When Christians have grown so bitter toward someone that we can’t even accept their apologies, something has gone seriously wrong. If Driscoll had ignored these comments, his critics would have excoriated him for his silence. But when he says he is sorry, they criticize him still. We must refuse to create lose-lose situations for each other where one is damned if they apologize and damned if they don’t.
When Merritt is writing the stuff I like, he is dead on… but when he is clearly in the wrong, I’m going to disagree with him.
In all seriousness, I admire Jonathan’s take and believe that over all, if the situation was different, I would support him and his call to accept Driscoll’s apology. However, I am not a parishioner in anyway of Driscoll’s. He is not my pastor, my mentor, my boss — shoot, the only time I read his garbage is when I have to read it via a secondary source. Driscoll has yet to “sin against” me in anyway. He did not insult me, berate me, or abuse my money to buy his way to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.
I know better (now) than to put myself in that situation.
To suggest I should accept his apology to colonize the hurt and harm he has caused others. This is not my hurt, this is not my harm, this is not my apology. I’m not sure I can even suggest to those he destroyed that they accept his apology because I’m not there. I’m not in their shoes. They’re the ones who have to decide for themselves.
I’m not interested in discussing the rightness or wrongness of what happened, for several reasons. First, and most obviously, we have one side of a story that has more perspectives that have not been made public. I don’t want to dismiss Andrew’s experience or his understanding of what happened, but that’s not good enough for me to make a judgment about what occurred. Second, the voyeuristic part of this story strikes me as crass; I felt the same way about the wikileaks-style takedown of Sovereign Grace ministries last year. Gently (ahem) mocking Mark Driscoll’s writing and teachings are fair game; they’re made for public consumption and public engagement. Scrutininzing church documents without context or jumping on a church based on the blog post of a disaffected member is less appropriate, I believe. Third, just as someone who’s studied religious groups I recommend critical skepticism of ex-member’s accounts of their old religion; they tend to be exaggerated in descriptions of grievances, and their accounts are overwhelmingly and inaccurately negative (naturally, otherwise they wouldn’t have left). All to say, there’s not enough solid ground to make me want to wade into that swamp.
What I can offer is another perspective that I hope will be valuable. I want to turn something of a sociological eye on this situation: what reactions did we see? Why did we see the reactions that we saw? I think I’m in a unique position to understand some of the social dynamics of this fiasco. As a native of Seattle, and someone who attended Mars Hill (briefly) in college, I’m familiar with the church and its organization. I still have dozens of friends who attend there. On the other hand, I have a broad internet-based social network of theologically-minded individuals who are decidedly not on the same page as Mark Driscoll. The confluence of these social networks causes my Facebook feed to explode with contradicting opinions whenever these situations come up. In this latest example, I had many people more than willing to castigate Mars Hill for their handling of Andrew’s sin and many others who were defensive about the attention their church home was getting. So for the last week I’ve had box seats for a flame war between two groups of Christians who most decidedly did not understand each other.
I do think that the most interesting reactions have come from two groups, although there are certainly a variety of observers who could be organized in any number of ways. One group is the general anti-Driscoll crowd, the ones who dislike his teachings and behavior, not to mention the influence he wields. The second group are pro-Driscoll/Mars Hill, often members but necessarily so, who are puzzled by the harsh reaction to Andrew’s story. The anti-Driscoll crowd is just that: anti-Driscoll. That is, they often have no idea what life at Mars Hill Church is like, and their only exposure to the Mars Hill empire is through the sermons, interviews and writings of Driscoll.
From these sources they have an impression of Mark Driscoll as a person: brash, controlling, angry, etc. Since Driscoll, and their conception of him, are all they know about Mars Hill, when events like Andrew’s story hit the internet they tend to jump on it: it confirms what they think a church run by Mark Driscoll would look like. Driscoll is suddenly entangled in a story in which he’s not even really a character. The problem is that this situation is not at all representative of life at Mars Hill Church, which looks a lot like any average Evangelical megachurch. But one event turns into a rallying point, and all of a sudden Mars Hill is a cult. Members recoil at this characterization, get defensive and close ranks around their leaders, which of course only serves to embolden the detractors. And then before we know it there’s two angry groups who can’t understand why the other are so hostile.
