) by the rest of us as properly Reformed.

For instance, some Presbyterians don't consider Baptists to be Reformed, however much they prefix themselves with the term 'Reformed' - as in 'Reformed Baptists'.

I s'pose all Reformed Christians are Reformed but some are more Reformed than others ...

Driscoll strikes me as at the populist end of the spectrum which can give broader Reformed Christianity something of a bad name.

One could argue that groups like Sovereign Grace (C J Mahaney et al) and New Frontiers ended up with the worst of both worlds to some extent ... a kind of selective, edited-highlights version of Reformed, Calvinistic Christianity fused with a degree of charismatic excess ...

I'm becoming increasingly less 'reformed' the older I get although I retain admiration for many folks within that stable and for some of its emphases - although I think it runs the danger of becoming rather arid and Scholastic if it isn't careful.

I'm certainly prepared to cut reformed evangelicals a lot more slack than I am Bethel and its wannabes and look-a-likes.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I think Mark Driscoll is quite possibly one of the most offensive, chauvinistic, and spiritually abusive 'pastors' in the national lime-light. His comments about women, his persistent focus on macho/manliness, and his use of vulgarity from the pulpit (sometimes screamed at the audience) would be enough to convince me to stay a mile away from him. He has been at the heart of much controversy for his offensive remarks about effeminate worship leaders, other pastors wives 'letting themselves go', and much more; yet I've never heard a true apology, admittance of wrong-doing, or confession of repentance from him regarding anything at all.

Also, Google "Mark Driscoll abuse" and you will find that there are multiple support groups, blogs, and virtual refuges for those who have come out of his church traumatized by his controlling and abusive 'style' (he himself mentioned in a sermon that there was a 'mountain of bodies behind the Mars Hill bus' then chuckled about it).
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Amusingly, there's a bit of a thread crossover here. Driscoll gatecrashed the 'Strange Fire' conference to pass out copies of his book - this article is probably the best I've seen on the topic:

http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/driscoll-macdonald-strange-fire-and-leslie-nielsen/

Which is a good insight into his mentality.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
As an evangelical, the best thing about having to endure Driskoll as the crazy-drunk-uncle-who-shows-up-for-Thanksgiving-dinner, is that his bizarrely adolescent hijinks so often give opportunity for the evangelical brethren I really love to offer a gentle correction-- like this response (scroll down) by Shane Clairborne:

scroll past Driskoll dribble to get to the good stuff
 

---

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
This sort of thing sometimes makes me wish I were a Lutheran. They seem so . . . sane.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Thanks for posting that link, cliffdweller. Great stuff! A snippet that sums it up for me:

'I can’t help but think that Mark [Driscoll] has been more shaped by the worldview of those who put Jesus on the cross than the One who hung on it.'
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
Mars Hill gets a lot of press around Seattl . They're constantly expanding and have a really ddismissive attitude toward other churches.

Our neighbor is pastor of a church that MH approached about buying their building to use for weddings (it's close to the main MH "campus"). MH seemed disdainful toward their congregation's older demographic.

Personally, I once visited MH and wasn't impressed.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I suppose it's not unusual for growing churches to have a troubled relationship with their neighbours; sometimes the growth of one contributes to the decline of another. But we have to ask ourselves how it is that an unpleasant person can pastor an expanding church in the first place. Wouldn't people rather go to a church with a friendly pastor?

This man's success upturns the mainstream view that churches have to be welcoming and accommodating in order to attract members, and that defection from the church is a regrettable reality that's best ignored. Whether or not we approve of this man's behaviour or theology, it should give us pause for thought.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, that's an interesting conundrum, SvitlanaV2. I think the answer lies in the uncertain times we live in. People want certainty and sometimes it can be an over-bearing or even abusive leader who appears to provide that.

It's no accident, I don't think, that people tend to rally around rather rigid positions or causes. It'll be the very rigidity and apparent lack of compromise - 'they're really preaching the Gospel here' - which will be the magnet that draws many to Mars Hill and its ilk, irrespective of what flaws there might be in the methodology, the theology and the behaviour of the leaders.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I also wonder if that rigidity and abrasiveness leads eventually to a high burn-out rate? It's striking how many 'refuge from abuse' web-sites there are now about Mars Hill, although having said that, there are probably similar sites in relation to other branches of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also wonder if that rigidity and abrasiveness leads eventually to a high burn-out rate? It's striking how many 'refuge from abuse' web-sites there are now about Mars Hill...

