UPDATE to below: Wade Burleson makes the point I feel like I am trying to make here, though more eloquently and with some more details. But you don't have to take my word for it.
I am someone who could be considered part of the generation of "de-churched, re-churched" believers--young men and women who grew up in church, fell out either wholly or in part as we became entranced by the real world, but then experienced God's call to truth and found ourselves transformed and back in church not simply because "that's what Mom and Dad did" but because we found ourselves in love with Jesus. There is a list of preachers who find themselves at the forefront of this revival of sorts, three in particular that often come to mind and mention: John Piper, whose terminology inspires this blog title; Matt Chandler, my own pastor; and Mark Driscoll, whose Mars Hill Church began as an effort to preach the Gospel to Seattle, one of the most notoriously unchurched cities in America, and has grown to have campuses all over the western United States. All three pastors are prolific speakers, and both Piper and Driscoll are prolific writers.*
But John Piper and Matt Chandler are missing one commonality with Mark Driscoll: they have not become the subject of notoriety or accusations regarding their behavior or personal character.
Let me preface this by saying that, as Christians, it is natural for us to face opposition. After all, the Bible says to those who are not being saved, the truth of the Gospel is like the scent of death itself, and therefore they reject and oppose it, while to those who are being saved it is the sweet smell of life everlasting. But at the same time, we as believers need to be striving to be above reproach in our conduct and words, so as to not add distractions. Those very words, "above reproach," are used as a descriptor of one of the necessities for being an elder in the church, an office which Driscoll unarguably holds. But Christians often get themselves publicity for doing exactly the opposite and bringing great frustration to a world that hears our talk about love, faithfulness and peace, but sees in our actions moralistic hypocrisy. Whether it's threatening to expel a student from a Christian school over her haircut, or pastor after pastor after pastor being caught in sexual and other sin, or just simply the way Christians act at the local Denny's after church, we Christians are not representing Christ well in a lot of ways.
This is not an issue of "persecution." This is an issue of accountability, and our desperate need for more of it for everyone, especially for those in positions of leadership. Now, Mark's own words on his Facebook are that his church has "an army of elders," 64 to be exact, 27 of whom are unpaid. If this word "elder" means what the Bible means when it uses that word of the church, then what these men are, are the men to whom Mark Driscoll is accountable. If he is loose with his words or his behavior, these are the men who will speak with him and direct him to where he needs to repent. My question is: what will they be doing in response to these current happenings?
Driscoll has always been a bit of a firebrand, and there are always people, even other believers, who seem to be after him in a manner of speaking. They don't like the direct way he speaks, they don't like the way he deals with some exegetical matters, and to be sure there are legitimate criticisms out there. But we have a recent, disturbing bit of behavior by Driscoll, and now it's followed up by a very disturbing claim, against his latest book, by another believer. This article is probably the most straightforward attempt I've seen to sum up both instances, but I'll do my own summing as well based on what I've read.
Several weeks ago, Driscoll appeared at Grace Community Church, John MacArthur's church, during the Strange Fire conference I mentioned a few posts ago. His plan: to hand out copies of his latest book, which he was on tour sort of promoting (the tour was his "Act Like Men" tour which was really more along the lines of a Promise Keepers convention, but doubtless the timing of his latest book release was on purpose). Naturally, someone showing up at the conference and giving out books unannounced was somewhat vexing to those running the conference--not because they necessarily didn't like the book, though that's debatable, but because it's just not very good form especially when you tend to attract attention like Driscoll does. When the person running security for the event offered to help him take his books back to his car, Mark said he wanted to give them to the church...but then tweeted that "security confiscated [his] books."
Then video came out proving that security had not, in fact, taken anything, it raised a lot of questions. Driscoll is sometimes given to quirky, offbeat humor and random comments about things that are happening around him. Unlike most pastors' Twitter and Facebook feeds that are a combination of Scripture, inspirational words and promotion for books and events, Mark's reads more like a regular person sitting on his phone. Was this post just an ill-inspired attempt to be funny? Or did Mark really want people to think that he was being oppressed by the cessationists?