So, I want to share with both groups some admonishments, using the God-given authority granted unto me in my status as a semi-anonymous blogger on the internet:
To the Anti-Driscoll crowd:
1. No, Mars Hill Church is not a cult. To say so is sloppy and sensationalistic, and laughable to people actually familiar with the church. IF we were to judge the Andrew’s situation based on his side of the story alone, we could surmise that Mars Hill Church’s attempt at church discipline was heavyhanded, although I suspect most of the controversy stems from miscommunication between all parties. But I think people familiar with the church should take umbrage at the accusation that Mars Hill is a cult-the daily life at Mars Hill Church is not different from what you would see at any Evangelical congregation, the people are genuinely seeking God’s glory and a lot of good things happen there. In short, don’t judge what you can’t see.
2. Secondly, Mark Driscoll should be separated from Mars Hill. We should recognize how unfair it is to project our feelings about Mark Driscoll onto his church; it makes it too easy to rush to judgment when we come across stories of behaviors that confirm our assumptions about what Mars Hill is about. Driscoll’s statements are worth engaging because they’re meant to be engaged- but the kind of information we’re dealing with here is tabloid-worthy at best. Its entirely possible (even probable) that this is a case of a church messing up, but if so that’s all it is.
To Mars Hill associates:
1. Understand that Mark Driscoll IS Mars Hill Church to the majority of people out there. The things he says and the way he conducts himself are the only exposure that they have to Mars Hill Church. It’s unfair, but it’s the price of having a celebrity pastor. And Driscoll’s charisma is really what drives Mars Hill’s growth. But understanding this point is essential: people target Mars Hill, but they have really strong feelings about Driscoll. They don’t know what life is like at Mars Hill. They just know how they feel about your pastor. And your pastor is brash and unapologetic; you love him for it, but others are put off by it, and find it dangerous. But these impressions are not acknowledged by members of Mars Hill: you love your pastor, but this often means entrenching around him when criticism flies. I have yet to hear any criticism of Driscoll come from inside Mars Hill, and that is precisely what worries outsiders. Driscoll certainly earns his criticism, and should hear correction, but when it never comes from his own congregation it looks cult-like to outsiders. Face the fact that your pastor is controversial, and don’t deflect that he’s controversial because he preaches truth boldly or whatever the company line is, and work from the inside to change the perception people have of Mars Hill Church. Show that there is a distinction to be made between the personality of Mark Driscoll and the church he runs.
2. There’s a growing population of angry ex-members of Mars Hill Church, and they are vocal. Now, this population is possibly just the natural outcome of church growth; as members increase dramatically so do the number of ex-members and people who had bad experiences. But its also possible that these people are symptomatic of structural and cultural issues that have arisen from within the Mars Hill community. Acknowledge these people and try to understand their disenchantment with their Mars Hill experience. Excommunication and ignorance are not the appropriate response to a more and more visible population- this only serves to strengthen the perception outsiders have of your church family.
The hubris of Driscoll knows no bounds… the man is hardly a pastor, but more like a dictator. Further, the amount of attention paid to sex in his church is telling, but I wouldn’t want to tell you too much. You’ll see it soon enough, I suspect.
Anyway, Matthew Paul Turner, shares two posts about Andrew, a young man who attended Mars Hill Church, moving from an active member to one who was excommunicated. That’s right…. Driscoll has established himself as a fundamentalist version of the pope (although, I suspect that the Holy See has more love and compassion in it than Driscoll does. I almost wrote Holy Father, but I don’t want to scare anyone). Notice the dialogue – the church leaders are the ones who can determine sin and repentance. This is in effect a carrying out of a bad characterization of Roman policy. Going beyond this, however, is the puritanical effort of shaming Andrew. You’ll have to read the posts to see what I mean.
Other bloggers have and will respond, but on spectacular note is Dr. Cargill’s response. He’s right – it’s a cult. He warns,
If you a member of the Mars Hill church, get out. And if you would like help getting out, feel free to comment below or email me, and I can refer you to counselors who specialize in helping people remove themselves from abusive relationships, communities, and cults.
I would go further and note that as every blogger has a voice, we should continue to post on Driscoll and call attention to the garbage which he is producing.