---

I think you're right, quetzalcoatl. How many 'refuge from liberal Anglicanism' websites are there, for example?! Or (and I hesitate to check) how many relating to my lot, the Vineyard?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I suspect that in the case of Anglicanism, liberal and otherwise, and the Vineyard, most of those who become disillusioned for one reason or another, tend to simply slip away quietly.

I don't go along with some of the Vineyard emphases but I've never come across accusations of heavy-handedness and abusive or abrasive leadership.

I wouldn't say that the Anglicans were entirely free of such tendencies - it does happen.

To an extent, though, with the likes of Mars Hill I suspect that one might have a clue what to expect before getting involved. It's not as if it's somewhere that is known for its tact and diplomacy.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
May I suggest that the simple reason is there are no Liberal Anglican Congregations the size of Mars Hill not because anything special about Liberal Anglicans. There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Did I say there was anything special about Liberal Anglicans?



Of course there are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars. And abusive other-types-of-Anglican-vicars and abusive anything-else ministers and clergy.

I acknowledged as much in my post.

Are you cutting Mars Hill more slack simply because it happens to be on the Reformed side of the spectrum?

Abuse is abuse and crap is crap irrespective of where it occurs.

And there's plenty of pong coming from Mars Hill.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
May I suggest that the simple reason is there are no Liberal Anglican Congregations the size of Mars Hill not because anything special about Liberal Anglicans. There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.

---

quote:

---

There are abusive Liberal Anglican vicars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
People want certainty and sometimes it can be an over-bearing or even abusive leader who appears to provide that.

It's no accident, I don't think, that people tend to rally around rather rigid positions or causes. It'll be the very rigidity and apparent lack of compromise - 'they're really preaching the Gospel here' - which will be the magnet that draws many to Mars Hill and its ilk, irrespective of what flaws there might be in the methodology, the theology and the behaviour of the leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm not sure that it's simply respectability that some of the more mainstream churches offer. Space and room to breathe is part of the attraction too, I would imagine.

---

quote:

---

Mars Hill will have a certain amount of cachet and 'respectability' within its own ambit, though. In a different way to the more traditional or 'mainstream' churches in the area but a certain hegemonic 'status' none the less on account of its size and clout.

So I'm not sure that the respectability thing applies in quite the way you're suggesting. The US is also very different in church-scene terms to the UK, so the kind of things you may have in mind based on the UK experience may not match across quite so neatly.

---

quote:

---

Mars Hill gets a lot of press around Seattl . They're constantly expanding and have a really ddismissive attitude toward other churches.

Our neighbor is pastor of a church that MH approached about buying their building to use for weddings (it's close to the main MH "campus"). MH seemed disdainful toward their congregation's older demographic.

Personally, I once visited MH and wasn't impressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll seems to enjoy pushing the boundaries to deliberately shock/offend-- often in ways that look very adolescent (i.e. shock for shock's sake, rather than anything substantive behind it).

---

I've heard that his preaching can be quite crude regarding sexual matters. Well, I suppose you could say that he's simply reflecting the openness that exists in popular culture, and his listeners are totally familiar with that culture, so it's not shocking to them. It's only shocking to people who don't attend his church, and have no intention of doing so.

It would be interesting to know what kind of people do attend his church, and why it appeals to them over and above the alternatives.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
At a guess, religious and theological conservatives who feel that they are selecting something that puts them on the cutting-edge and makes them more radical than the mainstream. As Cliffdweller says, the type of conservative American who likes to see themselves as being maverick or against the grain, slightly disreputable when it comes to the status-quo ...

There is, I'm afraid, a kind of populist 'onery-ness' about some of this crowd - an anti-intellectual, we're-all-ornery-down-home-folks and you can't tell us nuttin' attitude. Imagine Tykes (Yorkshire folk) and Texans somehow cut loose and floated over to Seattle ...


 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Personally, I think Mark Driscoll acts like a cult leader, and that his church/fight club/whatever it is, is as representative of Evangelical Christianity, or even Calvinist Christianity, as Oral Roberts was an exemplar of Methodism. His idiosyncratic theology seems more grounded in his ambition and male insecurity than in...well, the Gospel. And -- he's an ignorant, misogynistic, controlling and abusive ass, and a bad neighbor to the rest of the community as he attempts to geographically expand his little theological fiefdom in Seattle.

