 |
Matthew has been telling a story (a not so funny one), on is blog the past 2 days about Mark Driscoll's church and the way they've handled church discipline with someone Matt knows. This is an unbelievable story. You should go read the two part series here. The story is pretty involved, so my short telling doesn't carry the impact. It's seriously eye opening.
The short synopsis is this: Matthew's friend Andrew was fooling around w/his fiance and also cheated on her with an old girlfriend. He confessed to her & the church found out about it (her dad was an elder). Andrew was disciplined by the church, which as it turns out is an overbearing, controlling, and involved process (welcome to the MegaChurch BTW). He was branded a "wolf," which is a term they use at Mars Hill to describe male predators. The church's discipline escalated to a church discipline "contract" Andrew was expected to sign. Andrew felt manipulated, controlled, and dehumanized. He prayed about it, talked to friends, and finally refused to submit to the discipline, leaving the church. Incensed at his rebellion, church leaders wrote a letter which was posted on the church's online bulletin board, publicly exposing his sexual sin & that of his fiance, branding him with a scarlet letter, and forbidding anyone to associate with him unless it was to rebuke him. This is an excerpt from the letter, instructing them how to treat Andrew:
"Practical Examples... You run into him and ask, 'Andrew how are things?' He replies, 'Not so good. I don't trust the leadership and they have been heavy handed and hard on me. I feel I've prayed about leaving the church.' You respond, 'Andrew I'm sorry you feel that way but you're not seeing things rightly. I agree with the elder's decision regarding you because I see how they are acting in accordance to the Scripture..."On pure scriptural exegesis, Mars Hill Leadership is off the mark here. To the Christian, treating someone as a "Gentile" does not mean breaking fellowship & talking with them only in order to expose their sin. Jesus did away with that distinction (there is now no longer Jew nor Greek). To treat someone like a Gentile is to accept them and love them in their brokenness, winning them to the gospel not with harsh rebuke, but with acceptance and the good news of redemption and reconciliation through Christ. God's idea of perfection is not the destruction of the broken, but the redemption of the broken. Mars Hill Seattle has distorted the scripture and missed the boat completely on this. The worst part is that they proof-texted their way to the distortion.
One of my consistent issues with Driscoll is his logical positivism in regard to scripture. First of all, he's a sloppy exegete. Second of all, he's a know it all who uses scripture illegitimately as a weapons and a means of dividing the church. Third, he continually talks about what "the bible says," and is seemingly blind to the fact that Scripture is a text which is always interpreted. There is no unbiased reading! Without an interpreter of the text, there is no meaning to the text. Thus, what the bible "says" is always a matter of interpretation. What Driscoll means when he says, "What the bible says," is more properly stated as, "What I say the bible says as the interpreter for this community." This should be rejected as an illegitimate, highly individualistic, and deceptive use of scripture. It's not the Jewish way of interpretation - nor is it a Christian way. It is an enlightenment way of reading the bible, and fraught with the kind of positivism that has been causing damage for centuries. Driscoll is the wolf, preying on innocent people, controlling them and using them to build his empire.
15 comments:
“Treat him as an unbeliever?”…So the MH folks don’t spend time with unbelievers? They don’t share meals with unbelievers? If so, it seems the only relationships they would foster and the fellowship within MH can, and is, only from church swapping. It also makes you question all of those Mark tweets about how many newly-saved and baptized-folks are coming to MH.
MH, you can’t have it both ways…either you want relationships and discipleship to occur with unbelievers, or you don’t associate with them. You must choose. But alas, I forgot…’God hates you!’ (and by you, I mean me)
Peace,
Ross
Tim:
First off, another mega church cheap shot, really? If anything what is happening at MH is exactly the opposite of the lax discipline that characterizes most mega congregations.
Beyond that, what is most disturbing about the story is how selectively Mars Hill seems to read Scripture when it comes to church discipline. They seem to have skipped right over the first parts Matthew 18:15 and Luke 17:3 ( go and show him his fault, just between the two of you . If he listens to you, you have won your brother over ) in favor of a very distorted application of 1 Cor 5:9-13 that emphasizes expulsion (though I cannot for the life of me find a single verse of scripture that would lead one to believe that "fooling around" that doesn't involve intercourse is the type of serious sexual sin that Paul is referring to).
Sadly, Mark Driscoll and the people at Mars Hill seem to have forgotten John 8. As I read the story of the woman caught in adultery I was reminded of the question "where was the man" in John 8, and couldn't help wonder where the fiancee was during this time (maybe she got a pass because she was the "weaker" sex) or why the words "neither do I condemn you...Go now and leave your life of sin" don't seem to play a role in this story.
What a sick, sad tale of what happens when leaders use Scripture as a club to subdue their flock (though of course that's not a phenomena that is exclusive to churches of the mega kind - as our "friend" Fred Phelps reminds us every time he's on the news).
Finally, the kindergarten-esque suggestions from MH leaders as to how they are to deal with Andrew are just plain creepy. When a church has to provide its members with somethign as cult-like as suggested talking points for dealing with a former member, we should all be concerned.
The New Testament actually does talk about church discipline. It is found in 1 Cor 5. Do I think Mars Hill went over the top here? Absolutely. It was wrong for them to send the whole church a letter airing his dirty laundry. We need to be careful though in making blanket statements though about how Jesus is about grace and love and that means we shouldn't discipline anyone ever. Discipline when done right is a form of love. It was not done right in this circumstance though.
