Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Mark Driscoll


by 10 Comments

Is Mark really a bully? A Pastor’s Response…

It is with great interest I have followed Rachel Held Evans‘ blog posts about Mark Driscoll being a bully and her call for people to stand up to him. In my opinion Rachel is spot on. She has challenged Mark Driscoll about his online behaviour and remarks he has made in sermons which are later posted online. As one might suspect there has been a steady flow of people lining up to rebuke Rachel for what I would call “the classic theological scandal” she told the truth!

This particular issue aside (truth is we probably just need to agree to disagree) all of has caused me to rethink the way I behave online and the way I share opinions and interact with people through the blogs I write for and Facebook. I have come to the conclusion; I have at times been a bully. Not always, and not intentionally (and this may also be the case for Driscoll) but at times I have crossed the line in a way that does not reflect the Jesus way. I asked my wife this morning before I left for church. She agreed. Ouch! (Man I love my wife!)

A little background before I apologise. I am a passionate person. I hate injustice. If I believe something I defend it and proclaim it vigorously. I am rarely persuaded on the spot to change my mind. On top of this, I grew up in a blue collar union based (not my political leaning now) family who were not afraid to voice their opinions. They would constantly argue and banter about politics (Of course it was always the other sides fault). I hated it as a kid but have inadvertently taken on the same passion and penchant for arguing as my family.

Things have changed. Now, I am a pastor. A shepherd of God’s flock called upon to proclaim Christ and lead people to Jesus in the Jesus way. As a pastor, I would be horrified, disgusted even, if someone in the congregation were to view me as or experience me as a theological bully. I work extremely hard to shepherd the people in my care; to love them and treat them with dignity. However, truth is, I have not always been as diligent with these same values as a blogger. No one ever gets it right all the time and we all have moments. However, Rachel’s’ piece and the discussion about bullying has awoken me to how my own behaviour may be perceived, Maybe I have seen blogging as an escape, maybe as a place to rant. But rants can be a form of bullying.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a time and place to share passionately, to stand up for injustice and to discuss one’s opinion but I wonder where the line is. Where does one cross the line from sharing an opinion to bullying? For instance I have an opinion on the recent decision of the SBC to discourage the use of the NIV 2011. I shared my opinion. Did I bully? I hope not. What about other things I have said? It has never been my intention to bully. More than anything else I want to be a good and faithful shepherd. Not only of those in our church but those without. Perhaps the best thing to do is shut my mouth and listen. Jesus certainly did that.

I am a pastor. Every person who visits my own blog will read my opinions. Nevertheless they will, from now on, also be treated as someone with whom I am meeting face to face, the same as someone who is visiting the church for the first or the tenth time. The same goes for Facebook. Although I tend to keep FB as a personal place of interaction I must also pay close attention to how I speak with people online because the printed word can be interpreted so very many different ways (one of the reason I think we should all write in the third person giving explanation to the way something is said and the context – but I digress).

Therefore, I would like to apologise to you if you have ever felt bullied by my opinions and views. I would hate to be thought of as a pastor who bullies people. I will still share my opinions and from time to time I will get frustrated theologically, politically and even personally. But my opinions are my own and I own them. I hope they can build up and edify rather than tear down and divide.

Peace be with you,

Rev Mark Stevens

About these ads


by 59 Comments

Anthony Bradley rebukes us all (and rightly so). Yet it lacks resolve.

Mark Driscoll

The other day Mark Driscoll became the center of attention once again when he posted the following on his Facebook wall: “So what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?” Almost immediately there was response after response by a variety of bloggers (I’ve already mentioned some of the responses here). The most attention probably went to Rachel Held Evans’ post titled “Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him.” She went as far as to provide the mailing address, phone number, and email address of the church so that people could protest.

While I was sympathetic to the outrage (Should a pastor really say something like this on a public forum knowing there are so many people struggling with their sexual identity in our culture today?) something about it just made me feel defeated. Carmen Andres gave me the words when she wrote on Twitter, “[T]his whole Mark Driscoll thing leaves me tired and frustrated. [I]nto your hands Lord. [I]‘m done with it.” Joel Watts shares wise words as well when he reminded us of the systemic nature of our sin that has led masculinity to be equated “with macho brevado”. Yet if most of us are honest we went with our immediate gut reaction and we lashed out at Driscoll either on the internet or elsewhere.

