Let me begin by stating that I’m not a fan of Mark Driscoll, the Pastor of Mars Hill church in Washington. Due to his rising status as well as his controversial nature I seem to get asked my opinion about him quite often. I’ve always answered the questions but have stopped short of any “official” stance against him. I try to focus on what I’m for rather than what I’m against, especially when they are disagreements with other Christians.
However, Rachel Held Evans recently posted a terrific blog post where she classifies Driscoll’s shocking behavior as that of a bully. As a result, she gives action steps on how to address this by contacting the eldership of his church. You can read her post here.
It strikes me as a fine line between attacking a person and defending the people that a person is hurting. I read her post as fitting more into the defending category and not primarily on attacking, although it is easy to see how you could make a case for both.
I’d love to hear from you on this. Is a call to action to stop Driscoll from bullying people more of an attack on him or is it more of a defense of people that he is hurting?
***UPDATE 7-13-11*** It seems that Mark has owned the facebook comment that started this current explosion in the first place. According to his blog:
“As a man under authority, my executive elders sat me down and said I need to do better by hitting real issues with real content in a real context. And, they’re right. Praise God I have elders who keep me accountable and that I am under authority.”
“…sincere thanks to all my critics who sometimes have good wisdom that helps me out.”
Yeah, but doesn’t Mark Driscoll “make you think”?
Driscoll certainly has his faults and shortcomings. His potty mouth from the pulpit (or stage) is unaccepatable, the fact that he can quote the “numbers” of attenders, baptisms and campuses instead of changed lives, growing believers and servants is troubling, and he does have a smugness that can over shadow his sincerity. I can understand the urge to establish campuses across a city or region, but a church in Seattle expanding to Orange County, California??? That’s where Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie and my old friend, Pastor Fred Snider lead flocks.
Something I heard him say, I think he attributes it to Rick Warren, is that what you hear, you can (1) receive it, (2) reject it or (3) redeem it.
Are there areas in his ministry that can be received? Does one need to reject any of what he does or says? How can his sctick be adjusted so his message is Godly and fruitful?
Isnt that the berean way for all teachers and ministries? If it isn’t Godly, then what do you have?
He certainly makes me think. So does Hitler. Please understand, I’m NOT comparing him to Hitler, simply pointing out that “making us think” cannot be the criteria for a Godly leader.
There are certainly good things coming from his ministry and that church. The question is not trying to negate that, but to put that on hold with the focus of the people that are also hurt by these very same methods. Do the ends justify the means?
When you see the list of (just a few) things that Driscoll has said and done that have directly hurt others (as mentioned in Rachel’s post), it is hard to argue for its merit.
I brought up the “doesnt he make you think” becasue that is sometimes a way of defending a person who may be off the straight and narrow of Godly leadership. Like, as I have mentioned before, I am sure Eve mentioned more than once over the evening salad and veggie tray that “that serpent sure makes me think. I am not comparing Hitler to Satan or Mark Driscoll or even Rob Bell.
No one can defend someone deliberately hurting another person. At work, I tell the students that there is a big difference between teasing and making fun of.
If, in fact, a pastor’s main intention is to make fun of or hurt someone in what he says, that is not a good thing and should stop. I am not sure a letter to the elders(funny how all of their elders are youngens) is going to have any effect. I am sure the power in that organization is from the pulpit, or stage and not in his board.
Matt chandler says he will not make fun of homosexuals because he does want them to attend his church. However, Jesus may have accepted the sinners, but the acceptance was quickly followed by a transformation from their sin.
I am in full support of Rachel’s post. I have never really been a huge fan of Driscoll. I feel the man is very egotistical and very bully-like. Character flaws aside, I feel he tends to do more harm from his pulpit than good. I think back when he took his stance against the book The Shack and preached a whole sermon on how as Christians we need to stay away from this book, and then found out he didn’t even read it. He did the same thing with the movie AVATAR. I feel that you are abusing the power of your position when you do sermons on why you shouldn’t read this authors books, or watch these movies, why so and so is not a true Christian. As a pastor your goal should be to bring others to Christ, not alienate and make fun of them. His facebook comment was extremely immature and unprofessional.
Now, I understand he probably has said many things in his sermons that are helpful to people or are legit scripture based teachings. So I will give credit where credit is due Because I am a huge supporter of the phrase “Eat the Chicken and Spit Out the Bones.” However, I am not going to buy boney chicken and dig through the bones to find some meat.