I mean, if Mark Driscoll of the Seattle Mars Hill Church can copyright Mars Hill and then ask other churches to take the name off, I’m going to get a jump on the name of Jesus Christ.
The third Mars Hill I know seems caught in the middle. It is pastored in Sacramento, California by a friend of mine, Scott Hagan. Scott planted another church years ago in the Sacramento area, then moved to pastor a mega-church in Michigan and is now back leading at Mars Hill in Sactown. I have Pastor Scott’s permission to share what I am going to write next. Several weeks ago, Scott and his Sacramento congregation received a “Cease and Desist” order which came from the Seattle Mars Hill Church. They were told that the Seattle Mars Hill had copyrighted the name “Mars Hill” and they demanded that the California Mars Hill churches stop using the name and any logos with similar lettering. (read the story)
Yesterday, led by Rachel Held Evans, Twitter, Facebook, and the Blogosphere erupted over the continued statements by Mark Driscoll. manI realize that y of my readers may like him, but while his doctrine may be what we enjoy, his statements on various things (and Rachel has a list) should not be tolerated.
But, you’ve read all of our reactions. Now, read this:
I also cry when my friends die like Jesus did, and at the movie Beaches which if Christ would see it, I’m pretty sure His eyes would well up too. I mean, He weeped over Jerusalem as a mother. I don’t push around my wife, but try to treat her as an equal and honor her as my wife, not as property or some second class vessel. I don’t ridicule gay and lesbians, well, maybe Robert, but it’s not really ridicule so much as my campaign to straighten him out. Yes, when I was younger, next to my toy guns, Star Trek ships, and other manly figurines, I collected Beanie Babies. As a matter of fact, the pride of my collection is the Princess Diana beanie babies, 2nd generation. Recently, during the Royal Wedding, I watched it with my daughter. I hunt with my son (which generally involves, at this moment, shoot a paper target and the occasional stray cat with a bb-gun).
Anyway, she quotes another blogger, Tyler Clark, who writes, “When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack ‘effeminate anatomically male’ men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot.”
But, you know, I cannot help but to think of the Apostle Paul who saw meekness and gentleness, when in a time where those things were not considered manly, something of Christ:
Now I, Paul, appeal to you with the gentleness and kindness of Christ–though I realize you think I am timid in person and bold only when I write from far away. (2nd Cor 10.1)
Maybe it’s me, but my anger is not at Mark Driscoll, or the elders of Mars Hill, but at our society which has for a very long time confused manhood with macho bravado. I remember a dear old lady somewhere in my past telling me that a man is not a man because he is 18, married, or the such, but when he accepts his own responsibility. It wasn’t about others things for her, a pastor’s wife who has long since received her rest, but responsibility. I’ve sort of lived by that credo myself. Our society confuses manhood with sex, violence and age.
Philosopher Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson faces-off against Pastor Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church and Annie Lobert, founder of the Christian ministry “Hookers for Jesus” about the existence of the Devil.
I was impressed with Mark Driscoll’s presentation on this program. I do not agree with everything that he said, but his stance is at least rooted in the bible.
I can understand why Carlton Pearson is on this program, but why is Deepak? Does he really have much of a say in whether or not Satan exists? He doesn’t believe in God, and chides those that do believe. A belief, he says, is a cover-up for insecurity. He calls those that believe, primitive.
If you go to 8.50, you will here Carlton dismiss Annie as ‘young in the Lord, and she was a prostitute’ which I guess means taht she has no perspective on the adversary.
Amy Letinsky, a member of Mar’s Hill Church, kept up with the debate on her blog here.
Do I believe in the adversary? Frankly, I could care less as we are told to resist the devil and he will flee from us. I do have to say that I might be in agreement with the other side, when I say this: Too many times, people blame the devil for everything when we, the individual and society, should shoulder this blame for ourselves.
Too many times, we throw out ‘the devil made me do it’ when in fact, it was our flesh that caused us to do those things which we should not, those things in which we miss the mark of God’s holiness. Paul’s war was not against the adversary, leaving that up to Christ, but against the flesh.
I’m not saying that the adversary is getting a bad rap, but really, we must have responsibility for our own actions.