You don’t have to be interested in thinking about or debating Mark Driscoll to find yourself pulled into the wave of his most recent debacle. I am not interested in talking about the situation itself, or even about Driscoll himself, but I want to make some notes about how people react to him. I find it interesting that, for the most part, both sides that debate Driscoll basically say the same thing. The issues debated are not typically over justifying his actions, most people I see interacting with him, on both sides, agree that he “goes too far,” and “lacks wisdom in what he say.” The difference, I propose, has to do with how we understand what a pastor is.
There is a growing belief in the evangelical church that “good” preaching covers a multitude of sins. This is simple another way of saying that the ends justify the means. The question we need to ask, I think, is whether or not it is fitting for a pastor to lack humilty, lack wisdom, and clearly project so many of his own psychological issues onto God’s work. Again, it seems to me that both sides agree to these things, and both think they are at least regretable. The main difference, as far as I can tell, has to do with how we view those things in light of Driscoll’s position as a pastor. One side, the pro-Driscoll side, claims that everything else he does out-weighs these particular sins, or else they invoke something like: “Boys will be boys.” The other side, believes that Scripture is clear about what a pastor is like, and because he breaks these Scriptural mandates so freely, frequently, and publically, that he should undergo, minimally, church discipline.
At the heart of the issue is spiritual formation, and whether pastors are called to humility, grace, and a higher level of scrutiny, or if these things are more like desires that will never actually be fulfilled.
What are your thoughts?
15 Responses to Debating Driscoll
Leave a Reply
Blog Authors
Growing up, Kyle Strobel knew all the "right" answers. The Christianity he experienced in the church was reduced to theological precepts and moral codes. He tried typical spiritual growth formulas but faith remained stagnant, even stale. Sound familiar?
In Journey with Jesus, spiritual director Larry Warner guides us through the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius similarly to the way he's been leading people through them in person.
Kyle
Can you give me the context of your commentary on Driscoll?
Kevin, it was based on his recent interview in the UK. But my post really has nothing to do with Driscoll, though I use this situation as fodder, but I’m interested in talking about how we think about pastors and their behaviour. Here is the interview link: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={B568EE6E-C425-4285-BCE0-BE1CF6A6DF31}
Hey Kyle – One of the ways I’ve been thinking about this lately is through this question: “Is our vision and practice of Christian leadership rich in the fruit of the Spirit…or not?” If a Christian leader fails to be not only loving, faithful and self-controlled, but also gentle, patient and kind, what are we to think? Is this an expression of the heart of God, or of a culturally-conditioned vision of ‘manly’ leadership? We cut the leader with obvious numerical success a lot of slack on such questions, but I don’t think we’ll be glad for that on the long look back.
Thanks for raising your questions…
This is near and dear to my heart, so I will comment. You do a good job broad stroke categorizing the two camps, but since the object of the debate is the de facto master of the art, you get a pass. For myself, the issue had very little to do with preaching, or gifting (traditionalist), or special manifestation of the spirit (charismatic) and much more to do with the fact that there was an obvious amount of fruit (I am not talking simply of progress/success, but in the spiritual lives of my friends and family) in his ministry, and not wanting to make mountains out of molehills for the many people who I know who are personally involved in the church that he pastors. But at a certain point we also need to be sure that we are not making molehills out of mountains. What has become evident is that rather than spiritual growth, we are seeing spiritual deflation. Pastors are not fully sanctified, but you should certainly see a level of engagement with sin that prevent the continual reoccurring of the same foolishness. If not, above reproach (1 Tim3.2) loses any and all meaning.
Jim, I think this is exactly right. We have lost a specific sense of what it means to be “above reproach,” and so we have no way to talk about these things well.
I’m just wondering and have been wondering a lot lately about this…I dig the desire to defend truth (but if it’s really true can’t God defend Himself), I get the idea of being accurate (but being right to be right more than love isn’t so acceptable), what saddens me the most lately, not just about Driscoll but other pastors in MANY CHURCHES is that they no longer connect to God personally, relationally. They have like an outer shell of knowing theology and about Him but few know Him. They can quote a million different authors, what the latest conference theme is and transmit it, follow the latest fad, entertainment (arts and music and drama do have a place, just not center place), and I just wonder when will we return to God as Lovers …past theologians knew theology, but more you can hear the passion of being Loved by and loving their Father…I think that connection is lost and why we have the mess the church is in today…traded communion with God with whatever we want-fill in the blank. This has made me truly sad lately and I want to truly separate from christian culture almost completely because of it…I mean, when are we gonna start asking, what are we really doing?