I think it's a bit simplistic to slap a 'positivistic' label on Driscoll's reading, package it as Enlightenment thinking and throw it on the scrap heap.
Fact is, Jesus did talk about church discipline in Matthew and Paul talks to the Corinthian church about times in which the church should cut someone off or hand them over to Satan. Color me positivistic, but I think Jesus and Paul were teaching us how to discipline those in the community.
That said, I'm not trying to defend Driscoll's implementation here. Posting on the online bulletin board seems ridiculous. What I am saying is that denying any inherent meaning in Scriptures, particularly the harsh ones, is to misunderstand the Bible.
I notice that nobody really talks about the "God is love" passages as positivistic, Enlightenment readings. You can't have your cake but not your vegetables.
Be extremely careful airing the dirty laundry of another place of worship. (especially if your main source is the disciplined party in church discipline). We are not talking essential doctrine or heresey. As you point the finger at someone whose teaching divides the church, you may be doing the same.
Oh b***s*** about airing the dirty laundry of another church. What Mark Driscoll and his fanbois did is pretty equivalent to what the notorious cult of $cientology does to its members. Collect personal, private and damaging information on members? CHECK! $cientology uses "auditing" and Mars Hill uses contracts like this. Pulling the information out of the confession contract or auditing folders to use against them in a "warning" (Mars Hill) or "suppressive person declare" ($cientology)--CHECK!
This type of situation is ripe for abuse. Mark Driscoll and his fanbois absolutely deserve every bit of opprobrium now being heaped upon their heads, because they know or should know how best to handle situations like this, and it is NOT to do what they did. What they did is profoundly abusive and cultic. The only saving grace for Driscoll is that this was a voluntary confession. If this information was untrue or if it had been gotten in underhanded ways, Mars Hill would be looking at a libel suit for destroying someone's reputation.
tl;dr: It's not airing dirty laundry when the behavior is the same as the notorious cult of greed and power.
Man Tim, do something else. This Driscoll stuff is a distraction. I dislike the emotions I feel when I read and hear this stuff. Driscoll will be what he'll be (Scot McKnight I think). It's a circus and we can't change it. Let's get on with the Presence and the Kingdom. We have no enemies, we are Christians.
Dan - it's a fair point you make, it can be a distraction. You should dislike the emotions you feel when you read about this stuff. It's bad.
Yet, although we may not be able to change Mark Driscoll, I think it's worth the attempt to mitigate his influence where we can, at least to shine a light on the ethos at work. Ask Jehle about the impact the Acts 29 folks are having on his neighborhood. In my context, people I really care about give MD tons of authority. MD's ministry impacts my ministry, Jehle's, and yours. I think it merits discussion. Not to smear MD, or to count him as an enemy. But to think theologically about the practices at work here.
Also - I have moved on - new post up early this morning & almost every morning :-) !!
Hey Buzz - thx for pushing that distinction... I don't want to throw the baby out w/t bathwater on discipline.
I was attempting to approach the overall reading of scripture in regard to sexuality, authority in the home, women in ministry, etc. Scripture isn't so univocal about these subjects as some might think. We cannot just say, "the bible says," because the bible says many things about those things.
The passages themselves are not "positivistic." The attempt to say "I have the only right reading of this passage, so everyone else sit down & shut up," that is positivistic. I hope that makes sense - anyway it's what I was trying to express.
Honestly, I think the neo-reformed reading is an important one. It just can't be the ONLY one. I'm not against MD's reading, I'm against his insisting his is the only reading - that's positivism, and is nearly always used in the service of controlling others or dividing the church. The enlightenment reading of scripture is essential & I utilize it every single day. The enlightenment over-reach is logical positivism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism)
Also, "you can't have your cake but not your vegetables" is a great line :-)
Hey Clarke, are you saying I need to shut up about the MegaChurch? :-0
okay... I'm shutting up!
Tim:
I'm not saying you should shut up about the mega church (particularly not the paradigm that seeks to replicate the mega church as an end unto itself), just saying that not every issue in every large church is mega church related.
I daresay that the heavy handed, big brotheresque church discipline that MH is attempting to practice is much more common in smaller churches (where an individual can exert direct control of members of the congregation) than in large churches.
Every other critique I've ever heard of mega church church discipline is that it is non-existent because the nature of that particular beast lends itself to lots of disconnected people who show up on Sunday but aren't really in community. That definitely doesn't seem to be the case here so I'm not sure what the connection is (and I have seen a couple of mega churches actually handle discipline Biblically and discretely with an emphasis on restoration so it is possible).
Good points, Clarke. I really wonder if other neo-reformed guys will speak up on this?
Tim:
Thanks for the clarifications. It's been fun to reconnect a bit. I owe you a good conversation sometime, hopefully in the near future.
God Bless.
I was glad you wrote this, T-dawg. i immediately went about searching out the story for me own self. it was eye-opening and appalling.
I think it's important to talk about what we do well, and where we fail. in doing so we gain appreciation, context, and sometimes a reality check.
Tim:
Thank you for adding your voice to those crying out against this spiritual abuse that makes the church a laughingstock among the heathen for all the wrong reasons, and dishonors Christ.
It is especially disappointing that John Piper, D.A. Carson, Al Mohler, and all the Acts 29 pastors are aware of this and many other incidents, yet give their consent by their silence. They are all complicit. So far, not a Bonhoeffer in the bunch.
Post a Comment