Here's the Facebook page of Stuff Christian Culture Likes , an online presence that critiques/pokes fun of the more bizarre permutations of American pop Christianity; its originator and her spouse had a former connection to Mars Hill, and she is especially critical of Driscoll.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll seems to enjoy pushing the boundaries to deliberately shock/offend-- often in ways that look very adolescent (i.e. shock for shock's sake, rather than anything substantive behind it).

---

I've heard that his preaching can be quite crude regarding sexual matters. Well, I suppose you could say that he's simply reflecting the openness that exists in popular culture, and his listeners are totally familiar with that culture, so it's not shocking to them. It's only shocking to people who don't attend his church, and have no intention of doing so.

It would be interesting to know what kind of people do attend his church, and why it appeals to them over and above the alternatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Some of his large numbers might have to do with niche marketing. It's not that there's millions of conservative evangelicals looking for a misogynistic, militaristic frat-boy church. It's that there are precisely 9000 of them (or whatever his current membership is) and there are very few others willing to cater to that particular fetish-- thank God.

---

quote:

---

Recently, they hosted a shadow conference of the "Act Like Men" conference called "Act Like Men?" and used the proceeds to provide scholarship funds for women pastors, hoping to create the "Mark Driscoll Scholarship Fund for Women in Ministry".

---

 

---

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
You know what pissed me off most today? Reading that one of those atheist churches has been founded in Nashville.

Because I'm pretty sure that God, whatever else he thinks, (sorry to make your relativistic eyes cry on this), really hates atheism.

Whereas, apparently, some posters here rejoice at the very concept that Mars Hill might 'implode', or otherwise wish his church harm (though it still seems to be growing, sorry about that too).

And yeah of course Mark D has some mixed motives and some messed up internal currents. I disagree with him on plenty of things, and wouldn't say that I'm part of his tradition.

BUT I care less about him than all the people who weren't Christians at all before, cus they thought Christians were weak and irrelevant, but who are now because of Driscoll (and I'd bet a lot of money that there are more of them than non-Christians who turned away because of him). That is MUCH more important than any 'ooo he's a megalomaniac' stuff that's coming up here. Maybe its true, but do I think it outweights the good? hell no.

And because I think God is good, I don't think he's going to punish Mars Hill-ites for believing in him because of a somewhat messed-up pastor (cus theres plenty of them). He'll just celebrate that they believe. What? people have impure motives for belief? Shock horror..

Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??
 

---

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:


Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
You know what pissed me off most today? Reading that one of those atheist churches has been founded in Nashville.

Because I'm pretty sure that God, whatever else he thinks, (sorry to make your relativistic eyes cry on this), really hates atheism.

Whereas, apparently, some posters here rejoice at the very concept that Mars Hill might 'implode', or otherwise wish his church harm (though it still seems to be growing, sorry about that too).

And yeah of course Mark D has some mixed motives and some messed up internal currents. I disagree with him on plenty of things, and wouldn't say that I'm part of his tradition.

BUT I care less about him than all the people who weren't Christians at all before, cus they thought Christians were weak and irrelevant, but who are now because of Driscoll (and I'd bet a lot of money that there are more of them than non-Christians who turned away because of him). That is MUCH more important than any 'ooo he's a megalomaniac' stuff that's coming up here. Maybe its true, but do I think it outweights the good? hell no.

And because I think God is good, I don't think he's going to punish Mars Hill-ites for believing in him because of a somewhat messed-up pastor (cus theres plenty of them). He'll just celebrate that they believe. What? people have impure motives for belief? Shock horror..

Why not say "Praise God for Mark's success in bringing atheists to (relatively) orthodox Christianity! Now let us disagree with the things we disagree with him on, while also celebrating and learning from his success"? Whose side are you on people? Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Do you seriously believe that overall he does more harm than good to the Body of Christ? Seriously??

---

Y'see, I'm not one of those Calvinist types. I don't believe once-saved-always-saved. Thus, I genuinely believe that people who Mark Driscoll turns off church are people that had the potential to be saved, but his crass offensiveness turned them off. Do we say 'Hallelujah amen' when someone manages to save one person, but totally switches off from Christ ninety-nine others by a message that told better could have saved the whole hundred?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I know a guy who visited Mars a few years back

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
I know a guy who visited Mars a few years back

---

Wow! How did he get there? Stowaway with the Mars Rover? Hitched a lift with a passing Vogon Constructor Fleet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It'd be very interesting to know how the mainstream churches in the area are responding to the presence of Driscoll's church(es).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It'd be very interesting to know how the mainstream churches in the area are responding to the presence of Driscoll's church(es).