I am in no way a theologian, but I am a Disciple of Christ, a member of a church of a pastor that has had his share of critics, and a wife of a pastor. I have been involved in these types of discussions before and found it not edifying to my walk with Christ. I have found the best choice for me is to look inward, and once I am measuring well in all of the fruit of Spirit(never), then I can begin measuring others. Yes, pastors are held to a higher standard by God. We are not to be picking out the areas they need to grow in. If a pastor’s personality flaws, which every pastor has, is a hindrance to your worship, then you should go to a different church, but guess what, you may have problems there too, since no pastor is perfect. We all are being sanctified at different rates and in different ways. I am so thankful that God uses my husband and I in our leadership roles in spite of our flaws. I personally like Mark Driscoll and think he has done much for God’s Kingdom. I look forward to his appearance in The Elephant Room this month. Maybe he does ministry differently than other pastors do, but I would rather have that, than cookie cutter pastors. And to Wendy, I don’t understand how you can know that “pastors of MANY CHURCHES do not connect personally with God”, unless you are with them every moment of the day for everyday of the week. Your comment sounds like a grave assumption that I would be afraid to make, knowing God only knows the heart. When discussions such as these come up, I choose to fix my eyes on Jesus and emulate that which I see as praiseworthy in pastors and give grace in the areas that pastors are still being sanctified in. Remember they are just like just, God’s children in need of His grace. I believe my memory verse for this week speaks to this issue, Hebrews 12:15
See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled.
Julie, thanks for commenting.
Here is my worry. We all agree that certain sins are unfitting for a pastor and ministry, such as adultery. So we have this one category of really bad stuff, and if the pastor does it we just fire him and move on. After that, it seems that we don’t care what the pastor does. As Jim noted above, we have lost a sense of what it means to be “above reproach.” I used Mark as an example because both camps agree that his actions are unfortunate, therefore the difference is in whether it matters. One side, using Scripture, claims that to be faithful to the call of the church, he should be disciplined (presumably a paid leave of absense for a certain period). The other side seems to say something similar to what you have said here, that because we all sin it doesn’t matter. But, in the case of adultery, we all agree that it does matter. So where is the line? That is my ultimate question. When does it really start mattering? Porn, lying, berating fellow believers, assuming your own view is God’s view and that those who disagree with you are just sinners?
What this debate does for us is to show how little we have thought about these things. My goal is to simply highlight this fact, not neglect that it is a very difficult issue, but actually start a conversation on why thinking well about this matters a lot. I can’t help but wonder how many pastors who eventually leave ministry because of adultery would have been served by an elder board addressing their “so-so” sins a bit more harshly.
I heard Mark say something once (and he says something similar in that interview) like: people make a huge deal whenever a pastor crosses the line, even just a little, but no one ever says anything when a pastor doesn’t go far enough. I think there are two things in that statement worth attention on the subject:
1) Mark believes that he sometimes crosses the line.
This being the case, I would put pastoral mistakes into 3 categories: A) mistakes that can be dealt with personally, asking forgiveness from the offended party and God, B) mistakes that require official church discipline, and C) mistakes that disqualify you for ministry. I’m unclear exactly where in the spectrum exactly B starts and ends. It would be a great example to the Church if Mars Hill Church elders would transparently let us know what actions they’ve taken with Mark and for which of his mistakes. Potentially there’s a category between B and C above where the church elders owe it to the church to make their discipline public.
2) When you’re really preaching boldly, sometimes you might make some mistakes in discernment, judgement or wording.
Surely, this is not meant to be an ends justify the means argument. Instead, I fear that preaching too often is dulled by a fear of getting anywhere near the edge of appropriateness. It seems that many of the topics that Mark chooses to cover in his teaching are the kinds of things polite people don’t talk about, but they do struggle with secretly. I applaud him for talking about those issues, I pray that he uses discretion with how he talks about them.
Dave, this is a good way to look at it I think. I think you are right about his logic here. Unfortunately, I think it also offers us an unbiblical picture of the human person. Your words are the outflowing of your heart, so if you “accidently” berate someone, you are just letting down your guard enough for us to see the real you. Rather than saying, “Oh well, boys will be boys,” we must turn to the real heart of the matter. I think Mark’s new book, which I have not read, so this is all from second-hand sources, goes a long way to show that a lot of his action that he uses Scripture to endorse is more likely psychological projecting.
On the other hand, I think you are right about his gift to address things not often talked about, but no one is worried about that. His critics aren’t concerned with what he is covering, but how he is covering it. For instance, in the interview that spurred on this post, he links disagreement with him on the atonement to be weakness. In other words, he is right about everything, and those who disagree are just not bold enough. He links his boldness and brashness to his unwaivering belief that he is the guy who knows everything. That is what I find particularly disconcerting. I think this is another sense where a lack of accountability, in his church and beyond, have proven to give him license to make bold claims about things he really doesn’t know much about.
Everyone, let me bring up one more issue to all of this. Is Mark really just a pastor? In other words, once you become a spokesman for a particular sect of Christianity, in this case, the New-Calvinist movement, isn’t there another set of expectations placed on you? Further, if this is right, what does that say about the movement itself? In other words, is there an imperative to take part in a movement-wide discipling, if it is decided there is something to discipline (I am leaving this open for debate)? Likewise, could we argue that a failure to do so, if it is in fact needed, is a failure to be faithful to God’s call?
I have been thinking about this lately, because I think an elder boards’ failure to rightly enact God’s call on their office will ultimately taint the church in one way or another. Whether it is God’s testing or just sin, the church will be led astray. What about movements in the church that act like denominations? Could a movement stand under the judgment of God because of its failure to stand out against sin? Likewise, if it doesn’t stand out against sin, whey doesn’t it? Fear? Worry about how influential the person is? What?
Hi,
I find this topic rather interesting. I find the preaching of Mark Driscoll very interesting, challenging and encouraging. Encouraging as in I find it helpful in growing as a Christian. I would also like to mention the other pastors who are involved in Mars Hill, especially Matt Chandler, as they are also wonderful preachers. I, like most others, cannot comment on their pastoral abilities as I have never been personally ministered to. I feel humbled at how fast the church is growing because the gospel is being preached. All the glory should go to God.
For those of us who listen to his sermons over the net, we should not be so free to comment on his abilities as a pastor. Yes, he does step over the line and I believe he is repentant of that. We can only talk about his preaching.
Yes, I understand if you think that I am dismissing him of any wrong, but have you ever been in a church where the pastor has not sinned? No, you have never. I preached this morning at a church with no pastor. I was spoken to after the meeting about how I approached certain topics. I made people feel uncomfortable. Do I care? No. Because no-one could tell me how I was in error. They only told me why they hold to their legalism. In echoing Dave, I would rather go too far to make people think than not go far enough and only make people comfortable.
I am able to say this, click “Post Comment” and never need to see any of you face to face. Which is unfortunate as some of your comments show a great love for the gospel. I praise God for that.
I believe that church discipline is important and have fought for pastors to be put on it. I am not under Mark Driscoll, so I cannot say whether he should be or not. I’m happy to leave that to the elders of the church. I hope my thinking about this has been appropriately portrayed through my careful choice of words. I would like to ask though, whether people’s disagreements with pastors has more to do with the differences between cultures?
In closing, how many of you have prayed for Mark that he may have the words needed to tell people about Jesus? How many of you pray for the pastor in your church?
As a brother in Jesus,
Michael
Michael, see below for my latest comment covering some of your thoughts. First though, you are exactly right that prayer should preceed and saturate debate, and it rarely does. That is, no doubt, a helpful corrective. I also think you make a good point about what we can say about Mark based on what we know, but I would go in a different direction with it. When pastors make themselves public figures (and have no doubt that pastors have a role in this – such as putting their sermons online), then they are opening themselves up to the church at large, and not just their own community. If we cannot make judgments about what is appropriate for the public ministry of a pastor, then what are we doing anyway? Scripture seems abundantly clear that this is our very call.
