In (qualified) Support of Mark Driscoll

I’v written my e-mail

Yeah, I was originally angry at Driscoll after the Unbeleivable interview,(AND after reading one of those alleged accounts of church discipline on the net). I posted on their wall that I found Driscoll a bit crazy and embarrassing. But I thought more about it afterwards and deleted my comment because as wrong as I think Driscoll is on a few topics, I figured that the guy’s heart is in the right place; he is trying to keep the church pure, taking holiness and responsibility seriously. He attracts blokes who would never previously have gone to church and he’s trying hard to be honest and address the heated topics people want to know about.
Pastors never get all their theology right. Nor are they (nor we) fault free. Being a pastor is a bastard of a job — one of the hardest/most stressful jobs there is in my view! So I reckon that if he is bringing people in, trying hard, making decisive choices/not being an indecisive procrastinator who is too scared to make decisions or say bold things, then give credit where it’s due.
Additionally, we cant expect all pastors to appeal to every person: From John Macarthur to Tim Keller, John Polkinghorne, John Stott (dead now) and John Piper to Driscoll, or even Catholic Bishops/Popes and priests, they all have their deficiencies, eccentricities, oddities and mistakes. I think we cannot expect one guy to tick all the boxes; as long as these guys hold to the core beliefs of ‘mere Christianity’, that’s all that matters.
We need to understand the church is very large and diverse and thus NEEDS such differences so as to appeal to a wider range of people, as odd as we may find them, this help the church to survive the changing times. I view it kind of like all the different denominations; as my minister says, it’s not all bad because what the differences actually provide is a kind of survival mechanism so that when one ‘batch’ goes bad the whole lot doesn’t go off. So for example, some denominations go heretical for a time (like the Australian Presbyterian church once was, and like the Australian uniting church still is), but the other denominations are not affected because of their boundaries of difference — our differences and quirks kind of keep us safe from ALL falling into error. So as unpalatable as some of Driscoll’s comments are, i see what he is trying to do, and I respect that. I shall email him too.

Why don’t you take this thought a step further and suggest that every person who ever condemned a gay person or a Muslim or a non-believer in the name of “love” do the same?

I think many of the “attacks” against Driscoll aren’t really about his theology but are more about his attitude. There are many Calvinists and complementarians who hold those beliefs with grace and humility, but Driscoll’s advancements of his positions often seem to be driven more by ego than by Christ-like love. Anytime a Christian ministry becomes more about an individual leader than about Christ and the Gospel, we need to ask ourselves what went wrong. In Driscoll’s case, I think his brash enthusiasm for his particular understanding of Bible and his over-zealous desire to get that message out may have outpaced his maturity and wisdom as a pastor and teacher.

David Wilkinson:

Amen, I disagree with someone like DeYoung theologically, but he’s not taking the same attitude tactics as Driscoll!

I have never criticized Driscoll because he leads a big church. I dislike megachurches, but its not as if I’m forced to be a part of them. If I lived in Seattle, I might feel differently.

I’ve never criticized Driscoll for his Calvinism. I don’t think I’ve even directly criticized his view of gender, but I think calling him “complimentarian” is *bit* of a generous term. I have recently criticized his church discipline, but that’s really only a subset of larger problem with him: that I believe that is hateful.

Glenn, you’re right that it is easy for his detractors to reply with spite. I admit: it wouldn’t be bad if disappeared from public life. It is important not to be hateful when criticizing Driscoll, which is why (with the exception of today’s post) I waited over a week between drafting and posting the last two things I said about him.

That said, this is guy who screams at his congregation. He’s the dude you uses the doctrine of hell to intimidate people who disagree with it, and has said at least twice, that he can’t worship a guy he could beat up.

Are people like Rachel Held Evans really that out of line when they charge him with bulliness? By contrast, which behavior strikes you as bit more uncharitable?

Barnmaven , that’s not a step further.