---

Depends on what you mean by 'mainstream' - I presume you don't mean 'mainline'. Most of them are just continuing to do what they've always done without much fuss - largely unaffected by the nutjob down the road.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The issue with disaffected culty-church members turning to other churches is that often they have no context with which to evaluate other churches...if they come from non-church backgrounds, as far as they know all Christian churches toe the same theological/ideological party line.

I remember, several years ago, meeting a Wiccan who was stunned to learn that there were female clergy in Christendom, or that at least some of us are affirming of LGBT people, or that we weren't all political right-wingers. She just didn't know.

As far as that goes, one of my former coworkers, RC, was shocked to learn that my church's liturgy followed the form of the Mass, held weekly Eucharists, had a sacramental understanding of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, etc. "I just thought all Protestants were like Baptists," she said.

Those are the sorts of assumptions that can keep people out of mainline Protestant churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It'd be very interesting to know how the mainstream churches in the area are responding to the presence of Driscoll's church(es).

---

Depends on what you mean by 'mainstream' - I presume you don't mean 'mainline'. Most of them are just continuing to do what they've always done without much fuss - largely unaffected by the nutjob down the road.

---

I'm referring to the historical churches.

For example, some of them might be gaining new members as people decide to move on from Driscoll's movement. Others might be forced to become more creative as a way of competing with the 'nutjobs' whose church down the road is growing. If Driscoll's movement has stoked up some kind of revival atmosphere in local communities then other churches might benefit from that, in the way that the British Baptists benefitted from the growth of Methodism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Or the opposite might be true - having a Reformed conservative church in their vicinity might help them to become more aware of their own theological distinctiveness.

Churches should keep an eye on what's happening around them, even if they disapprove of most of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we're going to present an alternative picture of Christ to Driscoll's hyper-masculinized alpha-dog warrior Jesus, then we need to understand exactly what Driscoll is saying and doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If we're going to present an alternative picture of Christ to Driscoll's hyper-masculinized alpha-dog warrior Jesus, then we need to understand exactly what Driscoll is saying and doing.

---

I wouldn't disagree about the importance of greater understanding.

It occurs to me that 'Driscoll's hyper-masculinized alpha-dog warrior Jesus' might be a reaction (or overreaction) against the Jesus of the historical denominations. Is it an attack on 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild'?

Perhaps the value in having such polar opposites on full view is that those of us who are uneasy with both understandings of Jesus can see what the extremes look like and so have a better idea of how to explore a middle path. But I suppose that's no consolation to those people who are at either end and see only error on the horizon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Astral projection.

---

touche
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm referring to the historical churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not very familiar with Mars Hill, Bethel etc. but I'm unsure if they really manage to convert many atheists. I wonder what the background of their adherents is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I would be very surprised if people without any religious background at all would get involved in a group like that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The difference is in the US context a lot of non-religious people have religious backgrounds (either via parents, or more rarely grandparents), and Mars Hill has been successful in reaching these people at least initially by impressing them with a far more committed sort Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The historical churches in that part of Washington state are largely conservative Reformed churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
A lot of the recruiting plays on the idea that the potential new member didn't ever "really understand" Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The historical churches in that part of Washington state are largely conservative Reformed churches.

---

So these particular local churches wouldn't necessarily be very anti-Driscoll? That's interesting.

Which local churches have actually come out as being totally against what he's doing, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
The flaw in these restorationalist outfits is that church history shows us that early Christians had an entirely different church model of small largely autonomous groups in a house church setting, without a paid priest lording it over them. Driscoll, Virgo and the rest of them have by intent or by accident taken the place of God in the minds of some of their congregation by demanding compliance and obedience, and by failing to put into place democratic structures that properly allow for checks and balances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But it wasn't that anyone could command others; indeed this would (ISTM...) directly contradict Jesus' teaching on what leadership and authority should look like among his followers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But it wasn't that anyone could command others; indeed this would (ISTM...) directly contradict Jesus' teaching on what leadership and authority should look like among his followers.

---

The problem is that it's basically impossible to get a group of people living in modern Western society to reasonably replicate anything like 1st century church practices, without a heavy dose of top-down control.

I read a lot about Restorationism due to my experience in one of these churches, and I have yet to find an example of one that does not exert non-Biblical levels of control over their members. Historically when a large group within a Restorationist church has questioned these practices, there has been a split. See - Church of Christ (conservative Restorationist) and Disciples of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm going to put this as politely as possible. You claim that you've "experienced" one church. Your experience is not at all normative. I come from the very conservative end of the churches of Christ and what you describe is not at all accurate. I know you do not know what you are talking about because if you knew anything of the Disciples of Christ- a mainline, liberal group- you would know what you wrote was down right false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The historical churches in that part of Washington state are largely conservative Reformed churches.

---

So these particular local churches wouldn't necessarily be very anti-Driscoll? That's interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But it wasn't that anyone could command others; indeed this would (ISTM...) directly contradict Jesus' teaching on what leadership and authority should look like among his followers.

---

The problem is that it's basically impossible to get a group of people living in modern Western society to reasonably replicate anything like 1st century church practices, without a heavy dose of top-down control.

---

I don't (yet!) share your cynicism - or realism, as you might prefer to call it... Not that this collaborative, consensus-seeking approach is something I've experienced, but I have read enough examples of it kind of working (I mean, working but not without bumps along the way) to keep up my sense of hope that it's possible.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
chris stiles

I'm here to muse and to ask questions of people who are much more knowledgeable than myself. You've already been helpful enough to answer some of my questions, but if they're beneath you, just ignore them. That's fine by me.

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller:

I'm not sure what Chris meant by the comment, but I can assure you that is not the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't (yet!) share your cynicism - or realism, as you might prefer to call it... Not that this collaborative, consensus-seeking approach is something I've experienced, but I have read enough examples of it kind of working (I mean, working but not without bumps along the way) to keep up my sense of hope that it's possible.

---

quote:

---

[QB\]

There is another poster here disputing my experience, but if you have not heard of the Church of Christ - this is a group that has schismed over the use of musical instruments in church services, because the New Testament doesn't feature them. And as mentioned some of these churches have removed elders whose wives passed away, to match the Timothy description. So I would call that excessive control in order to adhere to an unrealistic standard, of the 1st century church. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Prester John: You might as well say the RC Church and the Orthodox are controlling for insisting in a male only priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:

---

[QB\]

There is another poster here disputing my experience, but if you have not heard of the Church of Christ - this is a group that has schismed over the use of musical instruments in church services, because the New Testament doesn't feature them. And as mentioned some of these churches have removed elders whose wives passed away, to match the Timothy description. So I would call that excessive control in order to adhere to an unrealistic standard, of the 1st century church.

---

By this standard any adherence to some sort of doctrinal conformity is "controlling". You might as well say the RC Church and the Orthodox are controlling for insisting in a male only priesthood. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:
By this standard any adherence to some sort of doctrinal conformity is "controlling". You might as well say the RC Church and the Orthodox are controlling for insisting in a male only priesthood.

---

quote:

---

Clearly, the more conservative versions of Churches of Christ are driving our children away from Jesus. I can see no other way to read the data. They grow up hating attending church, and have no interest in merely changing brands.

And I’m sure all the readers have friends (or former friends) who’ve been driven away from Jesus by the legalists among us. This is no surprise — as very sad as it is.

Those churches retain only 40% of their own. Therefore, they will rapidly decline in numbers and die. It may take a few decades, but their time is past if they don’t repent.

---

quote:

---

Prester John: Include the COE then. Only priests, of whatever gender, are allowed to preside. What a bunch of control freaks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
You aren't just asking questions - you are taking small amounts of information and then drawing the wrong conclusions (see cliffdwellers post).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
You aren't just asking questions - you are taking small amounts of information and then drawing the wrong conclusions (see cliffdwellers post).

---

Any 'wrong conclusions' I draw can easily be corrected with further information, for which I'm grateful.

The most frequent 'conclusion' I draw is that the more I learn, the more I realise there is to learn. And I have learnt new things on this thread, so my participation has been useful for me. I apologise if it's been unpleasant for you.

---

We've been down this road before, and this time seems to be only a slight meandering. But perhaps-- without meaning to wander too far into hellish territory-- I might suggest that since this isn't the first poster to notice this tendency, you could take it as a gentle reminder to check your tendency to jump to conclusions based on very little data. Helps us avoid a lot of unnecessary rabbit trails. Just sayin'.

[ 08. November 2013, 18:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Sigh. We'll see.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


Now, now, SvitlanaV2, take your medicine and don't play the victim ...

At the risk of second-guessing where you're at, I've noticed that you like to play devil's advocate to a certain extent - and there's nothing wrong with that particularly but it can rub people up the wrong way.

I've not got a dog in this fight so it hasn't rubbed me up the wrong way on this occasion, but there have been times when it has. As I'm sure some of my comments and posts have wound other people up and even wounded them at times ...



I can be a sarky so-and-so, you aren't ... you're one of the good guys ... but sometimes you do appear to have a tendency to defend the indefensible on the large, lively and growing end of things or, in this case, the personality-cult end of the things, on the grounds that they must be doing something right because these groups are growing whilst nice, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road or mainstream churches are in decline ...

I can see what you're getting at but in can be exasperating when, as in this case, you continue to posit and speculate when, as Chris Stiles and others have said, there's plenty of material available that is pretty damning.

I don't know if that makes any sense. No-one says you shouldn't ask questions and no-one's saying that they know more than poor little old you ...

I, for one, have valued some of the insights and suggestions you bring - you often cause me to consider things in a way I've not done before. I'm grateful for that.

But there is sometimes a time when it pays to stop digging. I need to learn that lesson more than you do.
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm referring to the historical churches.

---

The historical churches in that part of Washington state are largely conservative Reformed churches.

---

Huh? I attend an Episcopal church one block from a "campus" of Mars Hill and chris's description puzzled me.

I certainly see the encroachment of Mars Hill as a challenge to neighboring churches that, like mine, are having trouble growing. I think it would be a mistake to try to copy Mars Hill, but I do see us as needing to compete, in a way, with them. Trying to be like them in style would be untrue to who we are, though.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the restorationist thing ... I think we need to differentiate here between the US restorationist thing - the Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ - the Campbellites and so on ... and what became known as Restorationism in the UK ie. the 'new churches' such as those streams and networks associated with Bryn and Keri Jones, Terry Virgo, Tony Morton et al ...

I was involved with the latter - ie. the British not the US version ... if versions they were because they were very different.

There was certainly authoritarianism in the latter. I can't speak for the former but I don't doubt Seekingsister's version of events at all.

Nor do I contend that some Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ and similar groups in the US can be fairly mainstream. The people from the Churches of Christ I've met online have all been very fundamentalist and very, very literalist - the Behemoth in Job as a description of a sauropod for instance ...



But none of them have struck me as being particularly culty or controlling.

But you can find elements of that tendency in most conservatively theological settings ... some Plymouth Brethren assemblies could be quite controlling, some Pentecostal and Holiness groups the same.

The mileage varies across the board. The Plymouth Brethren I encountered were all pretty 'open' and nowhere near as inflexible as some other congregations within the same grouping ... I may continue to tease Kaplan Corday about them but in truth there were nowhere near as controlling and numpty-ish as some groups I could mention.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Svitlana - cults are very good at recruiting people. Driscoll's Mars Hill (iirc Rob Bell's church is also called Mars Hill and is I assume quite different!) is undoubtedly a cult IMO. That mainstream churches in the area can't compete is a sign of their unwillingless to become a cult and is a good thing.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 
I was doing some business in Redding California (Bethel land) in the summer and dropped into the church. A good test of a church is what the locals say about it. Everyone I spoke to in Redding had heard of Bethel, no one had a bad word to say about it and most spoke favourably of them. Church does a lot of regular community work which doesn't get mentioned much.

Worship verged more on the tedious than the hypnotic - didn't see too many people going into trances, saw a few switching off and playing with their mobile phones, and most just found the worship helpful engaging with God.

Bethel spirituality is shaped by the Californian culture - they are generally pretty relaxed and relentlessly optimistic, which is a breath of fresh air after the incessant cynical whinging that characterises a lot of church life in the UK (present company excepted I'm sure).

The Holy Spirit heals people in all kinds of churches - including Bethel. Any big organisation has their critics and disaffected members - and any big organisation will make mistakes and have to learn from them. Yeah I had some reservations, but overall there's a lot coming from Redding that's having a beneficial effect on churches - in particular helping people recover from abusive situations in other churches. I know some very damaged people - including some long standing church leaders, who fit that description.

By the way, for shipmates wanting to find out a bit more about Bethel teaching, read Danny Silk's stuff. Culture of Honour and Keep Your Love on will give you a flavour for some of the church's ethos.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, but some of their teaching goes way, way, way over the top.

Of course, it depends on where one is standing in the first place.

I'd just politely decline any invitation to get involved with anything which had the Bethel finger-prints anywhere near it.

I was disappointed that the New Wine crowd saw fit to invite Johnson a few years ago. Although I've heard that some of the leadership have since rued that decision ...

Of course, the can anything good come from Southern California thing applies here as it does to anything else. It won't be all bad.

But there are enough people receiving counselling and so on to recover from their involvement to convince me to give it as wide a berth as I can.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


But there are enough people receiving counselling and so on to recover from their involvement to convince me to give it as wide a berth as I can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Interestingly, I was at HTB last Sunday, where Brian and Jan Johnson (from Bethel) were leading the sung worship. My impression accords exactly with that of Truman White. That is, more tedious than transformative. Lots of people around me tweeting or on facebook, etc. Maybe it was because most of the songs were new to me, but I found it quite hard work, and it doesn't usually take much to get me "lost in wonder, love and praise." I just felt they were trying too hard, and that communicated itself.

---

They are participating in another HTB event as well - I can't remember if it is Focus (camping week away) or the Leadership Conference, but I heard them mentioned.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I'm not sure you can draw that sort of conclusion, Gamaliel. I seem to recall Rowan speaking at HTB, but I don't see them going Liberal neo-orthodox, or however you would see Rowan's theology, any time soon. What is true is that there were people queueing around the block to get in.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
@ Seekingsister,

They were over here, according to Nicky Gumbel, for Worship Central, a worship conference under the broad umbrella, as I understand it, of HTB. Whether there were any other engagements, I'm not sure.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They wouldn't be absorbing Rowan Williams's liberal neo-orthodox (paleo-orthodox) theology because they wouldn't understand it in the first place ...



As for people queueing round the block to get in to hear some representatives from Bethel, so freakin' what ...

Just shows how credulous too many people are.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Now, actually, to be fair, some of them would understand Williams.

No, the reason they'll plump for Bethel or a Bethel-lite approach is because it gets bums on seats.

It's a purely pragmatic decision.

HTB and its ilk is very much run on a business-model. If something works - like the Alpha course - they franchise the guts out of it.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Interestingly, I was at HTB last Sunday, where Brian and Jan Johnson (from Bethel) were leading the sung worship. My impression accords exactly with that of Truman White. That is, more tedious than transformative. Lots of people around me tweeting or on facebook, etc. Maybe it was because most of the songs were new to me, but I found it quite hard work, and it doesn't usually take much to get me "lost in wonder, love and praise." I just felt they were trying too hard, and that communicated itself.
 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
To be fair Gamaliel, I attended an HTB service (admittedly a good 10+ year's ago) where Rowan was preaching, and it was a) packed and b) very warmly received. Though I did get the impression he was, if not dumbing down, certainly modifying his usual scholarly way of talking (which meant I had no trouble following his gist). The message was absolutely not dumbed down. I can't speak for Bethel and their ilk as I've never had the remotest urge to listen to Johnson et al, I suspect we're on a similar page there.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The news that Bethel's firmly in with HTB is discouraging. It makes me even more inclined to avoid the charismatic scene within Anglicanism.

Is nowhere safe from infection?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

...The reason they'll plump for Bethel or a Bethel-lite approach is because it gets bums on seats.

It's a purely pragmatic decision.

HTB and its ilk is very much run on a business-model. If something works - like the Alpha course - they franchise the guts out of it.

---

quote:

---

Their tactic of drawing alongside leaders who have been hurt in some way is a devious one. 'Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, I think the evidence against Mars Hill is out there, in a way that it isn't for Bethel. You know the sort of thing, controlling leadership, boundary violations, financial unaccountability, a history of religious abuse. I don't care how much you dislike Bethel, you could hardly put them in the same category.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.

K.

---

That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.

K.

---

That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.