Dr. Anthony Bradley

Enter Anthony Bradley. In his World Magazine article titled “Libel is not Love” he says, “Evans’ way of responding cannot and should not be encouraged. What was even more disturbing was the way in which many other believers jumped on the slander bandwagon to feed on the carnage once it went viral.” Bradley equates these types of responses with slander and shows us how over and over again in Scripture this is not how we should respond to one another. At the end he points out how some atheist websites were applauding Evans’ response (and I assume the rest of us who reacted against Driscoll) and how ironic it is that we would seek their applause over and against healing and understanding within the body of Christ.

I feel rebuked, but not satisfied just yet. I see what we have done wrong, but I am not so sure that Bradley provided a solution/viable alternative either.

First, I sense that Bradley’s rebuke of Evans was a tad more calm and loving than Evans’ rebuke of Driscoll, but it seems to have been a public rebuke as well. I am not accusing Bradley of doing a one-for-one here (anyone who reads the two posts can see the difference), but we should use this as a starting point for discussing what makes a public rebuke acceptable and what makes it unacceptable.

Second, what do we do with public statements like this one other than provide a public rebuke? Could Evans have called Mars Hill Church to make a phone appointment with Pastor Driscoll or would that have been ignored (we were forced to ask this same question when John Piper flippantly rebuked Rob Bell on Twitter by writing ‘Farwell, Rob Bell’ or even of Rob Bell for publishing a book that many interpreted as pastorally insensitive)? If we do not have access to pastors because of their status do we merely leave it to local elders to privately correct something so public?

Third, if we are quiet when another Christian does something like this what are the consequences? While Bradley is right to note we shouldn’t applaud the fact that we won the approval of atheists while lashing out at one another, what do we do if a serious person interested in Christianity, wondering if s/he belongs, reads what Driscoll wrote and suddenly thinks this what all Christians think, therefore I must not fit? Is there any other way to counter a public gaff that like one other than writing something open to the public that seeks to correct it? Should the Apostle Paul have taken the Apostle Peter aside when he shamed Gentile Christians with his behavior rather than rebuking him to his face and then writing about it in a letter to another church (Gal 2.11-20)?!

So where Anthony Bradley is correct is that we must not forget that our Lord Jesus Christ said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn. 13.35) We have failed miserably here. Yet I don’t know what to do with something like this, especially since I think private discussions with someone like Mark Driscoll are impossible and not responding could mislead others to think that the church as a whole supports this kind of behavior.

Where do Christians go from here? What can we learn about public error and rebuke? How do we rebuke while making it evident to the world around us that we love one another as Christ commanded? 

See also: Derek Ouellette’s “Learning to Blog with Maturity”.


by 18 Comments

Justifying Recent Paranoia

The other day when I wrote a post (see here) in response to the one that John Stackhouse of Regent College wrote in response to some of the things that Mark Driscoll has preached. A few comments seemed to hint that I may be acting a bit too paranoid. It was possible, but I didn’t think so.

EXHIBITION A: Dustin Bagby @dustimbagby: Dustin refers to himself as an alumni and as someone who was a bit blushed by what Driscoll said. So there we go. There was at least one other alumni who expressed some concern.

EXHIBITION B: John Luce @JohnLuce: John gives Western Seminary a shout out! I don’t know if he has any associations or not, but he does seem to think this is a matter that concerns the rest of us somehow.

Let me say again what I said last time: our seminary is welcoming enough to allow Driscoll to be one of our students while doing the same for someone like myself. Driscoll is a hard complimentarian. I am an egalitarian. Driscoll pastors a mega church. I blog. I am sure there are a few thousand various positions between he and I that would be considered alumni of our fine school.

I would like to point out that the current climate being called forth by many demand that everyone have a fair share and a right to express their opinion. While I vigorously disagree with Driscoll on this matter, and while I am greatly concerned that a pastor would teach this to his church, let it not be said that he necessarily reflects institutions associated with him. Let us not deny that our seminary giving him space to think and reach his own conclusions (as dogmatic and misguided as they may be) is not something we all would like to be awarded. It is often the case that evangelical seminaries receive a bad reputation for shutting down those who disagree with the doctrinal status quo but then as soon as somelike Driscoll says something offensive to our ears we suddenly throw up our hands in disgust as if wherever Driscoll went to school must have done something wrong. What should have been done, some sort of gag order?