Paula, what do you think is more damaging to the faith – People seeing someone with Mark’s strong conservative and vocal bent, or people seeing the scores of “concerned brothers and sisters” who basically reduce to a horde of executioners in an ugly and public display like the ones we;ve seen lately?

Have a look at the things I suggested should go in the letter. Do you really disagree with any of them?

And Cal and Dean, you I agree with both of you too. Kevin DeYoung’s theology is overly reformed for my tastes, but he has never implied that I’m less of a man because I took music lessons instead of athletics in high school and college.

Joe,

I have already what Matthew Paul Tuner wrote and have commented on it my own blog.

Yes, he was polemical. Yes, he had an ax to grind. Yes, there was a lot of rhetoric there. Yes, it was emotional, but I last checked being passionate about a position doesn’t make it wrong (or right).

MPT still demonstrated what Driscoll was doing wrong wasn’t he? He showed you the letters and e-mails (albeit, edited for privacy). Maybe he could’ve have argued against Driscoll’s treatment of Matthew 18:17 more thoroughly. Maybe he could’ve given more specific examples of what he meant by “cult-like” behavior.

But he still demonstrated something.

Besides, if MPT is as close to “andrew” as he says he says, I have a feeling that entire post was restrained.

I do not think the supplicants can decide what is excessive discipline, but neither can church leadership decide what constitutes “true repentance.” I am a bystander in this story and I still think that the leadership abused their authority in this matter.

I do not know how confession/absolution/reconciliation work in Calvinist traditions, but for me nothing other than the sinner’s own conscience can accuse them of sin. The pardon of sin is prior to discipline, and not on the condition of it.

Furthermore, the real kicker for me was how he was treated *after* he left the church. That entire letter did feel a bit cult-like to me, as it was trying to extend control over an “apostate.” Think about the penultimate letter Andrew received. Are you sure it wasn’t blackmail?

And we are getting off topic here, so I’ll let this be the last comment.

Driscoll is awesome; he says stuff that badly needs to be said, and as usual the people most offended are the people who most need to hear it. Interestingly, much of the criticism I’ve read about him recently stems from his one-sided critique of male (but not female) immaturity and irresponsibility – which only goes to show that when you speak the truth, haters are gonna hate from every angle.

Sorry Glenn,

I thought about it and I honestly don’t think I could write your letter. Yep, I’m that concerned about Driscoll and his church. I see a train wreck on the horizon, and I’m old enough to remember Jim Jones.

To write your letter I’d have to believe that Driscoll had been a little off-base– not off the map. I wish no harm to him, and I will pray for him, as you’ve reminded me to do — but quite honestly, I can’t wish him success when I hope God shuts down his project — soon. I sincerely believe there are better pastors and better churches, and Seattle would be better for the loss of his voice and his church. Call me wrong, but that’s what I think. Don’t we all wish somebody would have pulled the plug on a few tv evangelists? That’s how I feel about Driscoll. It’s also how I felt about Schuller, when his star was rising, and his church was spending millions and millions on the “Crystal Cathedral,” to cite just one other example. Yep, thousands of people were going there and giving their money — and I’m convinced they built a huge monument to one man’s ego.

That said — I believe Driscoll is deserving of pastoral care, I just don’t think I am the one to offer it. I hope someone is in a position to offer it. But letters from strangers? — I dunno, I feel like it contributes to the celebrity thing. After all, I don’t pull out my pen to address a letter to every pastor or public figure who receives a public scolding. Me: I’ll pray he’s getting plenty of love from the people in a position to actually love him, –they know him. I can neither apologize for abusing him (since I haven’t) nor offer him a sustained relationship. A letter like the one you suggest — sorry, doesn’t feel like real love. It feels like a pale immitation.

I’m sorry to say this, but it feels kinda cheap and cheesy too. Like that thing evangelicals do — say, “peace, peace” when there is no peace.” Smooth feathers before they ought to be smoothed, and smile because they are uncomfortable about the tension in the room. There’s tension in the room — and quite frankly, I think it belongs in here.

Oh, you asked me which I thought more damaging — Driscoll’s comments or our arguing about them? Good question. I dunno, but here’s my guess. In the short run, I think people will want to stick their fingers in their ears and not listen to any of us. But in the long run — I think publicly distancing ourselves from his recklessness will be for the best. Ever had somebody say, “but what about the Crusades?!” when you are trying to talk to them about Jesus? The reputation for cruelty lasts a long, long time. Boy do I wish we had a few people to point to who said, “That’s just wrong. Cut it out!” All those bystanders who went along or kept quiet — didn’t do us any good.

The real problem with all this venom is that it only adds to the embarrassment that Driscoll’s behavior has allegedly produced, and it is entirely irrational in that it will not achieve any real end other than a rather petty catharsis. However, I hardly think that a dismissive ‘nobody’s perfect’ attitude toward Driscoll is any more appropriate than those vitriolic attacks leveled against him. It seems to me to be very much a moral issue, and not simply a ‘strong conservative and vocal bent’. Many people are not lamenting his doctrinal stance but the way in which he promotes himself, puts others down, puts complementarian beliefs in a way that does actually seem demeaning to women, talks to others in a manner that precludes repsectful, rational discourse, etc. etc. etc. While it may be difficult to agree on where the line is regarding abuse of the pulpit or prominence, it seems intuitively obvious that Driscoll lives on the wrong side of that line. We certainly wouldn’t want to dismiss Benny Hinn’s apparent greed or Pat Robertson’s embarrassing gaffes on the basis of the vocal reaction of a small minority of self-righteous folks. On a more personal note, you have lamented much milder animus than Driscoll expresses toward the less mainstream doctrines that you espouse. I also think it is important to ask whether or not you listened to the Brierley interview?

Of course, this has little to do with whether or not a person should write a letter to Mars Hill, but I would encourage people to make a point of disagreeing with certain aspects of Driscoll’s ministry, if only to overwhelm him with kind and loving correction in the wake of so much self-important vitriol.

Okay Glenn, so I didn’t refresh before commenting after reading this earlier today.

Glenn. Please can you just put yourself in the mocassins of a woman in a complementarian situation and tell us that you would not be emotional.

You are told that, despite your love of theology, your experience, your passion, your intellectual gifts for philosophy and teaching and communication, that your role is to support your wife and not be allowed to share any of this with the church.

I have heard your sermon and your podcasts and I love them but you are not supposed to share them with a mixed audience.

Jesus felt things in his splanchnic nerve….

Emotion is good, though hateful words innappropriate.

I dont hate him at all but I am very passionate about the issue of complementarianism . I hate it .

re church discipline being ‘controlling’, it’s worth pointing out that there are many certain instances where ‘controlling’, or rather, a strong hand is exactly whats needed and very helpful! Think of situations where a person is into an addiction or a sexual relationship where they cant stop themselves meeting up with a person and having sex with them. They lack self control. It is therefore helpful to them to have a strong christian who loves them, that they can lean on, and help hold them up while they lack the ability/desire to do it themselves. Getting the balance right is hard, but the desire to not see a person self destruct is a good thing. Thus putting up external supports of accountability is exactly whats needed at times until the person can stand on their own. The important thing is that the person consents to submit to the church discipline. The church should respect privacy and confidentiality–which churches dont do a great job of sadly.

Uh Glenn, just for clarification: I mentioned Jim Jones and Robert Schuller — yes, one became a mass murderer. Another presided over a monstrosity that went belly-up — wasting lots of time and money and becoming a laughing stock for the rest of the world.

What I said was (and I’ll try to be clearer this time) is that there were signs, early on in the ministry of these guys, that something was amiss. How many people pointed to their “success” as a reason to leave them alone? And look the other way when they showed odd tendencies.

I think your most recent comment is finally the most clarifying. Driscoll doesn’t really both you because you mostly agree withhim, and his “girly man” comments strike you as “silly.”

Therein lies the problem. Some of us see them as far worse than silly. We see them as destructive and poisonous. But that is just one example of the behavior that disturbs us.