---

I'd agree - though in practical terms people are often uncomfortable enough with being seen to be critical that the consequence is that while some things will be played down, they won't really be critiqued until there's an explosion of some kind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
True. But is that really unique to evangelical churches? I would imagine that would be true of most Christian churches, just as it's true of a great many organizations and corporate structures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
True. But is that really unique to evangelical churches? I would imagine that would be true of most Christian churches, just as it's true of a great many organizations and corporate structures.

---

To an extent. What gives it added potency in evangelical circles are the spiritual overtones it takes on. 'Touch not the Lord's annointed' the 'Wisdom of Gamaliel', 'taking the good' etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
It's easier to do in Evangelical circles because there is no space for critical assessment, absolutely everything will be accepted.

K.

---

That's not true. Yes, there is a woeful lack of discernment in evangelical circles but to suggest that there's 'no space for critical assessment' is an overstatement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Sure John Piper advocates that women should accept being beaten by their husbands because it's 'biblical' behaviour—but hey, 'he's a brother in Christ', right?

---

quote:

---

Nicky Gumbell has a lot to answer for with all the crackpots he has invited to HTB—either unaware or uninterested in the human cost, all the lives in ruins, because of the charlatans with whom he wants to share a stage. Shame on him.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

I too wonder why Nicky Gumbel, whose daily bible reflections I read and am convinced are reasonably sound, is prepared to give credence and a platform to certain people, particularly the prosperity crowd. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Piper clearly advocates that wives endure abuse from their violent husbands at least 'for a season'. Read all about his misogynist claptrap here.

---

That is a lie. He says that verbal abuse is something that can be endured for a season. He doesn't lay down any guidelines and he certainly doesn't 'advocate' it. He says that physical abuse is unacceptable and that the local church should protect women from violent behaviour in the first instance and then exercise church discipline against the perpetrator. By inference, this would include legal recourse if the perpetrator has committed a crime, such as rape or any kind of harm.

[ 15. November 2013, 11:23: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".

How can you live with that?

[ 15. November 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Komensky ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".

How can you live that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Don't be an apologist for abuse. Piper's line is so ripe with sexism and privilege that it's hard to know where to start. Note how Piper places the one being abused as the one who should act and the one forced to 'endure' abuse (and yes, Piper agrees that includes physical abuse). What a humane person would have said was that she should phone the police—physical and mental abuse are crimes. But PIper's comments are different from that: "If it’s[the abuse] not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked one night".

How can you live that?

---

I can live with what he says, not your perversion of what he says or that of the blogger to which you've linked.

He is being asked a question about complemenarianism. The question is designed to test his theology and the pastoral application of that theology. What he basically says is this: a woman is only called to submit to Christlike behaviour in her husband. If a husband tries to coerce his wife into becoming complicit in sin she is to say no to him because Christ would not coerce her into sin. In other words, a husband has no right to expect his wife to submit to anything in him which is not like Christ, including joining him in sin.

However, Piper also mentions situations of abuse. The first situation he addresses is verbal abuse. He says that this type of abuse is endurable, for a season. This is a mere statement of fact, not of principle. Piper is clear that such behaviour is sinful and therefore unacceptable. But with regard to physical abuse Piper says that an abused woman should seek the protection of the church from her abusive husband who would then come under immediate church discipline, which would include recourse to law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Mea culpa: 'no room' was an exaggeration.

The restriction on critical assessment is a particular problem in evangelical circles because of the frequent lack of core doctrine—all the so-called 'Spirit-led' stuff is believed to come from God (this then often leads to modalist problems too). When someone says 'the Spirit' or 'God' or 'the Lord' has 'put this image on my heart', etc., suggesting that whatever happened next was anything short of divine revelation is tantamount to blaspheming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Piper isn't the Pope. He's not Infallible (neither is the Pope .. ) but I don't think he's guilty of the same level of misogyny as one might level at Driscoll's door.

---

Agreed. My point in raising Piper as an example is to show another example of the intractable resistance in Christian Culture in confronting destructive behaviour from Christian speakers (or 'leaders' or 'pastors' or priests). I can remember when Todd Bentley was being discussed behind closed doors at a major evangelical church in London and none of the 'leaders' were willing to call a spade a spade. Between the lines, it reads more like "let the patterns of abuse and deception continue! To hell with the human cost, that's not our concern! Our job is to maintain our phoney-baloney facade and Christian Culture! God can use this! Even if it is destructive, God wan work through it, to work his magic!"; and so on.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
… until the shit literally hits the fan.

---

 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0