More importantly, I think a strong aspect of judging what is appropriate for a pastor – particularly a public one – is to see how they handle weaker brothers and sisters in the faith. Again, Paul is clear. We give up our freedoms for the sake of those with weaker faith. This could be the most explicitly rejected aspect of Scripture in the evangelical church.
But overall, I found your comments odd. You were defending someone who isn’t being attacked here. The bulk of the comments have been either 1. in defense of his ministry, and 2. about how people respond to him rather than him specifically. Furthermore, at no point is anyone saying that some pastors do not sin. Rather, since we all agree (presumably) that a pastor who commits adultery should be taken out of ministry, then we cannot just talk about “sin” in a simple manner. There are harder discussions to be had (and these are, no doubt, hard discussions). By just ignoring sin as not all that important because of everything else someone has done does not do justice to the pastoral ministry, task, or reality of sin in the life of a believer. It would be, I would argue, a capitulation to the “way from below” rather than the “way from above” (James).
I would like to make an observation. First, I find it interesting that even though we are not debating Driscoll himself, but are focusing on how people respond to him and using this current situation as a way to think about pastors and discipline, that people still come on chastizing other people for criticizing him, when that is not taking place. Furthermore, even though I’ve been clear on this, it seems odd that people continue to use the excuse that “all pastors sin,” when that is totally irrelevant to the question. Everyone agrees with that.
So here is my observation, again making no claim about Driscoll himself. In this, and other, conversations about the things Mark does, his followers tend to act just like a wife of an alcholic / abuse husband does. There is no listening to reason or carefully thinking about the situation, there is only defense. Importantly, the defense, I have found, rarely has anything to do with Scripture, but is all commonsensical (e.g. the “boys will be boys” defense, or, as seen here, the “everyone sins defense.”). Or, more often, his rhetoroical ability or ministry impact are the trump card that covers any possible sin (with the exception of adultery I suppose).
Notice how far removed this is from the biblical witness. Paul links rhetorical ability power from the pulpit as possible signs of undermining the cross (1 Cor). When Paul’s authority is questioned in Galatians, notice that he turns to the marks on his body – from his beatings – as signs of his power. Again, my point here is not to say something about Driscoll, but just to note that those who use these arguments are both secular and American – not Christian – in their argumentation.
Kyle,
This is a response to both of your replies, as found directly above.
1. If you do not want to specifically discuss Driscoll, why mention him in the initial blog regardless of your intention?
2. I think that the issue of “all pastor’s sin” is a cop out- I agree that there needs to be judgment wholly based on Scripture, not being impacted by ministry ability. Judgment should come from those who know him personally. Yes, there are cases where a Christian should stand up against the public ministry of pastors, but in some cases, to maintain a more accurate judgment of the situation, people like me are better of not involved. Yes, this area is not black and white, but I have personally made the decision on where I stand and what I can do in relation to many pastors resulting in my ability to judge, varying on the pastor. I am not running from a problem, but analysing a difficult decision in light of what is most effective. I am not, and definitly hope not, excusing sin because of this.
3.I am not dismissing the need to there to be qualifications for ministry. My main concern is who is making the judgment and what gives them the right? As I said in the above post, I have fought to have unrepentant pastors removed from ministry. I felt I had to. Was I right? Yes. Does everyone agree with me? No. I lost friendships because of it. It is a hard decision.
4. I will be very careful to judge pastors that I am not personally involved with to avoid gossiping about them.
5. Do you believe that pastors could be more accountable if the postition of ‘pastor’ is not an elevated seat, but more of a brother in Christ, passionate for the gospel and truth living a life in humility? Please give this your personal response. (And yes, I maintain here that biblically appropriate qualifications do apply even when the title changes).
6. Yes, I believe the evangelical church often forgets the part about giving up freedoms for the sake of a brother.
I hope I have defended my stance- even though it doesn’t actually matter. I regret initially responding to the blog.
Kind regards,
Michael