The person here who said “Tim Killer shares the same theology” offered a very helpful point. Driscoll’s basic beliefs may be mainstream evangelical, but his behavior points to something far darker. The same could be said about other celebrity pastors who went kablooie.

Sorry, one more and I’ll zip it. Someone on FB asked why people aren’t being more gracious in their approach to Mark Driscoll. You do realize, I’m sure, that being “gentle” in not especially valued by him. He’s a master of the same kind of abusive language you’ve been decrying here. It doesn’t excuse it from others, but I wonder why it’s silliness when he insults others, and “viciousness” when he is insulted.
Thanks for letting me vent, Glenn. And please feel free to read my post and call me on it, if I’ve fallen short of what I’m presenting here.

Sharon,

I also wonder if you are aware of how Mark approaching his “tone” when speaking to the different genders. With the guys he is tough, talking to them more in the way a father would or perhaps a drill sergent. He is very intetional with this and it has a direct impact on the men, they respond well to this in general (yes there are exceptions). His mission is for modern, young, irresponsible men cought in the age of perpetual adolescence. So some of the things he says are pointedly aimed at the men in a specific way for a specific purpose.

From a female perspective, some of these sound very macho and abusive and many other adjectives I could quote from his feminist critics. I think that many times what they are missing is that he isn’t talking to them. He’s talking to to the men, a very specific type of man. What can easily happen is you can take Mark Driscoll out of his context and quite mine to paint a very dark picture but its not based on reality, its just bits and pieces with no context and blown out of proportion by the media and other internet critics.

I’ve said this before in other attempts to debate with Driscoll haters, but I think Augustine hit the nail on the head when he said “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”.

That seems to me a very solid and mature view of interactions between Christians at a minimum. Do you disagree with his theology on the essentials? Do you disagree on some of the non-essentials? Are you responding to him in charity/love? Are others doing so? What do the non-Christians looking in from the outside see when they look at all the nasty criticism and attacks on Mark Driscoll?

Mark Driscoll does have a way to get people thinking that tends to get some groups fired up. Asking about effeminate worship leaders, old men in dresses preaching to grandmas. Upsetting and nasty to some becuase he’s making a point that offends their ideology, there is a deeper issue behind what he is saying than just his choice of words. There are real and very serious issues of feminized christianity, post-modernism, relativism and the like. Personally I would like to see people push past the fog on the mirror, look at a little deeper at whats going on and deal with the real issues.

So what if you don’t like Driscoll, move on. But instead of attacking him personally, joinging other “haters” and calling for boycots, asking for him to step down from the pulpit – or worse, questioning his salvation, how about we take Glenn’s approach and think a little more deeply, respond with a little more charity and love. Pray for Mark Driscoll, its really hard to stay angry and bitter at someone you are praying for.

Sharon, thats not quite my point, but I do think at some level you don’t fully understand Mark Driscoll in his context and based on his mission. I could be wrong, but I think Glenn in onto something when he talks about our emotions and viewpoints/convictions influencing our understanding and reactions to things. I find it no surprise that you are a negative critic of Mark Driscoll since you hold views that are completely opposite to his. And those issues, those viewpoint differences probably play a larger role in this discussion than we are admitting to.

I’m not claiming to be some kind of expert, but I am very familiar with Mark Driscoll, I’ve listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of his sermons, read several of his books, listened to interviews with him, follow him on social networks, etc. I do this with many people I find interesting and want to become familiar with. So when it comes to people criticism Mark Driscoll, I do come at this from a large knowledge-base. Not one of personal interaction with Driscoll, we’ve never met and likely never will. I’m just saying that because of my exposure to his teachings and opinions and listening to his heart, I think I can say that I know where is coming from, where his heart is and where he wants to go. I’ve noticed tremendous personal growth in him over the last few years in particular.

Most people want to go back in time and drudge up past controversy and talk about Mark as if he is still exactly the same guy he was 10 or 15 years ago, and thats just not the case.

Mark has said many times that your theological persuasion won’t even effect your ability to be in leadership at Mars Hill Church. Calvinism is not a requirement. And they will partner and work with other churches who hold other views, its not the kind of issue people are making it out to be. Thats one of the open handed issues that Mark also talks a lot about.

I’m sorry if you feel like I’m disengaging from “concerns” relating to your specific issues. However I hope you can see from my perspective you seem to doing just that with the concerns that people like Glenn are raising. I’m also just trying to bring some clarity, dig a little deeper, encourage people to hate their own sin and seek humility and charity. My intention is not to insult or name call or any of that, but to simple reiterate what Glenn is pointing out in his article.

As far as arguments, I still haven’t seen anything in the form of a true argument. Most critics just rant on and on making lots of “I don’t like” kind of statements. Very few are actually engaging with the core issues of theology and doctrine and working on the foundational issues at play here. You seem very focused on the specific words he uses and worry about “offending” someone. I’m just trying to say, there are deeper issues at work, the root of the issue is not the specific words that Mark says, its really a difference of ideologies and doctrines. Those are the things we need to be debating and discussing. With Scripture, sound reason, evidence, logic and dialogue in a charitable way. Thats what I’d like to see.

One comment about your last sentence. I know there is more going on than just “apologetic” resources. I would suggest you look at some of the interviews with John Piper where he described his love for Mark, and their relationship. Mark talks about John Piper frequently, others do the same. Maybe you just haven’t seen this side of it, but I assure you it is there.

I should add that I hope Andrew will learn from all the turmoil his hanky panky brought about. He wasn’t behaving himself in a proper way toward a sister in Christ, and it is only natural and good that there should be fallout from that. MH Church has been involved in other controversial acts of discipline, however, that had to do with mere disagreements amongst the church leadership, which does strike me as plainly Orwellian (although I don’t have the inside track on those incidents, I must admit).

Well hold on Sharon. With respect, you’re not really in a position to complain about straw men at this point. I didn’t say anything about people being bloodthirsty.

What’s more, you are the one who tried to insinuate that I am brushing off all criticism as just progressives disagreeing with his theology. I have clearly stated that this goes well beyond disagreement. This is about moving on to genuinely unrighteous vitriol. You have stated that you don’t approve of those who engage in that. This is good, but why are you now turning on me as though I am misrepresenting things by stating that such vitriol is going on?

Agreement/disagreement with Mark’s theology isn’t the issue, and for you to continually imply that all I am saying is that people shouldn’t do that is clearly a straw man. With all respect, could it be that you’ve got something invested in rejecting my call because you yourself have criticised Mark Driscoll, and you have formed the mistaken impression that I oppose anyone who does that?

“In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”

Actually, I think this can be used here: In all things charity.

By all means people should offer responses to Mark and criticism of his approach to things if they think it helpful, as long as they do it in charity. It doesn’t “sweep” anything away, Cal, I agree. But it applies.

Joel said “I do not know how confession/absolution/reconciliation work in Calvinist traditions, but for me nothing other than the sinner’s own conscience can accuse them of sin. The pardon of sin is prior to discipline, and not on the condition of it.”
Strangely Jesus taught otherwise
“If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.” Matt 18:15-18,
I agree Church discipline can be poorly executed and applied in a nasty way, but the claim that “its just up to an individuals conscience” is not justified by Christs teaching and reflects relativistic individualistic ideas which are not Christian.

My wife’s a complementarian I guess she has never put herself in a womens shoes.

I’m so glad I don’t pay attention to this stuff anymore. There’s always someone–somewhere–either on the conservative, liberal, or weird side of Christianity that’s getting tomatoes thrown at them and being vilified. It happens every year, sometimes several times a year. After a while I realized there’s just no point in getting emotionally invested in this kind of behavior. It’s just a big cycle of hate and division that’s pointless and emotionally draining.