But while that one may be chalked up to a combination of interpretation and failed humor, no one can argue that accidentally copying part of someone else's work and presenting it as your own is anything of the sort. That is precisely what Peter Jones is claiming of Mark's latest book, titled A Call to Resurgence: Will Christianity Have a Funeral or a Future? I will leave my thoughts on that title for another time, probably after I have actually had a chance to read the book, and move on to the issue at hand: Dr. Peter Jones, another Christian author, has made claims that Driscoll has plagiarized sections of his own works for Resurgence. I haven't studied Driscoll's Facebook and Twitter exhaustively, but I've seen little to no response to such an explosive accusation. Driscoll appeared on Janet Mefferd's radio show and after apparently being questioned about this harder than he cared for, either hung up, was hung up on, or his call dropped. The truth there is cloudy, but what is not cloudy is that Driscoll was vexed with Mefferd because she was "rude" to him.
Let me speak as plainly as I care to: Mark Driscoll needs to be honest, up front, and beyond reproach. I'm not saying this because I think he owes me anything or because I've deluded myself into believing I have any sort of authority over him. I don't. I'm just a guy, a believer who goes to church and takes the little opportunities God blesses me with to glorify the Name and love my family. But I do know that every time something like this happens, the ability of myself and every other believer out there to be able to preach the Gospel effectively to a lost world is tarnished.
And that's why I brought this up: yesterday I was starting to write a post based off of this article by Driscoll posted on FoxNews.com. And it's a good article, so far as such things are concerned. I may still finish the post, but this needed saying first: I feel he makes a very effective point about the way Christians should engage our opponents in love while not diluting the truth. But if Mark then turns around and can't even engage a fellow believer in truth and love over something, whether it's a doctrinal disagreement or a legitimate question about a work of his, how is an unbeliever to interpret his words? How am I supposed to make any sort of argument that can be seen as legitimate, if his words and his actions don't match?
"Well, you're not perfect, are you?" Absolutely not, and I think one area where Driscoll is to be commended is that he has been up front about where he was in sin and where God saved him. But this is the opposite of that, this is about putting on appearances. That is not helpful to the cause of Christ or bringing anyone to the table to discuss, share, and begin to pour out God's love for His people.
This is not a matter of holding Mark Driscoll up against me and saying "Yep, I'm better," because I'm not. There are a lot of snarkfests on the Internet that will be happy to do that. But Mark would do well to heed the cautionary tale of Ergun Caner. I won't provide a link for him; there's nowhere I could link to that would be both helpful to understanding the issue without a great deal of controversy as to the source. Instead, I invite the reader to Google him and read up on what he's done: instead of relying on his true testimony as a nominal Muslim who encountered the Gospel and was saved, after 9/11 he created a persona and history and claimed that he had grown up going to madrassas and being trained in jihad, so that by making such statements he could lay claim to greater authority to speak on Islam, and build his own success on such a background. Unfortunately for him, his stories unraveled, and he is now on his third job in as many years as his lies and refusal to repent of them continue to follow him.
I would hope that Mark Driscoll does not want his story to follow that. I would hope that Mark cares enough about his church, his people, and his family to trust in what the Bible calls all men to do, to confess his sins and repent of them, whatever they are, and to move forward with the consequences of that knowing that being in Christ is most valuable. And I would hope that those 64 elders will carry out their role as men to whom Driscoll is accountable, and lead him through such a process. Not because I don't like Driscoll, but because I have seen such a great influence in my life from his work and I cannot stand the thought of the amazing work done in Seattle and around the world in the name of Christ, being undone because of pride. Without humility, reptentance and restoration being practiced, the end result will be damaged hearts and damaged opportunities to speak the love of Christ into people's lives.
*I believe Matt just came out with a book, but I don't know if he aspires to the level of output Piper and Driscoll have achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment