Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mark Driscoll and the Mars Hill Megachurch complex

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I know this thread wasn't intended to explore a Christian perspective so I hope the OP will allow me a bit of indulgence here. I also know this isn't too popular of an opinion because I posted it on the Facebook page of a prominent egalitarian ministry and got a fair bit of backlash.

    Plainly, many people have been hurt by Driscoll, and I understand that. But some of what I've seen online (not in this thread, of course) seems almost giddy in its celebration of his downfall. There is nothing wrong with wanting wrong to be righted, and there is probably no way this is going to be possible without Driscoll being away from ministry for at least awhile - and I even think it's right to be happy that this toxic situation is going to change. But is the man's personal downfall worth celebrating as well?

    I can't help but think of Paul's warning against displaying "party spirit", and some of this seems to have blown over into the debate between complementarians and egalitarians, because Driscoll was an extreme complementarian and very vocal about it. It's the egalitarians who are dancing on his grave, so to speak, and I think some complementarians feel bound to defend Driscoll, though some (okay, maybe a lot) of his behavior is beyond a reasonable person's ability to defend.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #17
      Now there's a lot of stuff referencing a firm called Result Source <— note the minimalistic webpage. Wikipedia is a bit more forthcoming. Following a link, you can find an article from the Los Angeles Times:

      Can bestseller lists be bought?
      Now, a new report about the sales numbers for "Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together" by evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife, Grace, reveals some details of how ResultSource gets books on bestseller lists. Driscoll heads Mars Hill Church, a megachurch in Seattle.

      Following the above link takes you to World magazine.

      Unreal sales for Driscoll’s Real Marriage
      Seattle’s Mars Hill Church paid a California-based marketing company at least $210,000 in 2011 and 2012 to ensure that Real Marriage, a book written by Mark Driscoll, the church’s founding pastor, and his wife Grace, made the New York Times best-seller list.

      But not to worry ...
      Dean added that Driscoll’s books have generated more than $200,000 in income for the church. “Pastor Mark’s generosity has never been in question,” Dean said, “and both our board and senior staff [are] convinced that the church benefits both spiritually and financially from this writing ministry.” But since neither the church nor Driscoll make available the details of their financial arrangements, it is impossible to verify Dean’s claims.

      That would be the business of Mars Hill's BoAA, I'm thinking. You know, the board Dr. Paul Tripp is ... well, was ... on.

      And I have to agree, it does seem his generosity has never been in question. Because they fire you if you question it.

      When my eyes narrow back to normal girth, I'll try for cynical, but just yet, that's still far beyond me.

      Wow, just wow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        Yeah, wow.
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        Wow, just wow.
        I think I'm spotting a trend. And it builds rather nicely.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          I know this thread wasn't intended to explore a Christian perspective ...
          Actually, it was! But I'm leaving that to the Christians for now while I concentrate on providing details. Seems to me like this has been flying under just about everyone's radar. You're the first poster so far who seems to have had any familiarity with the issue before I posted the thread.

          ... so I hope the OP will allow me a bit of indulgence here. I also know this isn't too popular of an opinion because I posted it on the Facebook page of a prominent egalitarian ministry and got a fair bit of backlash.

          Plainly, many people have been hurt by Driscoll, and I understand that. But some of what I've seen online (not in this thread, of course) seems almost giddy in its celebration of his downfall. There is nothing wrong with wanting wrong to be righted, and there is probably no way this is going to be possible without Driscoll being away from ministry for at least awhile - and I even think it's right to be happy that this toxic situation is going to change. But is the man's personal downfall worth celebrating as well?

          I can't help but think of Paul's warning against displaying "party spirit", and some of this seems to have blown over into the debate between complementarians and egalitarians, because Driscoll was an extreme complementarian and very vocal about it. It's the egalitarians who are dancing on his grave, so to speak, and I think some complementarians feel bound to defend Driscoll, though some (okay, maybe a lot) of his behavior is beyond a reasonable person's ability to defend.
          I haven't run into any "giddy" yet. Blue-skying here, do you think it's got anything to do with him being an upstart? Is it about competition between him and more established ministries? What's your take?

          I can't follow your egalitarian vs. complementarian references, either. Expand, please?

          As ever, Jesse

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I think I'm spotting a trend. And it builds rather nicely.
            Far be it from me to trip up such a fine runner.

            I'm Gob-smacked!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              Actually, it was! But I'm leaving that to the Christians for now while I concentrate on providing details. Seems to me like this has been flying under just about everyone's radar. You're the first poster so far who seems to have had any familiarity with the issue before I posted the thread.
              I'm all too familiar with the issue -- just not with this particular individual.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Actually, it was! But I'm leaving that to the Christians for now while I concentrate on providing details. Seems to me like this has been flying under just about everyone's radar. You're the first poster so far who seems to have had any familiarity with the issue before I posted the thread.



                I haven't run into any "giddy" yet. Blue-skying here, do you think it's got anything to do with him being an upstart? Is it about competition between him and more established ministries? What's your take?

                I can't follow your egalitarian vs. complementarian references, either. Expand, please?

                As ever, Jesse
                He's made some very controversial statements about women in the past. Basically, he thinks that Jesus is manliness incarnate and believes in strictly enforced gender roles. He is also a vocal critic of women in ministry (which leads into the complementarian/egalitarian thing). Part of what started this whole controversy off is the discovery of some Internet posts he made 10-15 years ago. I can't link to them due to language but they were so far over the top sexist that the guys in Anchorman would probably find them offensive. Notably, he apologized for how he said it but not for his attitude in general (a trend with him, it seems).

                I run in fairly moderate evangelical circles online so I'm familiar with a number of people who are firm supporters of women's ministry and women's rights. These are the people who were really excited about it. I'm in the Facebook group for probably the best known such organization, and in the day or two after this news broke, there was a cascade of celebratory OPs about Driscoll going down. That's what I was referring to; I should have been specific.

                When I did post what I alluded to in the other posts, I got a ton of support, but also a number of comments in backlash. The snarkier backlash I didn't really care about. But the critiques that I did take seriously said that I was telling spiritual abuse victims how they should recover. That wasn't my intention but I do take that point seriously.

                ETA: If you want to search for his posts, he used the name "William Wallace".
                Last edited by KingsGambit; 08-29-2014, 02:32 PM.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  He's made some very controversial statements about women in the past. Basically, he thinks that Jesus is manliness incarnate and believes in strictly enforced gender roles. He is also a vocal critic of women in ministry (which leads into the complementarian/egalitarian thing). Part of what started this whole controversy off is the discovery of some Internet posts he made 10-15 years ago. I can't link to them due to language but they were so far over the top sexist that the guys in Anchorman would probably find them offensive. Notably, he apologized for how he said it but not for his attitude in general (a trend with him, it seems).
                  I followed a link to that earlier today, I think. That's the one where he said something about Christians being *-ified, right? And I think I know what you mean by egalitarian/complementarian now. Roles in marriage, right?

                  I run in fairly moderate evangelical circles online so I'm familiar with a number of people who are firm supporters of women's ministry and women's rights. These are the people who were really excited about it. I'm in the Facebook group for probably the best known such organization, and in the day or two after this news broke, there was a cascade of celebratory OPs about Driscoll going down. That's what I was referring to; I should have been specific.
                  You're an egalitarian?

                  When I did post what I alluded to in the other posts, I got a ton of support, but also a number of comments in backlash. The snarkier backlash I didn't really care about. But the critiques that I did take seriously said that I was telling spiritual abuse victims how they should recover. That wasn't my intention but I do take that point seriously.

                  ETA: If you want to search for his posts, he used the name "William Wallace".
                  Could you reproduce your FB commentary here? And maybe some of the critiques? The above is missing too many referents.

                  As ever, Jesse

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                    I followed a link to that earlier today, I think. That's the one where he said something about Christians being *-ified, right? And I think I know what you mean by egalitarian/complementarian now. Roles in marriage, right?
                    Roles in marriage, and in ministry. The term tends to encompass both. And yes to the link you're thinking of. (And yes, I am an egalitarian.)

                    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post



                    Could you reproduce your FB commentary here? And maybe some of the critiques? The above is missing too many referents.

                    As ever, Jesse
                    I'll try to get to it later. I'm on a work computer that blocks social media.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      I'm all too familiar with the issue -- just not with this particular individual.
                      Hmm, you're being mysterious. Just yet, the "issue" I'm seeing is a Christian(?) who managed to get a big following despite being tailbiting crazy. You're obviously thinking of something else.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        Hmm, you're being mysterious. Just yet, the "issue" I'm seeing is a Christian(?) who managed to get a big following despite being tailbiting crazy. You're obviously thinking of something else.
                        Unfortunately, it seems as one in Ministry becomes very well known, and with a big following -- and there ARE notable exceptions, of course -- there is this propensity to be unaccountable. I think that's the biggest problem is that they become accountable to nobody. (Or think they are not)

                        At least, I try to think that they were "good guys gone bad" with fame and fortune, but it had to be "in them" in the first place.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Unfortunately, it seems as one in Ministry becomes very well known, and with a big following -- and there ARE notable exceptions, of course -- there is this propensity to be unaccountable. I think that's the biggest problem is that they become accountable to nobody. (Or think they are not)

                          At least, I try to think that they were "good guys gone bad" with fame and fortune, but it had to be "in them" in the first place.
                          I kinda got caught up in the details as I was posting this thread, so I think I should walk back that "mysterious" thing. In fact, the accountability issue was in the back of my head as I was posting the OP. It's an issue that belongs in this thread.

                          To humanize Driscoll a bit, I think the following, which was part of the August 22 letter to the Full Council of Elders at Mars Hill Church (PDF) I posted earlier, shows Driscoll had some concerns about his tendency toward this as far back as 2006.

                          It's a bit longer than we usually allow, but I think it falls well within fair use.
                          We will close this letter with a sermon excerpt from Pastor Mark, exhorting the members of Mars Hill to follow their Jesus and their elders.

                          Part 3 of 1st Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 Pastor Mark Driscoll January 22, 2006:

                          ...That’s what Paul’s saying. “I don’t remember atoning for the sins of the world. I don’t remember living a sinless life and dying as a substitute in your place and rising to forgive your sins. Was I crucified for you? No!” And his third question: “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Is your ultimate allegiance to me, or Jesus? This is so important. I want you guys to respect me, the pastors and the leaders in this church. I don’t want you to have too low a view of leadership, too high a view of leadership – the extremes that we see in the church in Corinth. At the same time, your primary and ultimate allegiance is not to me, and it is not to the pastors in this church. I will say this publicly: I am one of the pastors. They can out-vote me and fire me. They have total freedom to do so.

                          And if at any time in the history of this church the elders discipline me, do not be loyal to me. Be loyal to them; be loyal to Jesus. And if at any point – God forbid – I should say or do something that would disqualify me from being your pastor – and I have no intentions of, and I do live a life above reproach. And I’m not a sinless man, but I do love Jesus and I do love my family and I do love you. And if by – I just shudder to say this, but if I should ever say or do anything that the elders would need to fire me, do not be loyal to me. Be loyal to Jesus; be loyal to your elders. Be loyal to the pastors in your church. Trust them. Follow them.

                          And if you forget, this’ll be archived. Pull it down and listen to it again, and say, “Mark, you told us to ignore you and follow the leaders in the church and Jesus.” Do that – because at the end of the day, you’re not baptized in my name. You’re not ultimately loyal to me. You are not ultimately devoted to me. My job is to point you to Jesus. He was crucified for your sins. He forgives your sins. He is your God and Savior. He’s the one when you are buried in baptism and raised in newness of life that you are celebrating and honoring – that the focus and heart and the devotion and commitment and the passion in the church must be for Jesus; no one else; no one else.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            There was a thread on Driscoll a while back. Someone quote this post so TAOIST can see it since he's otherwise too sensitive to read my abrasive posts.

                            http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ernet-postings
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                              There was a thread on Driscoll a while back. Someone quote this post so TAOIST can see it since he's otherwise too sensitive to read my abrasive posts.

                              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ernet-postings
                              Yep, but that one is in Christianity 201 so he wouldn't be allowed to post there anyway...at least not without an exception...
                              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                I think that's the biggest problem is that they become accountable to nobody. (Or think they are not)
                                There's a lot of financial issues involved here, and I think that means there's a good chance this will find its way into the courts eventually.

                                I remember when the Bakker thing blew up somebody asked Billy Graham for comment, and he was careful to mention how the right kind of oversight could have prevented it. There's a church organization being referenced in some of these articles, the Evangelical Council on Financial Accountability.

                                I'd imagine Mars Hill members will likely be wishing their leadership had gone to the trouble of putting themselves under that umbrella soon enough. When they're firing folks for asking how much the elders are making, it's a sure sign they're making more than the ECFA allows without disclosure ... about $150k.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X