A lot of what Glenn says on theology I either have no opinion about either way or disagree with, but I still like listening to what he has to say. Part of the reason is because he doesn’t, generally, tar and feather people on his blog. He treats people he disagrees with, with a level of respect, remembering that they are human beings and are essentially the same as he is… I appreciate that, it’s hard to find on the internet.

So good for you, Glenn, on talking about how we–as Christians–treat each other online. Of course, now you’ve raised the bar and you’ll have to be careful not to do what you’re accusing others of doing. 😉

No Glenn… that can’t be right. That would be a case of them villainizing others with impunity, and removing intelligent dissent as though none existed.

And that couldn’t possibly be what they’re doing. Never.

I’ll send the nicest e-mail to Driscoll I can. I will also artfully conceal the truth.

“And who is in the mob? Anyone who has written negatively about M.D.?”

Sharon, that’s getting really tired. I made it very clear that I do not take issue with people just because they write negatively / criticise. I was explicit. Criticism is fine. The problem, as I have clearly said, is when people aren’t simply offering fair minded criticism, but clearly engaging in abusive and inappropriate behaviour. I can’t interact with that sort of misrepresentation, sorry. You now reveal that yes, it is the practice of church discipline at MHC that you take issue with. Don’t act like I just made that list up, we both know that’s not true. Everyone who takes issue with them practising church discipline does so because they think that what they do is inappropriate, and you’re one of them. You should have simply cut to the chase and said “YES I have a problem with them practicing what they and you are calling church discipline, and here’s why…” But even that would have been beside the point. Even that would not have justified the behaviour that I have called out – behaviour that you also disapprove of. And yet, in spite of agreeing with my concern about the behaviour…. somehow this was an opportunity to disagree with me anyway.

Kev,
What the what? I never claimed to be a complimentarian. In fact, I made a point of using Tim Keller as an example of someone I disagree with theologically but don’t take issue with in the way that I take issue with M.D. AND I welcomed Glenn to check out what I’d written at my blog where, as you point out, evidence is RIGHT THERE that I’m not a complimentarian. Are you actually going to accuse me of deception? Because if so, it’s the sloppiest, least successful deception I’ve ever seen. Good grief…

Mark Driscoll is a douche. And give me a chance to explain.

In popular culture, outside the realms theological debate and churchy culture… He really does fit the mold. This sounds harsh because it is. May not sound high-minded but really, I think this is one element of his ministry that rubs people the wrong way and it shouldn’t be discarded as simply inflammatory. If you worked with someone like MD in a corporate setting, he’d be the bully that gets his way… but is generally avoided at social functions whenever possible.

If he were a frat president or loud talker at a bar, his actions + manner of speaking would be on the level of what is commonly referred to as a douche.

I think the Tim Keller comparison is always a good one. Same theology, similar approach to ministry (on the most part), but I’d hate to say it, exponentially more likable as a human being. People can scoff the very subjective “likability” rating… that’s fair. But it ignores the reality of why so many get riled up when it comes to MD. So in any discussion of the like, I think it needs to be brought up.

He just doesn’t present himself in a likable way and of course, he doesn’t need to as a grown Christian man. But let’s not be surprised when people respond negatively simply based on his abrasive style.

Maybe he needs such a persona to reach a certain demographic. So be it. Ministers to biker gangs have their own style too (seriously) but inevitably, those ministries become limited in scope. Same for ministers to gang members. Driscoll carries his “tough guy” image to the megachurch masses and this type of pushback is the inevitable fallout.

Christ calls us to love even the unlikable. So that’s what we do… Even when the unlikable are those in the pulpit.

God gave us free will. Each of us uses it in our own way. We have a choice. Mark Driscoll is Mark Driscoll if you don’t like him or agree with him then don’t choose to have him in your life. It’s that simple.

I love Mark Driscoll and am very thankful for his ministry in my life. God bless you Mark. I don’t believe he needs my letter of support as he has a very close relationship with God.
As far as I am aware we are all entitled to our opinion and to like and respect someone does not mean we agree with all of their opions.
Happy :Days