I am not saying anyone in particular (not even the two Twitter posts that I noted) is pointing a finger past Driscoll toward Western Seminary, but I am saying I see no reason to make any serious connection. Driscoll is his own individual just like I am my own individual. I don’t represent the seminary’s doctrine or pedagogy and neither does he. But I am proud to have studied somewhere where both of us have had the freedom to be students and to think critically for ourselves and to ask how these big questions relate to the modern church.


by 27 Comments

We’re Not All the Same!

John Stackhouse of Regent College in Vancouver, BC, wrote a graceful piece on his blog critiquing some things that Mark Driscoll has said about stay-at-home-fathers (see here). As usually Driscoll has said something with shock value! I am almost immune to this but what worried me was this question asked by Professor Stackhouse:

“I confess to wondering what his professors at Western Seminary would think of this exercise in exegetical theology.”

This is the comment that I left there that I want to reproduce here:

“I am currently a student at Western Seminary where Driscoll graduated. I actually completed a degree that is basically what he completed (MAET became the MA in Biblical and Theological Studies). While there may be some faculty and some students who would see eye-to-eye with him this is by no means the universal consensus (I seriously doubt even the majority consensus, at least as he has displayed his views here). Personally, I am an egalitarian and I have not been persecuted for being one.

“Driscoll is an alumni, and he has a right to express his opinion, but he is not the spokesperson nor a primary representative of Western Seminary. There is too wide an array of voices in our institution for this to be so.”

Driscoll is Driscoll. He has a right to express his opinion on a given matter. He says what he says for better or for worse, but he does not represent all of us. We are not all the same!


by 23 Comments

Yoga

I read this morning that ol’ Al Mohler (that crusader) and Mark “the Mouth” Driscoll have been warning of the demonic dangers of yoga. I don’t care to dispute the finer points of this debate. I do want to say though that this is another example of Christians who ignore that our religion has been adopting practices of many “western” cultures for a long time now. We have always been a bit synchronistic ever the Apostle Paul said meat offered to idols is nothing if you know God created the food and you are not participating in order to worship the idols!

Driscoll has merged his faith with the blood bath that is MMA. Mohler supports Christians in the military. If they want to be purist they should both repent of these compromises. In other words let them remove the telephone pole from their own eye.

Eastern practices are not evil in and of themselves any more than Western practices. Let’s be cautious to avoid illegitimate syncretistic practices but let us also avoid rhetoric that acts as if “we” are pure and “they” are compromising!


by 4 Comments

Win ‘Doctrine’ by Driscoll/Breshears

Doctrine by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears

For those who are interested there is a contest on the Western Seminary Blog where you can win a copy of the new book by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears titled Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. To find out how you can enter go here.

Another one of Driscoll/Breshears books–Death by Love–can be won through the Western Seminary Twitter (@WesternSeminary).

Also, you can enter to win Shepherding Women in Pain by Bev Hislop from the blog here.


by 8 Comments

Too Many People Called ‘Pastor’!

Mark Driscoll wrote yesterday (here), “It seems all the rage lately is for the pastor to be called anything but “pastor.” ” His complaint is that people rather come up with other creative titles that sound less authoritative (and more empowering?) such as “Imaginative Passion Director”. An example of this is the website (cached from Google here) of Erwin McManus where he is called “author”, “speaker”, “artist”, and “leader” but not “pastor”. I understand his point.

On the other hand, I think there is a problem with the title “pastor” these days. Everybody is a pastor! At Mars Hill Church where Driscoll is the ‘Preaching and Theology Pastor’ there is also a ‘Lead Pastor’, a ‘Central Operations Pastor’, a ‘Pastor of Church Planting’, and a ‘Campus Network Pastor’ (see here).

At the church of which I was part in San Francisco we had a lead pastor as well as a few assistant pastors, a worship pastor, a hospitality pastor and so forth and so on. At Imago Dei we have a ‘Pastor of Community’, a ‘Pastor of Administration’, a ‘Pastor of Global Outreach’, a ‘Pastor of Imago Dei Arts’, and the list goes on.

I know the early church had a somewhat fluid leadership structure that is not all that consistent throughout New Testament literature. I know that some of the names like “bishop”, “elder”, and “pastor” have the ability to be interchangable. But I also know it is a bit confusing to give the same title to the person who determines doctrine and who preaches the Scriptures to someone who manages the finances or greets people on Sunday.

Is it just me or do we call too many people “pastor”?