Thanks Jason, good analogy!
Here is another entertaining blog post to read about it:
http://reverendjohn.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-pastor-mark.html
I clicked on the link to the Rachel Harold Evans blog, and followed through to the links in her article. My internal response was quick and unequivocal: I never want to be associated with a church that carries a tone that even remotely resembles that which Mark Driscoll displayed in these comments and messages. Is the good worth the bad? That’s for someone smarter than me to answer. The simpler truth is his approach angers me. I have no problems with a preacher that addresses concern or even anger over sin. But I want no part of an institution or favor from church leaders who seek to gain reputation by mocking the struggle of other human beings. Much of what Mr. Driscoll has said conveys to my ears no concern for what I think concerns Jesus. Rather, he seems quite interested in picking up a laugh or attention via shock effect at the expense of rather significant pain and consequence in the lives of others. For me, that’s the very definition of a bully.
MARK DRISCOLL PURPOSE DRIVEN MACHO MAN !
I wonder how many people who are offended by Mark – current grievance or past – have ever taken the time to contact him personally to work it out. This public chastising is sad.
Well put, Peter. And is it really important or the knock of the week? Does any it further the Kingdom?
I am sure he is pretty insulated from complaints by his parishiners.
I wonder if Mark Driscoll sat down personally with all the worship pastors he feels are too effeminate? Or Rob Bell? Or all the the author of the Shack? I could go on and on and on.
Go on and on all you want, but an equation that doesn’t include doing something right, will never equal right. Is your point, because Mark didn’t, we don’t have to either?
My point is – in Rachel’s attempt to do something right – she became a bully herself.
I’m simply flummoxed as to the number of Christ followers who are more than happy to conform to this world’s ways and publicly condemn a fellow Christian who publicly condemns others.
It seems to me that posting a comment (as pastor Driscoll did) on a social media site with half a billion members is fairly inviting to public comment. The nature of the platform he used as well as the mass of people his message reaches virtually precludes the vast majority of the recipients of those comments from engaging in a direct discussion on the subject with him. I certainly haven’t sought him out to discuss my reactions to the public declarations he’s made. But I’m quite comfortable taking a stand in the comment section of a blog of one of the pastors at my church as to what kind of a church I would be excited to serve in. To me his comments seemed designed to get a strong reaction from lots of people. It seems that worked.
I hear you Brian. I think his comment was a bonehead move, but I stop short of calling him a bully. I stub my toe and say a cuss word – it doesn’t define me. I have a few beers with the guys – it doesn’t define me. But if a fellow Christian had a problem with either of those, I’d have a lot more respect for him if he came and talked to me about it as opposed to yell across the bar, “Hey Peter, do you have a drinking problem?”
No matter how you skin it Brian, you’re rationalizing the public chastising of Mark. I know Jesus has a problem with Christians doing that. There aren’t any Biblical qualifications as to whether the grievance was a public declaration or the ‘nature of the platform’. It’s wrong. We’re are own worst enemies much of the time.
You can’t deny that it’s pretty easy to send a private message on Facebook. What I’m asking, is how many stone throwers tried just that simple act?
Here’s the question Peter, aren’t we, as Christians, supposed to hold each other accountable?
Most certainly. However, we don’t have to become Mark Driscoll bullies in order to do so. Nowhere did I read that she had reached out to him herself, or with another Christian to address her grievance. There’s no way you can argue that she went about this in a loving way to show Mark the dark avenue he was on. What did she think might happen? That Mark might lose his job? That’s holding someone accountable? He’s not redeemable?
She became a bully, not a loving Christian holding a fellow in check. We talk about love, tolerance, acceptance, but how was any of that shown to Mark? He didn’t show that to those he posted about, but we don’t need to toss our talk out the window and show our walk is no better than unbelievers.
This is way beyond a question of accountability. We’re right back where we started; it’s a question of is Rachel (and everyone who applauded her) a bully? Please show me how it’s not.
Peter, I really appreciate your insight into this topic. I agree that we need to hold each other accountable. However, that accountability has to be preceded by relationship. Casting blogging stones does not address a concern or present a remedy. I dont even know if the young lady in question even knows the pastor in question. If they know each other, I would suggest another forum, like a phone call or face-to-face meeting, would had been a better way to help him see the error of his ways.
Is Mark Driscoll a bully? That was the original question that Jeremy presented. I see it will probably not be answered difinitively. But I see it has helped many to question how they should address concerns within their local church and the Church as a whole.